Shannon Rowbury just misses. Comes up .04 short from becoming 5th woman in history at sub-2 and sub-15.

THat's a huge pb for Lynsey Sharp. Her pb was 1:58.80.

Just 1cc away.

Thank god she doesn't have to shower near penises!

Really too bad she missed. She would have been sub-2, sub-4, sub-8:30, and sub-15. How many have done this?

Fastest woman in all three events never to finish first in any race at a world or national level.

Portlandish wrote:

Just 1cc away.

AlSal has tweak cc's downward because the heat is on too high. Just wait and the cc's of the latest sauce will help Rowbury towards US GOAT status.

FifthPlaceHerNiche wrote:

Fastest woman in all three events never to finish first in any race at a world or national level.

She did win a Diamond League 3k but I guess you are not counting that.

Also apparently disregarding 3 x USATF champion.

almost wrote:

FifthPlaceHerNiche wrote:

Fastest woman in all three events never to finish first in any race at a world or national level.

She did win a Diamond League 3k but I guess you are not counting that.

Interesting to compare her pbs to Simpson. I think most people would say that Simpson's career has been more successful, but Shannon has the best times.

Distance: Rowbury, Simpson

800M: 2:00.03, 2:00.45

1500M: 3:56.29, 3:57.22

Mile: 4:20.34, 4:25.91 (i)

3K: 8:29.93, 8:29.58

5K: 14:48.68, 14:56.26

almost wrote:

Really too bad she missed. She would have been sub-2, sub-4, sub-8:30, and sub-15. How many have done this?

Why are you guys making this out to be such a significant superlative? Give her credit for improving her own PRs and progress but being "5th woman to be sub 2 and sub 15" is not significant. Someone just ran 1:58 to close a 1500 while also near to running 14:00 for 5000. Several people could do sub 2 and sub 15 if they tried so focusing on her being the 5th is inflated and inaccurate.

Go Shannon!

Prosper wrote:

almost wrote:

Really too bad she missed. She would have been sub-2, sub-4, sub-8:30, and sub-15. How many have done this?

Why are you guys making this out to be such a significant superlative? Give her credit for improving her own PRs and progress but being "5th woman to be sub 2 and sub 15" is not significant. Someone just ran 1:58 to close a 1500 while also near to running 14:00 for 5000. Several people could do sub 2 and sub 15 if they tried so focusing on her being the 5th is inflated and inaccurate.

Go Shannon!

How is it inaccurate? It's just a bit of trivia - no one is suggesting it is more than that. Are there other runners who are more than capable of sub-2 and sub-15? No doubt, including even Slaney.

It is it a big deal? Not really. Is it accurate? Absolutely.

The girls that have gone sub 2 and sub 15 are?

';lkj wrote:

The girls that have gone sub 2 and sub 15 are?

Sonia O'Sullivan. The others?

To note also Genzebe Dibaba with a sub 1:57 last 800m in Beijing...

Dang just looked up Slaney and she has both a 1:56 and 8:25. Pretty sick coverage right there. Shannon is nowhere near either and yet she has a faster 1500.

Also, Rowbury's career is on an upswing. Simpson's isn't. Rowbury has had the better season, is very likely to be #1 American. Next year's Trials should be interesting.

almost wrote:

Interesting to compare her pbs to Simpson. I think most people would say that Simpson's career has been more successful, but Shannon has the best times.

Distance: Rowbury, Simpson

800M: 2:00.03, 2:00.45

1500M: 3:56.29, 3:57.22

Mile: 4:20.34, 4:25.91 (i)

3K: 8:29.93, 8:29.58

5K: 14:48.68, 14:56.26

Ummm. You kinda forgot an event. The 3000M SC. I know shannon doesn't do it but Simpson was national champ and american record holders. Plus her WC medal and Silver count too.

Also she has run under 4:00 a lot more than shannon.

That's why people think, and it's true, that Simpson has had the more successful career.

Geez, why let facts get in the way of sweeping comments?

Dr. Know wrote:

Also apparently disregarding 3 x USATF champion.

almost wrote:

She did win a Diamond League 3k but I guess you are not counting that.

Not anymore, nonetheless.

almost there wrote:

How is it inaccurate?

...

Are there other runners who are more than capable of sub-2 and sub-15? No doubt.

You answered your own question. Mentioning her rank (5th) makes it inaccurate. It would have been more accurate to just leave it at "Shannon Rowbury joins the sub 2/sub 15 club". Including 5th carries additional weight as if she is the 5th most able.