Grete Weitz and Paula Radcliffe were 5'8", both built a lot like Hedengren, and both redefined the expectations of how fast a woman could run a marathon. I don't think an extra 3 inches is that crazy to expect world-class performances, especially as a middle-distance runner.
3" is a lot of difference. If it wasn't it would be just as common. It isn't.
Of course it isn't as common. There just aren't nearly as many women that are 5'11" in the world as there are those who are 5'8". Only 0.5% of women in the US are over 5'11", so there is only a 0.5% chance of someone that height reaching the top just based on epidemiology alone, which has nothing to do with height being a "drag" on their potential.
3" is a lot of difference. If it wasn't it would be just as common. It isn't.
Of course it isn't as common. There just aren't nearly as many women that are 5'11" in the world as there are those who are 5'8". Only 0.5% of women in the US are over 5'11", so there is only a 0.5% chance of someone that height reaching the top just based on epidemiology alone, which has nothing to do with height being a "drag" on their potential.
But we see tall women (and of course men) succeeding in other sports. Basketball, of course, and volleyball, and also some field events. So tall athletes are out there - but not in distance running. What many on this thread don't seem to get is that there are body types suited to different sports and that includes distance running. If the best tend to be smaller than in many other sports that suggests size, including height, are disadvantages. We also see that with male distance runners.
Nor can any woman distance runner of any height, so I'm not sure what your point is. That being said, Jane's bone structure, biomechanics, musculature, and probably aerobic capacity are as good as is it gets for a female, and much better than the vast majority of males.
My point is that there is no comparability between top female and male athletes of the same height, so a 5'11" woman can't be likened to a 5'11" man as an athlete. Men aren't examples of what women can achieve.
Well, you certainly can compare men and women of the same heights who are in the 5'3" to 5'9" range and see the differences. Things aren't going to drop off the edge of a cliff with 2 extra inches. Again. the number of men and number of women epidemiologically who are 5'11" in height is a ridiculously high ratio favoring men, so the pool of potential talent to come from that height is heavily lop-sided in favor of men.
This post was edited 55 seconds after it was posted.
You aren’t very bright. Jane is unlikely to become a world beater. Her height is not the reason. Why is her height a problem? Please explain it. She is within normal range for height.
If 5'11" is normal for a female distance runner can you name some other top female distance runners of that height?
So your argument boils down to this: white females will never run as fast as the top African females at 5000m and 10000m, for example, as whites have never done so, as the top lists are littered with Africans with no signs of whites.
Of course it isn't as common. There just aren't nearly as many women that are 5'11" in the world as there are those who are 5'8". Only 0.5% of women in the US are over 5'11", so there is only a 0.5% chance of someone that height reaching the top just based on epidemiology alone, which has nothing to do with height being a "drag" on their potential.
But we see tall women (and of course men) succeeding in other sports. Basketball, of course, and volleyball, and also some field events. So tall athletes are out there - but not in distance running. What many on this thread don't seem to get is that there are body types suited to different sports and that includes distance running. If the best tend to be smaller than in many other sports that suggests size, including height, are disadvantages. We also see that with male distance runners.
If you're in the top 0.5% in height, of course you're going to gravitate to basketball rather than running, as there is a clear advantage there. This just draws even more from the potential talent pool of women that are a little off the bell curve from going into running.
So your argument boils down to this: white females will never run as fast as the top African females at 5000m and 10000m, for example, as whites have never done so, as the top lists are littered with Africans with no signs of whites.
My point is that there is no comparability between top female and male athletes of the same height, so a 5'11" woman can't be likened to a 5'11" man as an athlete. Men aren't examples of what women can achieve.
Well, you certainly can compare men and women of the same heights who are in the 5'3" to 5'9" range and see the differences. Things aren't going to drop off the edge of a cliff with 2 extra inches. Again. the number of men and number of women epidemiologically who are 5'11" in height is a ridiculously high ratio favoring men, so the pool of potential talent to come from that height is heavily lop-sided in favor of men.
I said earlier that we can't compare men and women of the same height. A 5'11" woman in distance running is more comparable to a 6'3" man in distance running - a virtual unicorn.
If 5'11" is normal for a female distance runner can you name some other top female distance runners of that height?
So your argument boils down to this: white females will never run as fast as the top African females at 5000m and 10000m, for example, as whites have never done so, as the top lists are littered with Africans with no signs of whites.
No, that isn't my point. Wrong thread. No woman of 5'11" of any culture or racial background is beating the top Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans etc, who themselves aren't that height.
So your argument boils down to this: white females will never run as fast as the top African females at 5000m and 10000m, for example, as whites have never done so, as the top lists are littered with Africans with no signs of whites.
You'd think he gets the point by now.
You clearly haven't. It isn't a thread about race or geography.
So your argument boils down to this: white females will never run as fast as the top African females at 5000m and 10000m, for example, as whites have never done so, as the top lists are littered with Africans with no signs of whites.
No, that isn't my point. Wrong thread. No woman of 5'11" of any culture or racial background is beating the top Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans etc, who themselves aren't that height.
If your were smarter you would know that is your point.
But we see tall women (and of course men) succeeding in other sports. Basketball, of course, and volleyball, and also some field events. So tall athletes are out there - but not in distance running. What many on this thread don't seem to get is that there are body types suited to different sports and that includes distance running. If the best tend to be smaller than in many other sports that suggests size, including height, are disadvantages. We also see that with male distance runners.
If you're in the top 0.5% in height, of course you're going to gravitate to basketball rather than running, as there is a clear advantage there. This just draws even more from the potential talent pool of women that are a little off the bell curve from going into running.
I don't agree. Top NBA athletes - of any sex - aren't built for distance running. The question is at what point does height become a liability for distance running - because it does.
No, that isn't my point. Wrong thread. No woman of 5'11" of any culture or racial background is beating the top Kenyans, Ethiopians, Moroccans etc, who themselves aren't that height.
If your were smarter you would know that is your point.
Only to someone who has not understood a single post on this thread.
You seem to be so delusional that just accepting that she is one of the fastest women in history at her age, will somehow contribute to her success. It won't impact her at all. Sorry to disappoint you. She will run 14:30 next year. She will run 14:15 during her career. You will come back and claim that her height held her back.
Well, you certainly can compare men and women of the same heights who are in the 5'3" to 5'9" range and see the differences. Things aren't going to drop off the edge of a cliff with 2 extra inches. Again. the number of men and number of women epidemiologically who are 5'11" in height is a ridiculously high ratio favoring men, so the pool of potential talent to come from that height is heavily lop-sided in favor of men.
I said earlier that we can't compare men and women of the same height. A 5'11" woman in distance running is more comparable to a 6'3" man in distance running - a virtual unicorn.
OK, I misunderstood your point. That doesn't make your argument any stronger.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
If you're in the top 0.5% in height, of course you're going to gravitate to basketball rather than running, as there is a clear advantage there. This just draws even more from the potential talent pool of women that are a little off the bell curve from going into running.
I don't agree. Top NBA athletes - of any sex - aren't built for distance running. The question is at what point does height become a liability for distance running - because it does.
Jane has already proven that it's not 5'11" for women if their built properly for the event, which she clearly is.
5'11" isn't exceptionally tall for a female distance runner? How many female Olympic distance medallists are that height?
Grete Weitz and Paula Radcliffe were 5'8", both built a lot like Hedengren, and both redefined the expectations of how fast a woman could run a marathon. I don't think an extra 3 inches is that crazy to expect world-class performances, especially as a middle-distance runner.
Hedengren is not a middle distance runner. If she was, and given her 2-mile and 5000m times, she would be capable of running sub-2:00 in the 800m.
But we see tall women (and of course men) succeeding in other sports. Basketball, of course, and volleyball, and also some field events. So tall athletes are out there - but not in distance running. What many on this thread don't seem to get is that there are body types suited to different sports and that includes distance running. If the best tend to be smaller than in many other sports that suggests size, including height, are disadvantages. We also see that with male distance runners.
If you're in the top 0.5% in height, of course you're going to gravitate to basketball rather than running, as there is a clear advantage there. This just draws even more from the potential talent pool of women that are a little off the bell curve from going into running.
Not everyone can be a basketball or volleyball star just because they are tall. At my high school, we had a 6’8” guy that got cut, with malice, all four years.
Hedengren showed talent for distance running from an early age and did not consider playing volleyball for even a fraction of a second.