50-year-old Linda Somers-Smith finishes 8th (in the women's open race) at US Club Cross Country Champs

yes.

oui

Indeed. Getting rid of her fibroids seemed to really amp up her training ability. I hope she shares more of her story in the future.

how can she do this? you can't run like you're 30 when you are 50. can't wrap my brain around her.

Big f'in deal. Shhad as an unfair advantage without a uterus. Running with a uterus is akin to running with a millstone, esp @ certain times of the month.

Getting crazy slow with age is myth that Tony Young proved wrong years ago. A little understandable depreciation, sure. Losing several minutes per decade off your 5k time, no.

Most masters just don't have the time or will to train like they should to be as fast as possible. And that's not a knock on them, it's life. Completely understandable.

When an older fellow (or lady) kicks some ass, it just shows that they've dedicated themselves a bit more.

(plus there's no depth in women's running)

Tony would probably be a lot more impressed by LSS's performance than you, because he knows a lot more about being "a bit more" dedicated and just how hard it is to keep from slowing down "a little" at (near) age 50. Somers-Smith is close to being fit enough to make the OTQ for the track distance events. Men don't even do that at age 40, if you want to spot her a decade due to "no depth" to women's running. Of course, that you would slough off as well with a denigrating comment from your comfy armchair.

Harry Seward wrote:

Getting crazy slow with age is myth that Tony Young proved wrong years ago. A little understandable depreciation, sure. Losing several minutes per decade off your 5k time, no.

Most masters just don't have the time or will to train like they should to be as fast as possible. And that's not a knock on them, it's life. Completely understandable.

When an older fellow (or lady) kicks some ass, it just shows that they've dedicated themselves a bit more.

(plus there's no depth in women's running)

Harry Seward wrote:

(plus there's no depth in women's running)

Are you kidding us?! She ran freakin' 20:27 for 6K, which would have been good enough to place her in the top 37 at the NCAA Championship! This has nothing to do with depth. She's running legit times.

Or the body strength

Okay, let's see a birth certificate!

oh please spare us wrote:

Are you kidding us?! She ran freakin' 20:27 for 6K, which would have been good enough to place her in the top 37 at the NCAA Championship! This has nothing to do with depth. She's running legit times.

I think that's the point. 36 places behind the men's winner is not the same thing as 36 places behind the women's winner. If we're talking about overall depth in women's distance running, not just the difference between master's and open.

No, the men like to get on here, demean women, and say there's "less depth". For comparison sake, 30:00 for 8th place man would have placed him 33rd in the NCAA men's XC Championship. That's fairly comparable. Could you imagine a 50 year old man doing that? 20:27 for 6K is a legit time for any woman, and esp. a 50 y.o. woman at that.

Forgive me for not knowing master's times and estimating here.

20:27 is about 15-20 sec slower per mile than the women's Marathon record.

Are there 50 year old men that can run low 5's for 6km? I really have no idea.

ddk wrote:

Forgive me for not knowing master's times and estimating here.

20:27 is about 15-20 sec slower per mile than the women's Marathon record.

Are there 50 year old men that can run low 5's for 6km? I really have no idea.

What the hell kind of comparison is that? Linda Somers-Smith is a former Olympian in the marathon, and her marathon best from last year (2:36:33) age-grades to 2:15:59. I don't see even 40 year old men running close to that, age-graded or not.

oh please spare us wrote:

What the hell kind of comparison is that? Linda Somers-Smith is a former Olympian in the marathon, and her marathon best from last year (2:36:33) age-grades to 2:15:59. I don't see even 40 year old men running close to that, age-graded or not.

Comparing age-graded results are like comparing completely unrelated events by Mercier scores. It tells you how rare of a performance it is, but it doesn't really tell you how good because it doesn't consider the competitiveness of the event. I'm not bashing Somers-Smith and I think that her results are extremely impressive, but saying that her marathon time equates to a 2:15:59 is pushing it.

Get real - this is a fantastic performance but wouldn't be possible for a man due to much greater depth. This is MUCH more obvious at the club level - where females barely bother to compete.

Ian Doboson was a 2008 Olympian and placed 15th.

Nick Arciniaga-whatever is closer to the Marathon WR and is a better athlete (not accounting for lack of depth) than LSS was even during her prime. He was 39th this weekend.

It's a comparison from top (point A) to an arbitrary, comparable pace (point X) at the same distance. I'm just asking here, try not to be so volatile.

Like I said, I have no idea what master's men are doing at that distance. But at every level (HS, college, pro) times fall off a cliff in women's races from 1st to 10th to 20th to 100th etc. Whereas men's times are much more tightly bunched, even at longer distances such as the difference between 6 and 10 kilometers at NCAA cross. That hints at a comparative lack of depth.

And as the dude above me points out, age grading isn't exactly a science. At best it's horribly flawed.

Not trying to take the women and/or masters that are performing well down a peg, it's just the way the sport works.

2o2o2o2o2o2 wrote:

Comparing age-graded results are like comparing completely unrelated events by Mercier scores.

So you'd agree that making a theoretical, and inappropriately "linear", comparison between men and women, cross country vs. marathon, is ridiculous?

The Mercier calculator uses real data and ranks it so you can compare a normal population (men) to a non-normal population (women). So it's comparing 1st to 1st best, 20th to 20th best, 100 to 100th best, and so on. The Mercier calculator is updated every ~4-5 years, and guess what? The depth isn't changing, and the comparisons are still closely the same. "Theory" doesn't match what exists in the real-world. Obviously, it wouldn't be accurate to compare the steeplechase to the marathon (nor cross country to marathon!). Moreover, Master's women tend to perform better and maintain their fitness better than Master's men in the marathon.

This talk of "lack of depth" is garbage. More women ran road races last year than men (6.9 million of 13 million).

i saw her at some PA races this year...trust me, no certificate needed. she looks all of 55 or whatever.