For all you who said Kara Goucher was Done, Are you choking on your foot now???

You do realize that this was a somewhat controlled effort for Goucher too right? She was supposed to run 71 min and she did just that. Said there was more left in the tank. She is shooting for 225 shape by the trials. We will see if she can do it.Its arguable that Goucher next really went for a "fast" marathon. Her PR is from Boston. I don't believe she has run Chicago or Berlin or London or another similar course. A high 224 on Boston is probably worth 2 min or so faster on a "fast" course. So the fact that she ran 107 on a net downhill course doesn't mean that because she ran a controlled effort on a fairly hilly course she will not be able to get into 225 shape by the trials.For what it's worth, I also don't believe that Cragg's effort was as controlled as she is playing it off to be today. Her PR is only a minute faster, and the course wasn't super easy. I'm thinking that her partnership with Shalane will either bring her the extra way or cause her to overtrain before the trials. No way they should be even tempoing at the same pace, in my opinion.

Wft wrote:

You do realize that her pr is 1:07 back when she was running 2:25 lol.

Flanagan and kastor used this as a training run.

Flanagan has come thru halfway at a marathon at this pace....not impressive as kastor has run 1:10 flat at 40 and May place 5th

Believe. . wrote:

I figured you're too busy choking on you foot, which explains the lack of congratulatory threads.

chocking on "yoo're" food.

You mean that year Boston had a huge tailwind? Karas debut at NYCM under Alberto Salazar is arguably her best marathon. A minute slower than her tailwind Boston PR on a harder course. At that time her half were 2-3 minutes faster. I give Kara her credit for the win today but lets not make this something its not. She did not look relaxed those last few miles while Shalane and Amy Cragg did and if she raced today, as she claims, then I would have expected a lower time. Also, Cragg training with Shalane is going to be a huge mental boost for her. I see Cragg in third on Trials day.

hush wrote:

You do realize that this was a somewhat controlled effort for Goucher too right? She was supposed to run 71 min and she did just that. Said there was more left in the tank. She is shooting for 225 shape by the trials. We will see if she can do it.

Its arguable that Goucher next really went for a "fast" marathon. Her PR is from Boston. I don't believe she has run Chicago or Berlin or London or another similar course. A high 224 on Boston is probably worth 2 min or so faster on a "fast" course. So the fact that she ran 107 on a net downhill course doesn't mean that because she ran a controlled effort on a fairly hilly course she will not be able to get into 225 shape by the trials.

Kara could be an Olympian again, though I wouldn't predict it. The women's Trials field is not at all deep, and if a couple of people are hurt or falter, she could make it.

Ok, I see your point about her PR from Boston, but at that time she was running 1:09. Its not inconceivable that she could have dipped into the 1:10 XX range today if she had competition. How do the two courses compare? From my understanding, NY is easier. Also, NY would have been farther into her buildup, as it is just one month before the race. In January of that year, 3 months before Boston, she ran slower than a 1:11:49 half (can't find the exact time, but that was the winner- she was second). I have no information about the course in Arizona, but Deena Kastor had run a 1:09:XX on it the previous year.Look, I'm not saying it is likely that she will make the team. All I'm saying is that her running 1:11 today doesn't mean she can't run 2:25 by February.

I figured you're too busy choking on you foot, which explains the lack of congratulatory threads.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/12/kara-goucher-wins-rock-n-roll-san-antonio-half-marathon-shalane-flanagan-amy-cragg-real-winner-will-determined-olympic-trials/

As far as Shalane goes, I thought I read that she had some injury issue after Worlds, which might explain why she is playing it conservative.

Sure, you don't believe that Kara went all out (she did), but you believe that Cragg did. Kara went all out. Cragg didn't. Live with it. You know nothing about elite distance running.

That may be the case, I wasn't there. I didn't say that Cragg went all out, but I did say that this was faster than 'controlled tempo pace' for her, as she is 6 min slower than Shalane and this is one minute off her pr. Maybe Kara did run all out, but she said she had more in the tank. She also ran solo for more than half the race, while Shalane and Cragg had company. As someone who has followed these 2 ladies as well as women's elite distance running for the better part of a decade through ups and downs, I know one thing: we will just have to see in February. Man I wish it were easier to have a legitimate conversation about Women's elite distance running on these boards.

Post-race interview.

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/252788-Rock-n-Roll-San-Antonio-Half-Marathon-2015/video/807916-Kara-Goucher-after-solo-effort-win-in-San-Antonio-Half-Marathon#.VmT3NoTfORt

Kara being over 3 minutes off her PR, I would personally stick a fork in her. But you can wait until February for the U.S. Olympic Team Trials Marathon where Kara cannot place in the top 10.

[quote]hush wrote:

Ok, I see your point about her PR from Boston, but at that time she was running 1:09. Its not inconceivable that she could have dipped into the 1:10 XX range today if she had competition. How do the two courses compare? From my understanding, NY is easier. Also, NY would have been farther into her buildup, as it is just one month before the race. In January of that year, 3 months before Boston, she ran slower than a 1:11:49 half (can't find the exact time, but that was the winner- she was second). I have no information about the course in Arizona, but Deena Kastor had run a 1:09:XX on it the previous year.

[quote]hush wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Arizona RnR HM, if so, the course is mostly flat, with some small hills but nothing major. It is definitely considered a fast PR course.

Interesting. So basically she ran about 112 3 months out if the wind aided Boston on a PR course

I hope Kara is back in racing shape just so I have a reason to look at pictures of her. Shes an absolute smokeshow

swaggyp wrote:

I hope Kara is back in racing shape just so I have a reason to look at pictures of her. Shes an absolute smokeshow

Although those sunglasses arent a good look

chatham wrote:

Not a d-bag. But it is a cocky look.

A backwards hat makes you look like male genitalia?

G-Spotter wrote:

I think a big dig against Kara has been that while she is obviously talented, her psychology has perhaps fallen short of some of the more stoic runners like Deena and Shalane. I now see that she either has developed a new level of mental strength or it has been there and is now revealed after her struggles with adversity. Kudos, straight up.

My problem with Kara is that after a bad race she would cry, offer up excuses, etc. Everyone has bad races. It's how you handle them that give people fodder for bashing. I hope she makes a comeback, and hopefully the aforementioned "mental strength" will stay with her.

Believe. . wrote:

I figured you're too busy choking on you foot, which explains the lack of congratulatory threads.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/12/kara-goucher-wins-rock-n-roll-san-antonio-half-marathon-shalane-flanagan-amy-cragg-real-winner-will-determined-olympic-trials/

I will admit to it. I thought she was more than done. Good for her, less antics more running. And if there is any compliment one should throw her way is that she looks ripped as sh*t.

Shhhhhhhh wrote:

Sure, you don't believe that Kara went all out (she did), but you believe that Cragg did. Kara went all out. Cragg didn't. Live with it. You know nothing about elite distance running.

LOL ... Cragg and Flanagan are given imaginary excuses by the Kara haters. Maybe Cragg and Flanagan are DONE.