Sabrina Moran: savior of USA ultra-distance or headed for burn out?

Lets see how long it lasts.

And a nice person to boot.

True 'Toga Blue wrote:

She's 20 and averages 25 miles a day. Will she be the savior of the USA for ultra-marathons or crash and burn? Read and decide:

http://poughkeepsiejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/SPORTS06/701110311/1039

"After quitting Tribe track, I was set free again, and my mileage started to ascend. When no one is there to tell me to stop, I run for as long as I can until I have to go do my homework."

That about sums it up. She couldn't hack real competition, so she quit.

"I want to be like the female version of Dean Karnazes."

Gee, that's encouraging.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the savior of the USA for ultra-marathons." She's apparently been running a lot for a long time, and apparently hasn't recorded any fast times at any distances, so if you're thinking of a "savior" at the competitive level of Ann Trason or something near that, it's not going to happen.

From somebody who sees her run everyday, she is definitely more than someone who "couldn't hack it." The girl simply likes to run high mileage. In fact, she was considering going back to the track team this spring, but decided not to because they would cut her mileage.

I think all you nay sayers should give the girl a break. She obviously works hard and loves running. Plus her time was pretty decent for that distance.

I was just responding to the original poster's question. She probably is a nice person who loves running and works hard. She's just not very fast. 4:08:28 is not a noteworthy time for 50K, and her times at shorter distances don't sound promising for a competitive runner. So I'm still puzzled by the suggestion that she might be the saviour of U.S. ultramarathoning.

Are you a girl who can run sub 8:00 pace for 31 miles?

Doesn't something need to be alive and well in the first place for it to need saving? Maybe she could be the spark plug of USA ultra-distance running?

In addition, it would have been top 10 at the U.S. 50k championships.

At WM wrote:

Are you a girl who can run sub 8:00 pace for 31 miles?

No, but there are thousands of them already out there. In fact, there are thousands of women who can run sub-7:00 for 31 miles, and hundreds of women who can run sub-6:00 for 31 miles.

4:08 ~ 3:20/3:30 marathon. I can see why she considers Dean and not Deena a role model.

Since the women's American Record held by Janice Klecker is 3:13 (6:12/mile), I dispute the claim that hundreds of women are capable of running sub-6:00 for 50km.

Patrick Russell wrote:

Since the women's American Record held by Janice Klecker is 3:13 (6:12/mile), I dispute the claim that hundreds of women are capable of running sub-6:00 for 50km.

Yea, and just last week Anne Riddle Lundblad and Anne Bednosky did 3:45 and 3:52 ( 7:16 / 7:26 pace ) on an admittly warm day but fast course, and they're some of the best women 50K runners in the country, I don't think "thousands" in the sub-8 category is approprate either.

For sure a Deena or someone could move up and do it, but I doubt there's a thousand of women in the US that do sub-3 marathons and that's 6:52.

Any world-class female marathoner can run 50K in under three hours.

If you doubt my "hundreds" and "thousands" comments, check out lists of times for female marathoners around the world, and figure out what they could likely run for 50K.

I have no idea who Anne Riddle Lundblad and Anne Bednosky are. If they can't run under seven minutes per mile for 31 miles, then they're not very good 50K runners.

Avacado, you're the type of person that tears U.S. distance running down. Here is a girl who obviously enjoys what she does, and has done pretty well (especially for a 20 year old) at a distance, and all you can think to do is insult her. I personally think it's impressive that she can do 175 miles a week at any speed; I myself have done over 100 and know what that does to my body. I simply could not imagine doing 75 more. I think she deserves our respect simply for doing what she does. Avacado, grow up.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Any world-class female marathoner can run 50K in under three hours.

If you doubt my "hundreds" and "thousands" comments, check out lists of times for female marathoners around the world, and figure out what they could likely run for 50K.

I did check, that's how I know you're delusional. You're obviously just spouting off because a quick check of iaaf.org or any major marathon results shows that your "hundreds" and "thousands" are off by a factor of 10.

The number of women under 6:00 pace is infinitesimal. About .4% of females finish under 3:00. That's being generous. 3.6% of females finish under 3:30 (8 mpm). Taking into account a total marathon population of 600,000, and 43% of them female or 258,000 that means 1032 sub 3 capable and 9288 capable of sub-8.

Now there aren't a hundred women capable of sub-6 in the marathon much less a 50K, so unless you add a minute to your previous sub-6 and sub-7 comments they have no basis in fact.

FYI, Anne Riddle Lundblad is the 2004 50K champion so you have no idea what you're talking about.

Anne Riddle Lundblad also finished 2nd at the World 100k Championships in 2005 and was 6th this past year. She's truly one of the better women's ultra runners in the world.

Any just to show how overripe the whole Avacado argument has gotten:

.5% of males run under 6:00 pace, 3.1% of males run sub-3, 16.6% of males run sub 3:30, so using the same estiamtes as before (342,000) that means 1710 under 6:00, 10602 sub-3 and 56,722 sub 3:30 in a given year (2005).

Soooo, if Avacado is suggesting that all the male marathoners in the world slice off their nuts and get a boob job, he could be right.