Nutella1 wrote:
14:20 compares to high 2:19h. Make that sub14, then we're talking.
Which will lead us to the question: will women ever be able to break 14min? ;)
A woman will break 14:00 sooner that Paula's marathon WR will be broken.
Nutella1 wrote:
14:20 compares to high 2:19h. Make that sub14, then we're talking.
Which will lead us to the question: will women ever be able to break 14min? ;)
A woman will break 14:00 sooner that Paula's marathon WR will be broken.
asdefjh wrote:
A woman will break 14:00 sooner that Paula's marathon WR will be broken.
Agreed. And even that won't happen anytime soon.
There were videos of the world cross at Boston here but they're now marked as private.
ventolin^3 wrote:
there is a formula i like which is pretty good for 1500 - M :
ratio of distances^0.0691729
multiply onto speed for 1 distance to get speed at another
the "equivalent" calibre for a 2"15'25 is
3'49.3
8'01.2
13'50.8
29'03.1
64'33
which tends to agree with the more prescient guys here
The functional form does not stay consistent as you go through the places where you have big metabolic transitions 400->800 and HM->Marathon.
yes
i said from 1500 - M, but it does fine from 1/2M to M
Runners World has an article today explaining why Paulas record lasted 10 years already:
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/why-paula-radcliffes-marathon-record-has-lasted-10-years
Daniels is making a bunch of mistakes with his assumptions though.
Fact is, this record is unbelievable and even stronger than Wangs 8:20. It is the strongest records in all of T&F.
Dude Paula was doped to the Max on those 2:15 and 2:17 runs. Everybody knows its true but no one really talks about it. She's the Lance Armstrong of T&F.
Why is Mary Keitany's 2012 London run in 2:18.37 with 1:07.44 second half never mentioned in these threads? With ideal pacing by men all the way her time could have been in the same ballpark as Radcliffe's.