Shalane says her legs are too long to win Boston

outsiderunner wrote:

To be honest, when I saw the two of them coming to the line in that last 200m, I thought: Rotich is the winner. In that situation, as long as there is something left in the tank, the runner with the longer legs/stride has the upper hand.

Leg length has nothing to do with closing speed when two runners take it to the very end of a distance race. Geb vs. Tergat in the 10,000m in Sydney is a great example of significant height/leg length between two runners battling it out in the final seconds. It didn't hurt Geb.

I'm thinking there is no advantage either way, or else tall people would gravitate naturally towards distance running. You'd see more tall people "naturally" doing well. And it doesn't happen. Short people do well if they are thin - it's not from being short. I don't see pygmies winning marathons.

I believe the slightly better ability at turnover (shorter people) is cancelled out by taller people's slightly better ability at stride length. It all works out the same.

Every year shalane makes stupid predictions, loses, and goes on and on with excuses without congratulating her competitors. Why is her appearance fee so high again? It's not like shes that attractive.

Overtrained

easy weeks wrote:

I'm thinking there is no advantage either way, or else tall people would gravitate naturally towards distance running. You'd see more tall people "naturally" doing well. And it doesn't happen. Short people do well if they are thin - it's not from being short. I don't see pygmies winning marathons.

Statistically it's better to be short for long distances and tall for sprints. But statistics isn't very interesting when it comes to individuals. However, to me, Kennster and Geb are pygmies.

maybe her legs aren't too long, her torso is too short ??

outsiderunner wrote:

Deba

Dibaba

Keitany (93 pounds!)

Cherop...

all tiny ladies.

Yes, Paula is the exception...she is very, very lean though (under 110).

Paula is 5'9"/118. If she reads Letsrun, she's probably laughing about this thread!

Africans are so good cause they HAVE LONG LEGS. Having a higher center of gravity is an advantageous. Shalane is stupid.

Shalane's legs are good enough for me.

outsiderunner wrote:

Good points...yes, Rotich has a body similar to that of Shalane...but that little lady battled her all the way to the end. To be honest, when I saw the two of them coming to the line in that last 200m, I thought: Rotich is the winner. In that situation, as long as there is something left in the tank, the runner with the longer legs/stride has the upper hand. Overall, Rotich simply "had it" on that day--enough to hang well with those carrying less weight, and then out-kick a smaller runner at the very end.

I'm guessing you've never heard of Miruts Yifter.

Yakkety Yak wrote:

I don't know if her legs are too long, but her mouth is too big and her heart is too small.

Ummm. Ever heard of Tergat?

So from that pic, it looks like the top Americans (Kara & Shalane) are suited up more like clowns than runners. The Africans wear shoes shorts and a top. Our babes wear 3D glasses, over hyped leg and arm warmers, 80's neon colored bikini running suits. Embarrassing to say the least.

Didn't Shalane run 2:22 at Boston LAST YEAR?

The Boston course is a challenge to race to say the least. The recovery from the course is more of a challenge.

One could think a certain body type would perform better on the Boston course. Perhaps a study. Where are the grad students?

I was second to two 5' 2" 100 lbs runners, Joanie and Jackie. I was also second to Allison 5' 9" 130 lbs.(?) When I ran the course I was 104 lbs on 5' 4 1/2 frame, though my inseam is 32" (each time a pr)

Look at Boston Billy 5' 10" 115-120 lbs on race day.

However, I do think training has more to do with doing well on the course, than the length of leg.

Gelindo Bordin was 5' 10" and weighed 150.

jjjjjj wrote:

Didn't Shalane run 2:22 at Boston LAST YEAR?

Yes, but remember that her long legs weren't the problem that day, it was Jeptoo the doper......and the several other East Africans that finished in front of her.

The closer a runner gets to the end of their career, the more desperate their excuses.

Thank you for the interesting input, patti. Those little ladies can be very tough on that type of course. Your 32-inch inseam does make for some long legs. I am 5'6" (and male) and your inseam is longer than mine. I tend to think that everything has some type of impact, and if one can maximize one's strengths/gifts, then one will be successful. Certainly, you were successful.

Simple Answer wrote:

Overtrained

Based on the RW interview, that seems like a simple, probable option--and/or a very poorly designed taper.

How does she taper to run a very fast 10,000? I doubt she allowed her body to recover prior to Boston as she she has for those....

I don't know at what point post-race Shalane gave that interview, but I'd think she would would want to take that comment back.

Point#1 Shalane's legs aren't abnormally long. She's not that tall and people with similar physiques have won.

Point#2 She was second at NYC, which is far from a time trial course. I think she would fare well in top shape in any course. Boston is tough but more like NYC than Berlin/Chicago. Her place at Berlin was 4th on a flat course, perfect day. Which course fits her then?

Point #3 Winning Boston has more to do with luck when you are not better than all the other marathoners. Shalane comes in with a 2' slower PR than Dibaba and Deba, why should she win? If she ran 2:17 and keeps losing at Boston, she'd have a point that she's not fitted for a challenging course.