Flanagan's record(?) attempt

I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.

The USATF will allow it as a national record. Look it up yourself in the USATF competition rules.

The IAAF wouldn't consider it a world record but who cares? She ain't running a WR.

honestly... wrote:

I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.

Exactly

It's gonna be fun to see her go for the American Record. I'm rooting for her, but I don't expect a record. I'm thinking 2:20-2:22 depending how she feels. 2:24 if weather is bad or she has a really bad day.

Sir Hanlon wrote:

honestly... wrote:

I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.

Exactly

No. It was so the elite women would actually have to race each other. Rather than have their male domestique pacing & fetching water for them.

messi wrote:

Sir Hanlon wrote:

Exactly

No. It was so the elite women would actually have to race each other. Rather than have their male domestique pacing & fetching water for them.

Same thing. What you described is a reason it's better for spectators.

Sir Hanlon wrote:

The USATF will allow it as a national record. Look it up yourself in the USATF competition rules.

The IAAF wouldn't consider it a world record but who cares? She ain't running a WR.

So no IAAF Area Record either, if Shalane were to beat Deana's time.

shalane says that she's gonna fvck sh-t up!

Area code xy wrote:

So no IAAF Area Record either, if Shalane were to beat Deana's time.

Who cares about Area Records? USATF will consider it a record, as will TFN, so it'll be in all of the record books that really count and fans will consider it the AR, too.

So is Paula's 2:15:25 no longer the IAAF world record?

The cat is already out of the bag. We can have the fastest time by an American woman (the American record) and also the fastest time by women in all women's races.

honestly... wrote:

I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.

I'm confused, how are the women going first not as exciting for the spectators? Every time I go to the NYC Marathon people are going crazy over the first women and then again for the first men. It's like watching two different exciting

races right after the other.

whatthewhatthewhat wrote:

honestly... wrote:

I think they send the women first just so the '1st' woman isn't the 80th runner. It's not that exciting for spectators.

I'm confused, how are the women going first not as exciting for the spectators? Every time I go to the NYC Marathon people are going crazy over the first women and then again for the first men. It's like watching two different exciting

races right after the other.

You two are in agreement. He meant that the 1st woman being 80th place isn't as exciting.

He is saying that they do it that way so that there are two races to be watched. If the 1st woman is embedded deep in the race, it isn't as exciting and climactic, so they have them start before the men so there are two distinct races.

Sir Hanlon wrote:

The USATF will allow it as a national record. Look it up yourself in the USATF competition rules.

The IAAF wouldn't consider it a world record but who cares? She ain't running a WR.

Sir, you are dead-on right about several things.

1. She ain't breaking 2:16 and neither is anybody else so WR rules are a moot point.

2. If she does go under the AR it only has to count to her, her fans, and her sponsors (Nike may actually care whether or not USATF recognizes it)

3. As to #2 above, it will but she won't. 2:20 high is realistic. 2:20 low would be great and I'm rooting for her.

4. The separate start does make watching more fun, and no marathons did/do this that aren't on TV. (Shorter races - Carlsbad, Boulder Boulder, etc - do run separately)

5. Whether or not she brings an 'official' pacer or domestique, being surrounded may make things psychologically easier - again, even if they're all strangers. Of course, your employee fetching drinks, plowing other folks out of the way and breaking wind really does make it physically easier.

6. As to #5, Paula had none of the advantages of an actual employee helping in any way nor of being in a crowd and whatever mental stress that removes.

wejo wrote:

So is Paula's 2:15:25 no longer the IAAF world record?

The cat is already out of the bag. We can have the fastest time by an American woman (the American record) and also the fastest time by women in all women's races.

She is. The IAAF split the WR categories into two. The mixed race wr and all women wr. Paula holds both records, her 2.17:25 is the fastest all women wr and the 2.15 is the mixed race wr.

Shalane will be kicking herself when she runs 2:14 with male pacers and all she gets is the "mixed race World Record".

The red-headed step child of world records if there ever was one.

Netwerk Errer wrote:

the 2.15 is the mixed race wr.

I thought Paula was all white?