Kelly Jaske story

Or is the underlying story that anyone can run, because it takes no skill only natural talent? Sort of makes all your hard work a waste of time...hmmmm?

I believe Priscella Welch and Jack Foster both started in their 30s.

Little depth because she starts running in her 30s and in a short time runs 72 minutes for a half? That is a damn fast time for a woman in the US no matter when she started running. Her 1:14:56 last summer was the 18th fastest woman's time in the US for 13.1 in 2008.

I don't see it as an embarassment for someone to represent the USA when someone has been running seriously for a short period of time and outruns a national class field to earn their berth on a world team.

Full disclosure - I have been working out with Ms. Jaske on a fairly regular basis since last fall.

The US half champs did not have Kastor, Goucher, or Blake Russell. And who knows what Shalane Flanagan would do over 13.1 if she tried. So, not so quick on the "no depth" comment.

Also, it is simply not true that any novice can train for a bit and make the team, much less run a 72. Kelly Jaske is an extraordinary talent. 72 min is an internationally competitive time for the women's half and not a time that any well trained novice can hit. Very few women in the world can run 71 or better. The US should be proud to have an up and coming talent like Kelly Jaske.

what about all those pro/elite women who have been hammering away for years, thinking they're going to get better or something, only now to get beaten by a novice. that's got to be demoralizing for them, no?

Jaske's talent is special on several levels - very few could run 1:12 no matter what thier training and just as few could jump up to 100+ miles a week and stay healthly long enough to enjoy that fitness.

What will be interesting is where does she go from here, there are a few cases such as Jaske's floating around in running (mostly women but a few men) most of the time there is a huge improvement in time in the first 2 - 4 years of intense training, followed by stagnation, then injuries and general slowing. Hopefully Ms Jaske will have one more rabbit to pull out of her hat and avoid that pattern. Even if she does not, it will be one heck of a ride and her accomplishments are already significant.

PS - Based on her 8K, sounds like she has some decent speed too, wouldn't be surprised to see a low 32 10K from her this spring if she jumps in one of those stacked track 10k's.

austinite wrote:

what about all those pro/elite women who have been hammering away for years, thinking they're going to get better or something, only now to get beaten by a novice. that's got to be demoralizing for them, no?

No more demoralizing than when Ryan Hall broke the AR for the half on his first time running the distance. Everyone out there knows that running talent shows up when it wants to. Some people run great times from high school straight to the Olympics. Other people come into running in different ways. Gharib didn't start running seriously until he was 22. Was it demoralizing for all other Africans when he won the WCs? Should people quit just because it took less time for another competitor to get to an elite level? Maybe one of the girls who ran a 1:15 or slower is just a year away from running 1:12. You just don't know. That is why it isn't demoralizing. If anything, it is inspiring.

True, we do a poor job supporting up-and-coming runners, especially women. Part of that relates to naming someone to a team in January for a competition that's in October. Just no intelligent direction coming from our NGB, which I hesitate to even refer to by name anymore.

Miss Ogynist wrote:

Great story about Kelly Jaske on the home page.

The underlying message however is that there is no depth in women's running in this country. You can start in this sport in your 30s and after just a short time serious training you can make the national team.

I have no doubt that Kelly Jaske is a great talent and deserves her success, but still. Its a little embarassing for the sport that such a novice is wearging a USA singlet.

a 1:12 for women is about a 1:05 for guys - do you really think a 1:05 would get a front page story?

I think shes an incredible individual with a good bit of talent, and i hate to sound pessimistic, but for anyone who knows a little something about the sport its pretty obvious there is no depth on the womens side.

convert this wrote:

a 1:12 for women is about a 1:05 for guys - do you really think a 1:05 would get a front page story?

I think shes an incredible individual with a good bit of talent, and i hate to sound pessimistic, but for anyone who knows a little something about the sport its pretty obvious there is no depth on the womens side.

Uh, no, 1:12:06 equates to 1:02:17 for a man. That puts her on par with Brett Gotcher/Andrew Carlson, and slightly better than the performance by Sell.

convert this wrote:

a 1:12 for women is about a 1:05 for guys - do you really think a 1:05 would get a front page story?

I think shes an incredible individual with a good bit of talent, and i hate to sound pessimistic, but for anyone who knows a little something about the sport its pretty obvious there is no depth on the womens side.

Bull. As before, the top 3-4 half runners weren't there.

Also, 1:12 is internationally competitive:

5th in Berlin 2008 (easier course and better conditions)

Women

1. Peninah Arusei KEN 68:22

2. Pauline Wangui KEN 69:51

3. Isabellah Andersson SWE 71:24

4. Dulce Maria Rodriguez MEX 71:25

5. Milka Jerotich KEN 72:18

6. Beatrice Omwanza KEN 72:40

6th in New York 2008

NDEREBA CATHERINE 1:10:19

PEREZ MADAI 1:10:26

KANO YURI 1:10:31

TIMBILILI ALICE 1:11:08

DEREUCK COLLEEN 1:12:03

3rd Boston 2008

1:11:44 5:29 Azalech Masresha 20F

1:11:45 5:29 Irene Limika 29F

1:12:11 5:31 Neriah Asiba 27 F

1:12:32 5:32 Jane Gakunyi 29 F

1:12:34 5:33 Jane Murage 21 F

And at least top 3 at each of the last 3 US Championships

Also, she was with the leaders the whole way and just seconds behind Boulet at the finish. Who knows how much faster she could run with more training and a faster field. Given the pure potential she has, it is definitely a front page story.

Great interview. Smart, talented, super-disciplined...Kelly Jaske is my new heroine.

I guess it was also embarassing for Joan Benoit (Samuelson)

[quote]Miss Ogynist wrote:

Great story about Kelly Jaske on the home page.

The underlying message however is that there is no depth in women's running in this country...quote]

Wrong. I think you totally missed the boat on this one.

The underlying message is that in spite of all the bs that happens in America from time to time, whether it be in over-doped sports or Harvard Law School students turned corrupt stock brokers, there are still some grade-A salt-of-the-earth honest homegrown Americans out there willing to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and get to work to see what they can make of themselves. Kelly Jaske is a great reminder of these kinds of people and those ideals. In the words of Pink Floyd, "run like hell".

Actually, using the eleven percent rule, 1:05 flat converts to 1:12:15, so that's right on. Not sure where you're getting 1:02:17 but that's way off.

1.11 wrote:

Actually, using the eleven percent rule, 1:05 flat converts to 1:12:15, so that's right on. Not sure where you're getting 1:02:17 but that's way off.

"11% rule"? Where are you getting that from? You're using a linear comparison, which is inappropriate, considering the women's population doesn't follow a normal distribution(being positively skewed). The "only" valid method for comparing men and women is the Mercier calculator, which "normalizes" the two populations by using the rank-order method:

"The Mercier 2005 scoring tables were determined using the Mercier-Beauregard method (see here) and the world rankings for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. The IAAF 2005 scores were taken from the scoring tables used for the IAAF World Rankings (see here). We should note that the Mercier 2005 scoring tables are the only tables developed for comparing performances between men and women."

The eleven percent rule has been around for a long time and works very well from the sprints to the marathon (with FloJo and Paula being outliers on either end). It's absurd to say that 1:02 (which is faster than WR men's marathon pace) is equivalent to 1:12 (when womeen's WR marathon pace is 1:07:xx).

The tables you cite may be useful for a specific purpose, but as applied to meaningful conversions generally, you have to know enough about the sport to recognize garbage in, garbage out.

The 10% rule has been around for a long time, too, but quite often it's bunk.

To correct myself, now that Haile has run 2:03:59, 1:02 is every so slightly slower than WR pace; point remains the same though.

As for the eleven percent (not ten percent) rule allegedly being bunk, go ahead, give an example of a distance at which it does not work pretty well.