Who can help American Women Marathoners?

2008 OT course for females was/is a VERY fast course. The Olympics course will not be nearly as flat.

So you are saying marathon times for American women will only get worse over the next 4 years?

I am just asking what can be done and who can help American women compete with the the rest of the world who is running sub 2:30, sub 2:26, sub 2:23?

Is no one willing to put in the time or contribute financially to build a more productive program?

Deena Kastor's time last week would have got her 3rd place in the NYC marathon......28 years ago. It was great for her that she won, yadadada, but that race did not strike fear into the heart's of any of the world's best marathoners. We are worse off today than we were in 2000 on the women's side....if not for Deena's few truly awesome races (Chicago, London, and Athens), we'd look friggin' pathetic.

Deena wasn't going for a fast time at the trials. She said she didn't want to go any faster than 5:20-5:25 miles.

We all know Deena can run 2:20. Ok, now who else do we have?

The marathon is very top heavy on the women's side. Meaning, there is a small handful around 2:20 and a logjam around 2:25. 2:25 was #16 in 2007. 2:30 was #78 in 2007.

We have a number of women in the low 2:30s, it's just a matter of making that step to sub 2:30. On the men's side we've had guys with fast track times step up to the marathon. I don't think you'll find that as much on the women's side.

It's similar to what was happening with the Men's 10k back in the mid-late 90s..but inverse. There was Todd Williams...then a bunch of marathoners coming down to 10k.

What we've seen in the recent past is a focus on specificity instead of broadening race ambitions like we say in the 80s. In the 80s you have Frank Shorter and Alberto Salazar racing fast 10ks on the track as well as marathons. Then you had Bill Rodgers racing every distance he could get his hands on. Then we have our own Malmo racing world class at everything from the steeple to the half-marathon to the marathon. The focus seemed to switch to getting good at one race distance, instead of just getting into shape and racing. Now we have guys who are racing well from the 10k up to the marathon (Hall, Meb, Abdi, Ritz). I think on the women's side of things it's just simply a matter of changing focus from "racing the marathon" to "racing".

I've always been a big believer in focusing your training on what you plan to race...but maybe that focus can become too narrow and thus you actually lose focus on the needs of "just racing". To race at any distance you have to A) get in shape and B) get in shape for the race.

Alan

I would be as happy as a heaping, hot bowl of New England Clam Chowder if we had someone in their late 20's who was close to Deena (maybe sub 2:25) and two or three women who were 2:25 to 2:29 and then another half dozen (ages 25-29) that will be around for London in 2012 and could run or should run 2:29 to 2:31 in the next couple of years.

Any post-collegiates (ages 22-24) that will be ready in 8 years for the 2016 Olympics and could fill the void and be ready to run 2:25 to 2:29?

Are these pie in the sky dreams?

If you follow the sport you should know what Deena can do when it's crunch time. No sense in running a solo 2:23 that just gives her less time to recover and train for Beijing and would have netted the same end result.

Magdalena Lewy-Boulet led for much of the OT race. She is clearly capably of running 3-4 minutes faster in a time trial race scenario (London/Chicago) with a fast pack of runners shouldering the front-running load with her.

Zoila did well, Tera Moody is young, give the criticism a rest.

Only one woman in a country of 300 million was able to run sub 2:30 on Sunday the 20th when it counted the most and you call that criticism? I call it a sad reality.

terrrrble wrote:

We are worse off today than we were in 2000 on the women's side....

Overall? Hardly.

Athletes

• 181 qualifiers (171 via a marathon performance, 10 via a 10,000m performance)

• 146 starters

• 124 finishers

Sub-2:50’s

• 98 women ran under 2:50. This is the second largest total in the history of women’s marathon running, trailing only the 1984 U.S. Olympic Trials when 109 women broke that mark.

• By comparison, 61 women broke 2:50 at the 2004 U.S. Olympic Team Trials-Women’s Marathon. 44 did so in 2000; 71 in 1996; 46 in 1992; and 81 in 1988.

All-Time Rankings

• Deena Kastor and Magdalena Lewy Boulet ran the 2nd and 11th fastest Olympic Trials performances in U.S. history.

• Kastor’s winning time of 2:29:35 is the 41st fastest marathon ever run by an American woman. She also owns the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th, 12th, 14th, and 43rd-fastest times.

• Lewy Boulet’s second-place time of 2:30:19 is the 53rd fastest marathon ever run by an American woman.

Age Group Records

• Linda Somers Smith (2:38:49) sets U.S. 45+ record. (Previous best was Joan Samuelson, 2:42:28.)

• Joan Samuelson (2:49:08) sets U.S. 50+ record. (Previous best was Shirley Matson, 2:50:26.)

Personal Bests & Qualifying Performances

• 135 women qualified for the Olympic Trials by running a new personal best in the marathon (out of 171 women who qualified with a marathon time).

• 41 women ran new personal bests on Sunday, including 13 of the top 15 and 20 of the top 26.

• 47 women improved upon their qualifying performance for the event (including Blake Russell who qualified via a 10,000m time because she did not have a qualifying marathon performance).

Regarding the question in the subject line, whoever has been helping them over the past four years seems to be doing a fine job.

Jennifer Rhines has done sub 2:30 in the past, but is focusing on the track this year, so maybe there are others that are able to run sub 2:30.

well there is a whole hell of a lot to fear from the american women

deena won chicago, london, ran 2:19 less than two years ago

deena got a bronze medal AFTER finishing second in the OT

this year winning the trials was a joke for her

similar heat conditions in beijing as athens... the world has much to fear from her

i'm not saying she is a certainty to medal but i would put her odds nearly as good as anyones

boulet will be tough, she put her mind at making the team she did it

i think making the team will only add fuel to her fire

GTF wrote:

whoever has been helping them over the past four years seems to be doing a fine job.

You are clearly a fan of the sport and have accumulated an impressive list of stats to back up your argument, but there's probably more than a few American women (I compiled my own list) that may not agree with your assessment that we are "doing a fine job."

1 2:19:36 Deena Kastor

2 2:21:21 Joan Benoit Samuelson

3 2:26:26a Julie Brown

4 2:26:40a Kim Jones

5 2:27:10 Marla Runyan

6 2:27:35 Francie Larrieu Smith

7 2:27:52a Patti Catalano

8 2:27:59 Olga Appell

9 2:28:01 Colleen De Reuck

10 2:28:15 Lisa Weidenbach

11 2:28:18 Chris McNamara

12 2:28:34 Libbie Hickman

13 2:28:53a Maria Trujillo

13 2:29:01 Deeja Youngquist

15 2:29:05 Kristy Johnston

16 2:29:10 Blake Russell

17 2:29:32 Jen Rhines

18 2:29:38 Cathy OBrien

19 2:29:50 Margaret Groos

20 2:29:54 Jenny Spangler

Maybe I am not in the loop or didn't get the memo, but is there some kind of master plan (that you know of) by the powers that be in American marathoning to change things for the better?

The numbers prove that 2008 had the most sub 2:50 females in the history of the trials. That means that things are improving. So the solution to the drought in the womens marathon is already on an upswing. Lets hope that it continues.

That would be like saying the number of participants in AYSO leagues across the country has doubled over the past two decades. Everyone gets a trophy and a pat on the back.

If Americans are to compete with the world, I thought we wanted quality, not quantity.

"If you follow the sport you should know what Deena can do when it's crunch time. No sense in running a solo 2:23 that just gives her less time to recover and train for Beijing and would have netted the same end result."

No, we know what she COULD do four years ago. despite lip service to "she wanted to save it for the Olympics", I don't see any recent evidence that she's the same runner as she was in 2004.

Since the day after Joanie ran in LA, there's always been "the next Joanie" just waiting to bust one open. From Cathy O'Brien to Nan Davis to Carole Zajac, they've all been ready to "be the next Joanie". Well, Deena is as close as we've come (and, in a lot of ways she's a more complete runner than Joan was), but there's still no "next Joanie" on the horizon. As I said, there are no 2:15 to 2:24 women on the world scene shivering in their racing flats after watching the US trials race.

david beckham wrote:

If Americans are to compete with the world, I thought we wanted quality, not quantity.

I happen to agree with Kevin Hanson. Quality will always follow quantity. The more 2:50 marathoners that you have, the more 2:40 runners that will emerge. The greater the number of 2:40 runners, the more 2:30 runners that will emerge. and so on ...........

I would not know whether or not you are "in the loop." However, I did not compile those stats. They are copied/pasted directly from the site linked in my post. You post an array of performances (by the way, #13 is likely not legit) spread out over three decades -- of what exactly is that supposed to be indicative? To exactly which memo-issuing "powers that be in American marathoning" do you refer? Where is your solution if the state of the sport today is so unsatisfactory?

Anyway, to get more consistent quality, there has to be consistent, quality quantity. Without a developed talent pool, world-beaters will come even further and fewer between. Having the most sub-2:50 women since 1984 is a sign that there is more talent being developed than in the intervening years. It is from or because of that pool that better marathoners will emerge. It means an improvement over 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000 (perhaps the low point between 1984 and 2008), and 2004. Nobody should be "shivering in their race flats" from the 2008 women's OT marathon results, that is an asinine assumption to project. However, that does not automatically imply that things are not improving or that he current "help" is not having any positive effect at all. Nobody is indicating that there is a self-perpetuating system in motion, there is still work to be done but the results from this recent women's OT marathon are definitely a positive sign of a step in the right direction.

Oprah is a good idea.

If she can spend millions on a girls school in Africa or dole out millions for a game show (The Big Give) maybe her deep pockets could establish facilities for future Olympians to ready themselves for London in 4 years.

What is Phil Knight up to these days? Forbes magazine sez he's worth 8 billion. Yes, he's contributed tons to UofO, but is he loyal to the sport?

Many of my runners are unattached because although they've run sub 2:40 for marathons the shoes companies say we will consider sponsoring you when you run sub 2:36...gee, thanks!

So, they struggle along with part-time jobs and try to get gear from the local running stores.

Do you know how many hundreds have tried to get grants?

http://www.rrca.org/programs/roadsscholar/

They say they now pay $5,000., it used to be less.

With that kind of money these women can quit their jobs and train for 4 or 5 months through the summer and hope they earn prize money from a fall marathon (enough to get them through the winter).

Not everyone can or would want to work for Home Depot

http://www.usolympicteam.com/12962_12994.htm

while they train for the marathon.

So...who else can help American Women Marathoners?

Comments like we have all sorts of 2:50 marathoners and things are just fine seem to me to be just a little bit out of touch with the reality of those trying to survive as post-collegiate marathoners.