To those that think there's nothing bad about a 2:32 winning time in an "elite" marathon, my question to you is - where do you draw the line?
Would you think it's exciting and good competition if they ran 3:30 pace for 24 miles and then run the last 2 miles in 10:30?
Personally I would expect more in a top level race.
Hahahahahahaha...Lancy, please, never EVER leave letsrun. (F*** me, I think you are "Again?")You kill me, Man. The lady's race was an awesome thing to watch. (And I'm not just Kara-hotnessing.)And Lancy, http://www.gifflix.com/files/7868c9eaa99d.gif
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
OK in the 1st degree wrote:.... your presumptions are about on par what I would expect from someone with his face to a microscope and chemical fumes in his nostrils 8 hours per day. Not impressed. I honestly can't see what's so noble about what you do, but then I'm not a thoughtless lemming. Disease is actually quite necessary, far beyond keeping your unproductive skill set employed.
As to the idiot analogizer, the prize structure at Boston isn't set up as salary or hourly wages. It's too bad that the dorks all hung up on what the clock says can't enjoy the intrinsic beauty of the sport. Probably the same type of dullards who can't enjoy strong team defense in football and basketball or a perfect game or even a shut-out in baseball.
Wow, what a fantastically asinine post! "intrinsic beauty of the sport"...oh, carry on you running wordsworth you. Is Haile Geb a "dork all hung up on the clock" ? Go tell him that yourself jackass. The CLOCK has always been an INTRINSIC part of running, in case you didn't get the memo. And a "perfect game" in running would be a 2:15 marathon for a woman, not a jog and then a kick at the end. Terrible analogy on your part. A better baseball analogy to what happened in Boston the other day would would be: an incredibly boring game for 7 innings, a couple runs scored here and there, some sloppy defense, no one seeming to care and the crowd falling asleep, a few beachballs roll onto the field, maybe a rain delay, and THEN.... a great final two innings with some fireworks with a couple homeruns. Perfect game my ass.
And your mocking of the science person (whether or not they were arrogant ) was absurd. So scientists are "unproductive" and disease is good?!?! Okay, whatever you say. But let me guess, runners ARE productive members of society and someone like Kara Goucher or Ryan Hall contribute so much? you've got some strange views.
Skuj,
May I recommend not drinking before you post.
Thanks.
It was a stunning race. They've all run much faster. Who cares? Boston isn't a time course on a nice weather day.
Horatio wrote:
To those that think there's nothing bad about a 2:32 winning time in an "elite" marathon, my question to you is - where do you draw the line?
Would you think it's exciting and good competition if they ran 3:30 pace for 24 miles and then run the last 2 miles in 10:30?
Personally I would expect more in a top level race.
RD,
Ginger Ale, Man. F***s me up.
Hey guys, that 2004 Oly M5000 final....13:14.....what a bore, eh? Take those medals away.
Or the Worlds M800 from 2007.
Hahahahahahahaha.......
Check your history.
Skuj wrote:
It was a stunning race. They've all run much faster. Who cares? Boston isn't a time course on a nice weather day.
Skuj - you've changed. What's with all the profanity? Your posts sound totally different than a couple of years ago. Have you gone through major life changes in the past couple of years?
Do you still dance to Rock Lobster??
Oh, I forgot that 2:04 and 2:05s have been often done at Boston.
Do you know what you wrote wrote:
Check your history.
Skuj wrote:It was a stunning race. They've all run much faster. Who cares? Boston isn't a time course on a nice weather day.
Horatio wrote:
Skuj - you've changed. What's with all the profanity? Your posts sound totally different than a couple of years ago. Have you gone through major life changes in the past couple of years?
Do you still dance to Rock Lobster??
Yes, (I'm a bit stressed today, and tired. Long story. But this thread cracks me up.)
and
Yes.
Then take BAA to task for not using rabbits, or for not giving more appearance money that would draw a deeper, more competitive women's field. Or both. Your expectations, however, fail to mesh with reality.
Thanks for the honest reply. Go for a 12 mile run to get rid of the stress.
Like I said, check your history. The record has not always been in the 2:04-2:05 range.
Skuj wrote:
Oh, I forgot that 2:04 and 2:05s have been often done at Boston.
Do you know what you wrote wrote:
Check your history.
OK, I checked the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_Boston_MarathonNow what?
Look under the "notes" column. You'll see multiple world records.
Skuj wrote:
OK, I checked the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_Boston_MarathonNow what?
Yeah, cus there were lots of Thons in 1905. This thread keeps getting better.
Do you know what you wrote wrote:
Look under the "notes" column. You'll see multiple world records.
Skuj wrote:OK, I checked the history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_winners_of_the_Boston_MarathonNow what?
Look a little further down the list.Thons? Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone respectable. I'm out.
Skuj wrote:
Yeah, cus there were lots of Thons in 1905. This thread keeps getting better.
***Waits 5min for him to return under a new alias and flame me.***We've become spoiled by fast times. What ever happened to the joy of deeply tactical races? That 45yr old chick who was complaining.....what happened to her when "it was on"? That's what I thought.
Do you know what you wrote wrote:
Thons? Sorry, I thought I was talking to someone respectable. I'm out.
Skuj wrote:
Hey guys, that 2004 Oly M5000 final....13:14.....what a bore, eh? Take those medals away.
13:14... that's about 37 seconds off the WR at 5k, so for 42k multiply by 4.2 and we get 2 minutes, 35 seconds... or you can express it as a percentage of time if you wish, in which case 13:14 is about 4.8% off the WR.
So if you are proposing that we use 4.8% or 5% as some sort of threshold, I don't think the OP would disagree.
However, unlike the OP, I don't support the idea of not paying the women - as someone already mentioned there are contractual obligations.
But does a race where the following things happen, belong in the World Marathon Majors?
* Faster runners weren't invited, including a 2:18 woman that wanted to run Boston and was told they "didn’t have space" for her.
* The IAAF report called the initial pace "sluggish".
* A 45 year old woman leads for a significant part of the race (just think how much slower it might have been if she didn't).
* Then near the end they finally raced for the finish with a winning time of 2:32:16
* It was the slowest Boston women's winning time since 1985
* Then after the race, one of the top 3 finishers said she felt she could run another major marathon in 6 days time.
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a bold prediction that none of those things will happen at the London marathon on Sunday.
~~~~~~~~ wrote:
I'm going to stick my neck out here and make a bold prediction that none of those things will happen at the London marathon on Sunday.
Damn straight. Those pussy Brits have no sense of drama. Screw 'em!
