Shalane is slow!!!

maybe we can just politely applaud shalane's effort.

and kara goucher's, too.

so many people on these boards are so caustically critical of the elite athletes who acheive results so far beyond anything most of us can do.

and you're only brave when hiding behind anonymous posts.

if you came face to face with either shalane or kara -- you'd gush about what a huge fan you are -- but still stab them in the back on the boards afterward.

if you are like this on the web -- you are probably like this in life.

2:25? 2:28? these ladies have already proven themselves.

meanwhile -- you're just typing.

I give her "props as a marathoner" because she finished second in the God Damn New York Marathon in her first attempt at the distance.

What to make of Shalane Flanagan's 2nd-place showing? Well, second in a World Marathon Major is very impressive. Period. The fact that she was able to outlast Mary Keitany at the end also was impressive.

That being said, most of the race was so slow that it doesn't necessarily tell us a whole lot about her marathoning future. In some ways, the race was tailor made for someone with great track credentials.

2:28:20 for a winning time is unbelievably slow. Yes, we know 2009 was won in 2:28:56, but before that one had to go back to 1997 to find another winning time in the 2:28s.

Basically, this year's race was a 21-mile tempo run followed by a 5-mile race, which is something that would ideally suit Flanagan.

The first 21 miles were covered in 2:00:33. That's 5:44 pace per mile, which equates to 2:30:30 for the marathon.

Copied from the Week that was

Keitany seemed kind of P.O.ed after the race- for good reason...it played to her strength and the Blondie still beat her.

Marathoning 101 wrote:

chip lohmiller wrote:

Really? And why is that... tell me how many of the US Women's olympic trials races have been won in faster than 2:30. And then explain to me exactly why you don't think Shalane would absolutely smoke any of those three in a race that is run around 2:30 pace.

As long as we are talking history, let me answer your question.

Because 4 of the fastest 5 female American marathoners are in this race.

Deena, Kara, Desiree, Magdalena.

The only American that has EVER run faster than any of these 4 women is Joannie.

So in order to stay with the history lesson. When in the history of the trials have there been 4 women on the starting line that have all run under 2:26:30?

uh....FYI, Joanie has not run faster than Deena. Deena is a sub 220 gal. Also a former WR holder at 5K. Don't discount Deena if she decides to get back into shape.

deena fan wrote:

Marathoning 101 wrote:

As long as we are talking history, let me answer your question.

Because 4 of the fastest 5 female American marathoners are in this race.

Deena, Kara, Desiree, Magdalena.

The only American that has EVER run faster than any of these 4 women is Joannie.

So in order to stay with the history lesson. When in the history of the trials have there been 4 women on the starting line that have all run under 2:26:30?

uh....FYI, Joanie has not run faster than Deena. Deena is a sub 220 gal. Also a former WR holder at 5K. Don't discount Deena if she decides to get back into shape.

The only woman to run faster than ANY of these women is Joannie. No one said that Joannie ran faster than all of them. READING IS FUN.

I wouldn't think too much about times. Goucher and Flanagan both finished in the top 3 of a major marathon. They have no head-to-head record. The Trials marathon will be fascinating.