Not An Expert wrote:
High hopes wrote:
Tbh, for comparisons, I generally just add 1:30-2:00 to men's times and 2:30-3:00 to women's times. In old shoes, D'Amato's time is probably worth 2:21, but the genie came out of the bottle years ago now. The biggest surprise is that there aren't more women knocking on the door of 2:20.
It’ll obviously vary runner to runner, but these are pretty good rules of thumb, though maybe a bit conservative (and with a bit larger gap between men and women’s adjustments than time justifies).
2% of 130 minutes (2:10) is 2 minutes 36 seconds, so a 2:10-flat guy would become a 2:07-mid guy with an average response to the shoes. And 2% of 140 minutes (2:20) is 2 minutes 48 seconds, so an 2:20 gal with an average response would become a 2:17-low gal.
The interesting thing, though, is if there are high responders—if a 2:10 guy is a high-responder and gets a 4% benefit from the shoes that turns him into a 2:04-high guy. And if a 2:20 gal gets 4%, that turns her into a 2:14-mid gal. With the way world (and various other national and area) records have improved on the roads over the last few years, it would make sense if some already high-performing (whether clean or r not) high-responders to the shoe tech have been the recent record breakers.
All of this is a long way of saying that I think D’Amato would’ve run 2:22-2:24 without super shoes, and Hall 1:08-1:09. And I bet Flanagan, in her marathoning prime (think 2014, when she ran 2:21 in Berlin) would’ve run right around what D’Amato did today, and maybe dipped II to the 2:18s, with today’s shoe tech.
But if it’s and buts we’re candy, we’d all have a merry Christmas—congrats to D’Amato and Hall, the new American record holders!