Joan.....2:47:50....impressive

She went out a bit too hard, but she hung on pretty well. She's still one tough racer, and sub-2:50 in five decades ain't too shabby.

I don't think I could ever have a crush on another 50-plus woman that could even begin to rival the crush I have on Joanie.

they should use her age graded time as a OT qualifier

Not An Expert wrote:

She's still one tough racer, and sub-2:50 in five decades ain't too shabby.

Agreed, but she's only done it in four decades: the eighth, ninth, and tenth of the 20th century, and the first of the 21st century.

If she runs sub-2:50 next year, then she'll have done it in five decades.

Ha! - When Joanie popped a 2:49 in NYC last year I thought to myself - that's it, If I can't put together a 2:49 or less than I'm just not working hard enough. Clearly that's no longer operational as Joanie has just so elegantly demonstrated. Thanks Joan, great race.

That's a really good time though the pacing was dumb, 1:21 at the half.

Not within 16 minutes of the 50+ record though.

This is the second decade of the century. Unfortunately you r one year behind everone else.

Very impressive! But much too fast a start, unless the first few miles are downhill. Why go out sub 6-min pace when she knew she had a best an outside chance at holding 6:20? With a more conservative first half, she might well have done it and gotten her 2:46 qualifier.

Pretty funny how much advice Joan is getting on how to run a marathon. I seem to remember a marathon in 1984 where every expert said she'd gone out too hard for the conditions and left the greatest field in history behind her. Think that worked out ok.

idiot

p.n. wrote:

Not An Expert wrote:

She's still one tough racer, and sub-2:50 in five decades ain't too shabby.

Agreed, but she's only done it in four decades: the eighth, ninth, and tenth of the 20th century, and the first of the 21st century.

If she runs sub-2:50 next year, then she'll have done it in five decades.

p.n. wrote:

Not An Expert wrote:

She's still one tough racer, and sub-2:50 in five decades ain't too shabby.

Agreed, but she's only done it in four decades: the eighth, ninth, and tenth of the 20th century, and the first of the 21st century.

If she runs sub-2:50 next year, then she'll have done it in five decades.

Hahaha! Don´t tell me you´re really that retarded!

vdawg wrote:

they should use her age graded time as a OT qualifier

What you say here reminds me of something. I thought that all Olympic Trials marathons champions had an automatic entry to all oly trials marathons as long as they live.

When Anthony Sandoval won the '80 trials I thought he entered the '92 trials without a qualifying time but on being the '80 trials champion.

Maybe one of you knows the answer to it.

Congratulations to JBS. She's great!

drink wrote:

This is the second decade of the century. Unfortunately you r one year behind everone else.

I think you may be wrong here. I believe that we start counting with the number 1. So the next decade doesn't begin until 2011.

I think it counts from 1-100 like 1901-2000.

Well that's what I was taught in school.

Yup, she can run the Trials if she wants. I think it's all past Olympians (in the marathon, that is) that get a free pass, not Trials champs. I could be mistaken about the specifics of the exception, but whatever the criteria are I know Joanie meets them.

I <3 her.

angelaZee wrote:

I think it counts from 1-100 like 1901-2000.

Well that's what I was taught in school.

Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

When you count years, you start with 1, not 0. So the last year of the 20th century was 2000; the 21st century began on 1/1/01; and we're still in the first decade of the 21st century.

Doesn't matter, Joanie should be good to go sub-2:50 next year.

While I agree with and partially sympathize with your point, for the few others (how many are there--4? 5?) who have run sub-2:50s in five decades, I think years that ended in zero were counted as being the beginning of the next decade, not the end of the previous one. Usage is contextual. Still, this is a side note. Great run.

You think wrong.definition for decade - a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.

formerly present wrote:

angelaZee wrote:

I think it counts from 1-100 like 1901-2000.

Well that's what I was taught in school.

Ding ding ding! We have a winnah!

When you count years, you start with 1, not 0. So the last year of the 20th century was 2000; the 21st century began on 1/1/01; and we're still in the first decade of the 21st century.

Doesn't matter, Joanie should be good to go sub-2:50 next year.

[quote]geoffnet. wrote:

You think wrong.

definition for decade - a period of ten years beginning with a year whose last digit is zero: the decade of the 1980s.

Why would you think you need to qualify a decade like this?

formerly present wrote:

When you count years, you start with 1, not 0. So the last year of the 20th century was 2000; the 21st century began on 1/1/01; and we're still in the first decade of the 21st century.

Doesn't matter, Joanie should be good to go sub-2:50 next year.

No. And, I'll cite wikipedia as my source.

"The 1980s, often called "the Eighties," was the decade that began on January 1, 1980 and ended on December 31, 1989 and was the ninth decade of the 20th century."

Same goes for most decades, I'd think.

That's a brilliant performace