Hobby jogger turned olympic trials qualifier

2:38 is probably legit since her slowdown from 5 to 10 K is only about 7 seconds/mile. I ran 2:38 but had 16:09/33:53 PR's, or over 20s/mile seconds slowdown, which more typical.

good enough plans for you wrote:

aren't we all hobby joggers if we don't make a living doing it?

Ugh.... NO

Sub240 wrote:

chinocochino wrote:

16:59 equates to about a 2:45. I didn't know she had a 2:38 under her belt.

Right. I have seen many cases where someone could run a 16:59 but not a 2:45. But you hardly ever see the reverse cases. 2:38 is clearly an outlier for her, she won't be able to repeat that at the trials.

I know, according to Canova, wind doesn't provide any benefits.

Paula is a pretty good candidate for the reverse case. Nothing she ran was even close to her 2:15. Even if you take that as an outlier and use her 2:17's she never ran close to that at the 5K or 10K distances.

Azaleas wrote:

Something tells me that hidey hoooo won't be running in Houston.

Actually, I am, and I'm faster.

To be fair, I didn't see that she had run 2:38 before, which is a lot better than the 16:58 5K. And to the other person, obviously, 2:38 is MUCH slower than 2:15.

hidey hoooo wrote:

Azaleas wrote:

Something tells me that hidey hoooo won't be running in Houston.

Actually, I am, and I'm faster.

Nutella1 wrote:

If W 2:38 equals M 2:15 what does Paulas WR equal to then? By your logic that would be around 1:54.

This isn't logic-- it's based on real stats. Mercier calculator, 4 years of real data.

Paula's time equals 1:59:42. She is much closer to the predicted biological limits, both the women's limit and if you convert it to the men's time. She actually has the most statistically superior world record of any of the world records.

hidey hoooo wrote:

Azaleas wrote:

Something tells me that hidey hoooo won't be running in Houston.

Actually, I am, and I'm faster.

Oh, well if you say so on Letsrun then I believe you! I'm most impressed at all that you've managed to run faster than 2:38.

Great story, but your "hobby jogger" snide snobby lead in shows you have a lot less class than the Olympic trial qualifier, you imbecile.

Azaleas wrote:

Oh, well if you say so on Letsrun then I believe you! I'm most impressed at all that you've managed to run faster than 2:38.

Finally, some respect. Thank you very much!

chinocochino wrote:

And to the other person, obviously, 2:38 is MUCH slower than 2:15.

No it's not. In terms of rank order, they're exactly on par. And this is based on real data.

good enough plans for you wrote:

aren't we all hobby joggers if we don't make a living doing it?

Amen! Everyone on this board is a f***ing hobby jogger!!!

LM wrote:

Paula is a pretty good candidate for the reverse case. Nothing she ran was even close to her 2:15. Even if you take that as an outlier and use her 2:17's she never ran close to that at the 5K or 10K distances.

I think she ran a 1:05 HM on a point to point course. Many have argued that this course is not easier than your typical record eligible HM course.

Adam C wrote:

Wang looks like a speedy runner.

http://www.aggiesrunning.com/Portals/0/Gallery/Album/1/714350-8538-0020web.jpghttp://lh3.ggpht.com/-I0vn_g2Jj58/TBa6xCrIJeI/AAAAAAAAACo/Jh_ZNfEFXBo/s640/CIMG0883.JPGhttp://lh3.ggpht.com/-x81ekvjIdWU/S5cESvk1CJI/AAAAAAAABgU/Amlkhdu_31k/s640/DSC_0033.jpghttp://lh3.ggpht.com/-8i4ze6d_8Vk/S9TPAqagihI/AAAAAAAACJg/bM4jZ_wk87g/DSC_0021.jpg

In the last photo, why is she running behind actor Ed Helms?

hidey hoooo wrote:

Nutella1 wrote:

If W 2:38 equals M 2:15 what does Paulas WR equal to then? By your logic that would be around 1:54.

This isn't logic-- it's based on real stats. Mercier calculator, 4 years of real data.

http://www.slsathletisme.com/Inscriptions/calc.php?lang=1

Paula's time equals 1:59:42. She is much closer to the predicted biological limits, both the women's limit and if you convert it to the men's time. She actually has the most statistically superior world record of any of the world records.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=trackandfield&id=3736960

Mercier scores compare the rarity of a performance, not the quality. There is much greater depth in men's road racing and track and field than there is in women's. I hope that anybody who thinks that a W 2:38 equates to a M 2:15 or that a W 2:15 equates to a M 1:59 in QUALITY of time is trolling. Did it ever occur to you that maybe Paula's time is so statistically superior because there are far fewer elite African women taking the marathon seriously than there are elite African men? Even if a fast woman comes along who could potentially challenge Paula's time, in order to do so, she would have to run pretty much the entire race alone. If the depth in the marathon were to improve so that you all of a sudden have groups of women running fast through 20 miles, like you do with the men, Paula's record would be challenged.

*cough* wrote:

If the depth in the marathon were to improve so that you all of a sudden have groups of women running fast through 20 miles, like you do with the men, Paula's record would be challenged.

You can have that when you run a mixed Marathon like Berlin. Shouldn't be too difficult (and quite affordable) to find five men who can pace Keitany to a 2:15. Total bill is probably around 50k USD. Well worth it. But it's not so easy to run 2:15, even when drafting.

This isn't true. There was an article a few weeks ago showing that more women ran road races last year than men. Mercier's calculator is updated about every 5 years, and the comparison between genders has remained consistently the same, despite the increasing number of women running road races.

Your opinion is moot compared to real statistics. I'm definitely not trolling. The data is very clear and consistent-- 2:38 equals 2:15. Anybody who thinks differently needs to take a statistics course.

More and more African women are moving to the marathon. Everyone has these great expectations, and yet once again they come up short BY MINUTES. It happens over and over again. It clearly shows the superiorness of Paula's time.

A 2:38 is nearly a minute per mile slower than a 2:15. Do you also think that a woman running a 4:40 mile has done the equivalent of El G's world record? Lol.

"This isn't true. There was an article a few weeks ago showing that more women ran road races last year than men. Mercier's calculator is updated about every 5 years, and the comparison between genders has remained consistently the same, despite the increasing number of women running road races."

So what? You know as well as I do that the vast majority of race finishers (both male and female) are there to participate with friends and family - not to race. If you look at the faster results of any given road race, you're going to find that on average, there are more men within X percent of the WR than there are women. This indicates that there is more depth in men's COMPETITIVE running.

"Your opinion is moot compared to real statistics. I'm definitely not trolling. The data is very clear and consistent-- 2:38 equals 2:15. Anybody who thinks differently needs to take a statistics course."

I'm not saying that 2:38 doesn't equate to 2:15 statistically. I'm saying that 2:38 doesn't equate to 2:15 in terms of actual quality. It isn't rarer to run a 2:15 as a man than 2:38 as a woman, but it is harder. If there were as many women running 100 mile weeks with hard workouts as there were men, a W 2:38 would be a lot less rare than a M 2:15.

*cough* wrote:

If you look at the faster results of any given road race, you're going to find that on average, there are more men within X percent of the WR than there are women. This indicates that there is more depth in men's COMPETITIVE running.

That's your opinion, despite what the data has shown the last 30 years. It could also mean there's something inherently, or physiologically, different about the women's population. As such, you could never make a linear comparison between the populations because it violates the statistical assumption that both populations follow a normal distribution.

I'm not saying that 2:38 doesn't equate to 2:15 statistically. I'm saying that 2:38 doesn't equate to 2:15 in terms of actual quality.

Yes it does. The stats show that by rank order (place wise), 2:38 equals 2:15. They are on par with each other. Amazingly, this has remained consistent, even with 5 year updates by the Mercier calculator. From a statistical standpoint, rank order is the only way you can compare the populations (for the reason mentioned above).