2:09:56 is NOT as much of an outlier as you might think

Curious_Cat wrote:

"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.

At first glance, her performance didn't make a lot of sense, it's 92.8% of the men's WR (7235 secs/7756). Even Chebet 's WR was only 90.6% of the WR. However, let's not forget she enjoyed a horde of male pacers, with one doing a fantastic job pacing her from start to finish. That's not the benefit Kiptum had in the race of his life. And I think we all agree that Kiptum on that particular day, with or without pacers, could've broken 2 from the way he closed the second half (and he got even faster in the last 2k). Had he also had a pacer that ran alongside him for 42k, it's not unfathomable he could've run a 1:58. Now that would put Ruth's WR at around 91% of the WR. Still incredibly strong, but nothing too crazy, compared to other women's WRs. It's kinda like Radcliffe's 2:15 back in the day. (which stood at 92.7% of the WR, 2:05:38/2:15:25).

Again, I'm not saying she's clean. It's just that her performance was not an anomaly compared to other WRs upon closer inspection.

Curious_Cat wrote:

"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.

At first glance, her performance didn't make a lot of sense, it's 92.8% of the men's WR (7235 secs/7756). Even Chebet 's WR was only 90.6% of the WR. However, let's not forget she enjoyed a horde of male pacers, with one doing a fantastic job pacing her from start to finish. That's not the benefit Kiptum had in the race of his life. And I think we all agree that Kiptum on that particular day, with or without pacers, could've broken 2 from the way he closed the second half (and he got even faster in the last 2k). Had he also had a pacer that ran alongside him for 42k, it's not unfathomable he could've run a 1:58. Now that would put Ruth's WR at around 91% of the WR. Still incredibly strong, but nothing too crazy, compared to other women's WRs. It's kinda like Radcliffe's 2:15 back in the day. (which stood at 92.7% of the WR, 2:05:38/2:15:25).

Again, I'm not saying she's clean. It's just that her performance was not an anomaly compared to other WRs upon closer inspection.

Edit: that said, the limitation of my post was that it only showed how Ruth's WR stacked up against other top-tier performances. It failed to explain how she could make it to the top10 OVERALL(male or female). Even Radcliffe was outside top 15 on the day she ran her WR. That's a truly unusual performance, even though statistically it isn't as strong as many people might think. It's ridiculous, if not preposterous, to see her overtake that Japanese guy at the end of the race. She also beat another guy with a 2:03 PB(!!) on her run. That's something my post failed to address.

JackmanJones wrote:

Curious_Cat wrote:

"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.

At first glance, her performance didn't make a lot of sense, it's 92.8% of the men's WR (7235 secs/7756). Even Chebet 's WR was only 90.6% of the WR. However, let's not forget she enjoyed a horde of male pacers, with one doing a fantastic job pacing her from start to finish. That's not the benefit Kiptum had in the race of his life. And I think we all agree that Kiptum on that particular day, with or without pacers, could've broken 2 from the way he closed the second half (and he got even faster in the last 2k). Had he also had a pacer that ran alongside him for 42k, it's not unfathomable he could've run a 1:58. Now that would put Ruth's WR at around 91% of the WR. Still incredibly strong, but nothing too crazy, compared to other women's WRs. It's kinda like Radcliffe's 2:15 back in the day. (which stood at 92.7% of the WR, 2:05:38/2:15:25).

Again, I'm not saying she's clean. It's just that her performance was not an anomaly compared to other WRs upon closer inspection.

Edit: that said, the limitation of my post was that it only showed how Ruth's WR stacked up against other top-tier performances. It failed to explain how she could make it to the top10 OVERALL(male or female). Even Radcliffe was outside top 15 on the day she ran her WR. That's a truly unusual performance, even though statistically it isn't as strong as many people might think. It's ridiculous, if not preposterous, to see her overtake that Japanese guy at the end of the race. She also beat another guy with a 2:03 PB(!!) on her run. That's something my post failed to address.

I think your edit covers something important. Her placing is insane. So is the amount she lowered the record by. I am extremely comfortable calling this the greatest single race in distance running.

I don’t think doping much matters here. Any other possible contender for greatest race would be equally suspect.

JackmanJones wrote:

Curious_Cat wrote:

"To the gill!" "Ruth has ruined the sport!" "Filthy doper!" as always, Letsrunner's first reaction to a jaw-dropping performance is to cry foul. That's understandable, as it's human nature. I'm not gonna say whether she's dirty or not, as that's not the intention of my thread. The only thing I want to point out is that her performance today was not out of the realm of possiblity.

At first glance, her performance didn't make a lot of sense, it's 92.8% of the men's WR (7235 secs/7756). Even Chebet 's WR was only 90.6% of the WR. However, let's not forget she enjoyed a horde of male pacers, with one doing a fantastic job pacing her from start to finish. That's not the benefit Kiptum had in the race of his life. And I think we all agree that Kiptum on that particular day, with or without pacers, could've broken 2 from the way he closed the second half (and he got even faster in the last 2k). Had he also had a pacer that ran alongside him for 42k, it's not unfathomable he could've run a 1:58. Now that would put Ruth's WR at around 91% of the WR. Still incredibly strong, but nothing too crazy, compared to other women's WRs. It's kinda like Radcliffe's 2:15 back in the day. (which stood at 92.7% of the WR, 2:05:38/2:15:25).

Again, I'm not saying she's clean. It's just that her performance was not an anomaly compared to other WRs upon closer inspection.

Edit: that said, the limitation of my post was that it only showed how Ruth's WR stacked up against other top-tier performances. It failed to explain how she could make it to the top10 OVERALL(male or female). Even Radcliffe was outside top 15 on the day she ran her WR. That's a truly unusual performance, even though statistically it isn't as strong as many people might think. It's ridiculous, if not preposterous, to see her overtake that Japanese guy at the end of the race. She also beat another guy with a 2:03 PB(!!) on her run. That's something my post failed to address.

I think your edit covers something important. Her placing is insane. So is the amount she lowered the record by. I am extremely comfortable calling this the greatest single race in distance running.

I don’t think doping much matters here. Any other possible contender for greatest race would be equally suspect.

Curious_Cat wrote:

What you said made sense from a purely statistical perspective, but I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. We have to take into consideration the nature of the event. Of all the Olympic events, marathon is the only one you can only race sparingly when it comes to top performances. And even if you peak properly for the race, a lot can just go wrong in the distance on that particular day you race. That may explain the difference between her WR and the third best performance. As the #3 person may not really max out on her potential due to the nature of the event.

Btw, IIRC, the #3 performer is Hassan right? She did that 2:13 just coming off a 1500/5k/10k triple in WC less than 6 weeks apart. That further proved my point - it's less about Ruth's 2:09 being an outlier than Hassan just not maxing out (not even close in fact)on her potential in the marathon. She surely can run a min or two faster if the marathon is her sole focus.