FRANKFURT MARATHON 2:04:57 !!!!!!!!!!!

eh?

10% is always a start :

10.00 -> 11.00

20.00 -> 22.00

2"05 -> what ??

That EPO is great stuff.

Another word for it wrote:

Old misery guts wrote:

Ain’t equality great?

A female winner running 2.23.25 wins the same prize money as a male running 2.04.57!

Guys like this ^ - who like to compare male and female running ability always strike me as less than real men. Like when you are in HS or college and some kid takes pride in beating the girls at soccer or basketball.

Have you any idea as to what you’re talking about?

I read in the report there were ‘fast times across the board’ in both races.

So where was I wrong in expecting to see at least a sub 2.20 in the women’s race?

Kipsang was just a minute shy of the men’s world record.

Kilel was 8 minutes shy of Radcliffe’s world record.

I rest my case.

You are an absolute embarrassment. The women's race was great as was the men's.

Kipsang was just a minute shy of the men’s world record.

Kilel was 8 minutes shy of Radcliffe’s world record.

I rest my case.[/quote]

? According to the IAAF article, Kipsang collected 95,000€ whereas Kilel got 40,000€, presumably precisely because of the time bonus. So what's your case?

Perhaps his case is just what he said: why do they call a 2:23 "fast"? What is the deal with this lowered expectation? Even if you disregard Paula as some sort of an anomaly, it is still 5 min off from the best efforts. Would we be talking about this race if the men ran 2:09-2:10?

what do I know? wrote:

Perhaps his case is just what he said: why do they call a 2:23 "fast"? What is the deal with this lowered expectation? Even if you disregard Paula as some sort of an anomaly, it is still 5 min off from the best efforts. Would we be talking about this race if the men ran 2:09-2:10?

I too believe that we kinda have to strike Paulas performances off our mind when we're looking at Women Marathons. No one is going to come close to that 2:15 in the next 10 years.

what do I know? wrote:

Perhaps his case is just what he said: why do they call a 2:23 "fast"?

Well, his case first and foremost was "Ain’t equality great? A female winner running 2.23.25 wins the same prize money as a male running 2.04.57!" Which seems to be false.

2:23 was course record and top 10 for the year. For sure, in terms of all-time bests, men's marathoning is far hotter than women's these days.

Nutella1 wrote:

what do I know? wrote:

Perhaps his case is just what he said: why do they call a 2:23 "fast"? What is the deal with this lowered expectation? Even if you disregard Paula as some sort of an anomaly, it is still 5 min off from the best efforts. Would we be talking about this race if the men ran 2:09-2:10?

I too believe that we kinda have to strike Paulas performances off our mind when we're looking at Women Marathons. No one is going to come close to that 2:15 in the next 10 years.

Radcliffe’s 2:15:25 might well be a ‘one off’ - but she’s also posted a 2.17.18 - a 2.17.42 - a 2.18.47 and a 2.18.56 - so is it too much to ask that women should be running around or just under 2.20?

Old misery guts wrote:

Ain’t equality great?

A female winner running 2.23.25 wins the same prize money as a male running 2.04.57!

I hope you were equally disgusted by the 2003 London Marathon, where Paula Radcliffe ran 2:15:25, utterly destroying the WR, and Gezahegne Abera ran a snooze-inducing 2:07:56.

wowza wrote:

You are an absolute embarrassment. The women's race was great as was the men's.

And you're still not getting the point.

Old misery guts. wrote:

Radcliffe’s 2:15:25 might well be a ‘one off’ - but she’s also posted a 2.17.18 - a 2.17.42 - a 2.18.47 and a 2.18.56 - so is it too much to ask that women should be running around or just under 2.20?

No especially with how much better the drugs are then the ones in Radcliffe's prime

Africans don't do dope.

Old misery guts. wrote:

Radcliffe’s 2:15:25 might well be a ‘one off’ - but she’s also posted a 2.17.18 - a 2.17.42 - a 2.18.47 and a 2.18.56

On a side note, it's amazing how little consistency Radcliffe showed. Imagine if Geb's top five marathons ended up being 2:03, 2:05, 2:05, 2:07, 2:07 ???

Geb's fifth-best marathon is less than two minutes off of his best, and meanwhile Paula never sniffed 2:15 again and will never get back under 2:20

It's a man/woman thing.

Both consistency and inconsistency point towards a clean athlete.

So all athletes are clean?

On a side note, it's amazing how little consistency Radcliffe showed. Imagine if Geb's top five marathons ended up being 2:03, 2:05, 2:05, 2:07, 2:07 ???

Geb's fifth-best marathon is less than two minutes off of his best, and meanwhile Paula never sniffed 2:15 again and will never get back under 2:20

It's a man/woman thing. (quote)

Really?

So Radcliffe showed little consistency?

Well, look at it in a different way.

Geb has run two of the fastest five men’s marathons of all time.

Radcliffe has run four of the five fastest women’s marathons of all time.

I have to admit though, my irritation with the ‘equality’ in prize money manifest itself rather more in a different sport to marathon running.

It was from watching what was probably the greatest tennis match ever - the 2008 Wimbledon final between Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer - and then realising they only got the same prize money as the women - the Williams sisters (yawn) final, a boring affair, probably prearranged - the pair of them having outmuscled the other, more naturally proportioned female competitors.

Old misery guts. wrote:

Really?

So Radcliffe showed little consistency?

Well, look at it in a different way.

Geb has run two of the fastest five men’s marathons of all time.

Radcliffe has run four of the five fastest women’s marathons of all time.

Consistency has nothing to do with rank. If I have run the five fastest marathons in my town and they're spread over five minutes, I am less consistent than a guy who ran #6-#10 in exactly the same time.

Comapred to Geb, Radcliffe's times may be more dominant in the rankings, fine, but they are not more consistent. Few women seem to be.

Now, Makau and Mutai are incredibly consistent...

I believe Mary Keitany has it in her to come close to Radcliffes record in the next few years. She has been running exceptionally well the past couple of years including several 1:06 halfmarathons plus an astounding 25k WR going first time sub 1:20 in 1:19:53 hour. I watched her winning last years halfmarathon World Championship in Birmingham/GB and despite unfavourable weather (wind/rain) she almost broke Kiplagats WR. I think she´ll win New York and will be going to drop a sub 2:20 next year in London (if she runs there). I predict a 2:17 for her on a flat course. Of course if she is like Zersenay Tadese she may fail miserably on sunday but I do think she will run the show in the Marathon in the next five years.