Had someone else been setting the same pace for the lead group, allowing her to sit in the pack, Shalane showed she had the fitness to run 2:18-2:19. She has very similar fitness to Paula at her peak, probably about 1-1.5% less power output.
Had someone else been setting the same pace for the lead group, allowing her to sit in the pack, Shalane showed she had the fitness to run 2:18-2:19. She has very similar fitness to Paula at her peak, probably about 1-1.5% less power output.
I am impressed by Flanagan, so I imagine she is the top American, or Huddle.
wr potential wrote:
I agree with Ventolin on the built up frustration. She probably suspected it herself for a long time.
What's the closest that any other 'Caucasian' has gotten to Paula's times? In all events.. I remember a Portuguese Marathon runner Ribeiro, and Jo Pavey is the closest Brit to her.. she was also the first non-African home in the 2008 (5k, 10k), with Bleasdale behind her and Huddle just behind them in 5k, and Japan, USA, Europe behind in 10k. She's broken 14:40 and 30:55 and has been competing with Radcliffe all her life (same age), sometimes beating her in her youth, and also probably being first non-African home in the 2004 5k (beating Ejigu, Abeye and Masai). She's also ran 4 Olympics, showing similar consistency for little reward.
Jo ran well, just didn't get to the level of Radcliffe - her marathon career didn't develop really, many 5k/10k people don't (Nenow for example or Todd Williams).
Radcliffe's idol was Ingrid Kristiansen - similar type of runner, no kick. What fueled IK's rise? Coming 4th at the Olympics in 1984, and her later competition with Benoit (who was also a runner with a high, intense training load, but not a track star like others - so a marathon specialist really). They didn't have the advantage of rabbitts as Paula had in her marathons, at least not to the same degree. IK ran 14.37 and 30.13 in the 1980's basically training solo in Norway, doing much of her winter training on a treadmill, when not XC skiing - one would hope that the level and knowledge of training for women has improved since then (that was the first women's OG marathon afterall). Could she have been doping? Of course (it goes with XC skiing), but so could Shorter or Rodgers or anyone else running fast from a similar or an even earlier era since testing wasn't as stringent as today.
As to the guy thinking that Radcliffe can't run fast because she is British (which is really his point). Other than Mo F., where are all the male Brits to emulate the guys from the 1980's? (Ovett, Coe, Cram, Elliott, Moorcroft, etc. or marathon like Spedding or Jones)? Could the same claim be made against the Irish? (Coughlin, Treacy,etc.) It shouldn't be that difficult to maintain that level of development, unless all those guys were doping as well (a GB conspiracy even though all these guys trained separately). Radcliffe was a WJr XC champion also 4th at world juniors on the track (8.51), who continued on to a good Senior career, as she was able to tolerate a high training load (according to Gerard Hartmann greater than most others could handle, even her husband - who was a 3.34 guy himself). I also think that is why she is the beat up runner she is today - a shell of the runner she was a decade ago. You can only beat up your body for so long, which she had to do (unlike say Lagat) in order to get to that level. She had a known Track background, unlike say Ndereva (see Benoit above)that any knowledgeable observer would see could translate to a good road ability. She spent years getting trashed on the track doing ALL the work yet often coming up empty handed - the mental gift (if you don't quit first, which some do) is to make you tougher. It is not as if she ran sub-2h20 for a decade either, it was only a few years then she started to deteriorate from the stress (even while winning 3 NY marathons in 2h23, slow for her).
This is also why I don't think Dibaba will ever run a truly fast marathon, relative to her track exploits - I don't think she wants to train that hard - with her kick it has all come too easily for her. She could not do it solo certainly, her only hope is that she can hang with some of the Kenyan women who pull her through, which means that a number of people will have to be at that level for it to happen for her.
To some degree it is sad that it will now (it seems) be rare to see someone at the highest level for all three disciplines (Track, road and XC). With World XC becoming an afterthought, and Marathons taking people away from the track, we will be dealing with specialists more often than not in future.
radcliffe is the most outrageous doper in history
The problem is that Bekele competing in an era where EPO use was ripe (it doesn't strain belief that every top level athlete was using it - they certainly were in cycling). Add in the fact that his fiancee died at age 18 - which could be a coincidence but it's more likely she overdosed on EPO like the young Dutch cyclists in the mid-80's.
I guess it's certainly possible that both are clean but knowing what we now do of the era I think it's highly likely that they were both on EPO.
Hey bud, I know that those guys might be your British heroes but none of them have accomplished what Radcliffe has. It would have been like if Coe ran 3:23 in the 15 not something as common as 3:28-29. There are other white men running 3:30 like Webb and wheating but not a WR in the 15. Sorry Bud. The gap between Radcliffe and everyone else in history is tremendous. She runs faster than most men.
None of those guys have a WR right now. Their times are all unimpressive compared to the WR's of today. But I would concede if a white British guy ran a WR in the 15/5k/10k/marathon right now. It won't happen.
I do believe that Dibaba could break Radcliffe's WR. But again the GENETICS are there! It drives me crazy when people say that someone is faster than another person because they "work/train harder" than everyone else. Everyone in this sport should know that it's the combination that gets you places and to say that a world class runner like Dibaba isn't motivated to train hard is just ignorant.
AGAIN this is all just what I believe. You don't have to.
Chet Manly wrote:
The problem is that Bekele competing in an era where EPO use was ripe (it doesn't strain belief that every top level athlete was using it - they certainly were in cycling). Add in the fact that his fiancee died at age 18 - which could be a coincidence but it's more likely she overdosed on EPO like the young Dutch cyclists in the mid-80's.
I guess it's certainly possible that both are clean but knowing what we now do of the era I think it's highly likely that they were both on EPO.
This is where we differ. I do not choose to believe that every WR is dirty. I recognize the EPO era but choose to believe which records are valid based off the individual's entire career, genetics, the gap from the WR to the rest of the elite runner cohort, ect. Paula's stands out to me.
Thanks for whoever caught her wrote:
This is where we differ. I do not choose to believe that every WR is dirty. I recognize the EPO era but choose to believe which records are valid based off the individual's entire career, genetics, the gap from the WR to the rest of the elite runner cohort, ect. Paula's stands out to me.
And when exactly did you perform a genetic analysis on these runners?
I'm happy that you asked this :)
It's nice to have some more context to go off.. the 80s was before my time so I have no idea really on all that stuff. But it's fair to say that Dibaba is the fastest by speed out of her little quartet, so it would be hardest for her to step up to the Marathon. Paula is perfect for it, basically having 100% slow twitch. The track races were like a sprint for her! 1500m? That's like a 40m acceleration race lol.
Is it fair to say that the British runners have done equally as well as the American runners? They're probably from the same stock, although USA is a melting pot of UK, Germany, Italy, other countries in Europe etc.
Link wrote:Actually, I think Paula's marathon time is out of line with the rest of her performances. The difference is that - in that era - testing at marathons was rudimentary at best. So, the argument kind of goes the other way. Personally, I think her marathon time (and I know I might as well be drawing a pentagram on the ground and summoning Ventolin....) is about equivalent to
1. 29:10
2. 14:05
3. 3:52
i'm pretty confident for the following numbers
28'00 = 61'19 = 2"09'11
27'00 = 59'12 = 2"04'58
then go here to get 800 - 10k :
https://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/filecabinetit's under "Malmo Files" as "Ventolin worksheet"
for paula, her 2"15'25 i get as =
1'57.1 = 3'56.6 = 8'18.7 = 14'16.1 = 29'29
but then remember she had some pacing & nice wind & 2"17 has been mentioned as "true" value of that run
for the record i'll post what slower M values equate to ( think of them for men, as women's times are poor )
2"20'00 = 2'02.3 = 4'06.3 = 8'38.2 = 14'48.6 = 30'34
2"19'00 = 2'01.2 = 4'04.2 = 8'34.0 = 14'41.6 = 30'20
2"18'00 = 2'00.1 = 4'02.1 = 8'29.8 = 14'34.6 = 30'06
2"17'00 = 1'59.0 = 4'00.0 = 8'25.6 = 14'27.6 = 29'52
if you use 2"17'00, it actually stack up well with her track runs ( she says she did a 4'01tt in her book )
surprisingly, her 8'22 maya been best track run of her life !
Explain how there were favorable winds on a course like London....
London is not a loop course. A favorable East wind will give you an advantage.
rekrunner wrote:
London is not a loop course. A favorable East wind will give you an advantage.
but for how much?
it's a loop for most part of the course.
And that also stacks up well with her 30:01 10k which would have been a WR in 2002 Commonwealth Games. So they fit her well... so why is every other woman slower in a Marathon? Too much fast twitch to carry? For Paula the shorter distances are the hard events, she has to sprint faster than she can go. For the fast girls, the longer it is the harder it is for them to get the endurance to run it. So those numbers work great for Paula. Looking at a long time trace I think women will break 2:17 again in not that long, Jeptoo already got under 2:20. Paula has just moved on the times 10 years early like Kristiansen did.
Also I'm pretty sure the London course ends up miles to the west of wherever the starting point is. It only loops back on itself for part of the starting few miles.
wr potential wrote:And that also stacks up well with her 30:01 10k which would have been a WR in 2002 Commonwealth Games
are you ignoring wang's 29'31 ?
even if paula had good conditions/pacing to 5k, i doubt she wouda gone better than ~ 29'50 that day
even though wang's 29'31 was a serious -ve split run with 15'05/14'26 with 8'17 finish, 29'31 is the sorta time these african gals today shoud be running now, as it's not that impressive compared to lower distances
29'31 = 1'57.3 = 3'56.9 = 8'19.5 = 14'17.5
Wang's marathon potential according to your grinder?
It's a loop for most part of the course? See for yourself. The course map can be found here:http://static.london-marathon.co.uk/uploads/marathon-centre/coursemap_2014.pdfLooking at the current course map, the start and end points are some 7.3 miles (11.8 km) from each other (the finish is mostly west, and a little north of the start), or about 28% of the total distance. By my rough count, a wind coming from the east (or south east) would help for 14 miles, would hinder for 7 (3 of which are downhill at the beginning), and is ambiguous for the rest. A stiff prevailing wind from the east helps more than it hurts. So imagine Paula in 2003, starting fresh, ran 3 miles against the wind, downhill. Then, over the next 23 miles, 14 were with a tailwind, 4 were against the wind, and 5 were either cross-winds, or a mix. This is a record eligible course that can have a significant wind advantage.The race report at http://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/marathon-centre/history-london-marathon/race-report-2003/ mentions "temperatures at a lowly 10ºC at the start, and rising just 6 degrees during the race" and that "Radcliffe also had the assistance of a south-easterly breeze for much of the race". Paula commented to the BBC moments after the race "We got a good day. It was a bit windy but it seemed the wind was behind us more than it was in front of us." http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2943913.stmHow much advantage can the wind give? The ARRS keeps track of elite performances, and computed a statistical 1:45 advantage for the elite women in London 2003. For reference, they computed a smaller advantage for Boston 2011, a 1:37 advantage for the men, and 1:42 advantage for the women.
mmm... wrote:
rekrunner wrote:London is not a loop course. A favorable East wind will give you an advantage.
but for how much?
it's a loop for most part of the course.
edward teach wrote:
Unsurprising. Russians have no morals. They care nothing for sportsmanship or fair play. Russia and Turkey should be banned from international competition. 2 years is not long enough of a ban. Wasn't the iaaf going to make it 4 starting in 2014?
Better than the 1 year backdated given to Gay