What is the basis of a comparison to Shalane, one of the best US women distance runners ever, especially in a negative connotation? This thread should be in a positive light to recognize a great performance. She should be used as a role model not only in her hard work and dedication to running but more so as a example on how to live with everything she overcame and in the way she lives by example every day.
Serena Burla just ran 2:26:53 for 4th in the Osaka Women's Marathon.
Pro News/Info/Results
Marathons
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
fun with stats wrote:
gfhfrgt wrote:
For starters, you're conflating recreational running with elite-level competition: the number of people in the "open age" category doesn't tell us anything about competition among elites.
No I'm not. The Mercier calculator uses the IAAF performance rankings over many years, and yet there isn't a linear drop off. I actually did the same thing with an Excel spreadsheet to visually see it, and again there is not a linear drop off between elite men and women- nevermind how it exponentially grows as you get into recreational level running. It is not an appropriate means to use a linear value of comparison between two populations when one of them doesn't follow a normal distribution.
I like how you tout your use of "indisputable" stats and yet show your inability to use them in any nuanced way. If 2:26-high equals 2:07-high on the men's side, then what's the equivalent male performance for a 2:19 woman?
Why should I spoon feed you, when you can do it yourself? You can either create your own spread sheet and rank-order and average several yrs of data, or take the IAAF all time performance rankings and see what matches up to 2:19. I see 2:03:12 as the male equivalent.
Luckily, though, everyone else on this thread seems to agree that Burla's performance is worth something in the 2:10-2:13 range. Again, none of this is meant to detract from her great performance, only to put it in its proper context.
Objective statistics trumps subjective opinion.
The problem is that you're assuming that the Mercier table actually provides accurate performance equivalents. That's not at all the case. The Mercier table assumes equivalence across gender and events right from the start by equating the, say, tenth-ranked performance in event x with the tenth-ranked performance in all other events. In this way it favors events with less depth (e.g. field events versus -- to remove this from the context of gender for a sec -- more popular events like the 100m).
And my question about the 2:19 was rhetorical -- no spoon-feeding is necessary. Your claim that a time gap of nearly eight minutes in elite female marathoning (i.e. 2:26-high versus 2:19) is somehow equivalent to only about 4.5 minutes in elite male marathoning (i.e. 2:07-high versus 2:03-low) demonstrates the absurd conclusions your system leads to.
But like I said, no one here agrees with you, and most people can already see that the Mercier tables are complete bunk except for, say, determining qualifying standards for championships at the collegiate and international level. So while you're obviously free to reply, I'm not going to prolong this debate any further.
P.S. And your repeated claims about the supposed objectivity of statistics are demonstrably false. Read up: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674009691 -
Not sure if you're a registered troll but the comparison explains why these boards aren't "blowing up" over a 2:26:53. It's great for her and others but not THAT great. There are plenty of role models doing great things and plenty of good mothers and people who teach children. These boards are suppose to focus more on running. I mean how many guys that run a 2:11 get "but he's a really good dad!"
-
Not many, because not many run 2;11, let alone are dads who run 2:11
-
But, son, this board constantly discusses character. See all the comments about doping, Al Sal, the Eatons. As a coach I am just as interested in the character of my runners as I am of their times.
-
Burla is an interesting case. She's consistently shown and ability to go fast marathons and run consistent pace, to patiently wait for others to die off, and to finish well. What she's not shown is an ability to compete well in championship races such as Olympic Trials, etc. here in the US. Aside from that strong run in the Houston Half, she's also been pretty much an "also ran" in shorter distances.
Until she shows that ability to compete well,not just run well, and to do more than just the marathon, she won't inspire the kind of excitement she could even with a performance like this. -
point well taken.
-
How is this not good?
15:47 5000m
32:17 10,000m
1:10:08 1/2 Marathon, also 1:10:48, 1:10:55, 1:11:24, 1:11:38
2:26:53 Marathon, also a 2:28:01, 2:28:27 and 2:30:40.
CAREER HIGHLIGHTS
7th PLACE // 2016 CHICAGO MARATHON
8th PLACE // 2016 US OLYMPIC TRIALS MARATHON
10TH PLACE // 2015 IAAF WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS MARATHON // BEJING, CHINA
1ST PLACE // 2014 USA HALF MARATHON CHAMPIONSHIPS
2ND PLACE // 2013 TCS AMSTERDAM MARATHON
3RD PLACE // 2012 SEOUL INTERNATIONAL MARATHON
2ND PLACE // 2011 USA HALF MARATHON CHAMPIONSHIPS
2ND PLACE // 2010 USA HALF MARATHON CHAMPIONSHIPS
17TH PLACE // 2009 IAAF WORLD HALF MARATHON CHAMPIONSHIPS
2ND PLACE // 2009 USA 20KM CHAMPIONSHIPS
2ND PLACE // 2009 NYRR NEW YORK MINI 10K
3RD PLACE // 2008 USA HALF MARATHON CHAMPIONSHIPS
4TH PLACE // 2008 NACAC CROSS COUNTRY CHAMPIONSHIPS
6TH PLACE // 10,000M // 2006 NCAA OUTDOOR CHAMPIONSHIPS -
Serena's results make me think that Jordan Hasay will run under 2:26 at Boston if the weather cooperates.
-
1-Kastor
2-Flanagan
3-Benoit
4-Linden
5-goucher
6-Lewy Boulet
7-Brown
8-Jones
9-Burla
10-Cragg
11-Runyan
12-Baillie
13-Larrieu-Smith
14-Catalano
15-Appell
16-de Reuck
***Burla used to be tied with de Reuck, at 15th.
Those of you claiming 8th -- who did you knock-out to get that? -
BTW, those rankings are from "alltime-athletics.com", and their "as of date" was 1-29-2017 -- though Osaka was not yet listed for Serena.
Certainly not as stale as USATF from 2011!?! -
Chandler wrote:
1-Kastor
2-Flanagan
3-Benoit
4-Linden
5-goucher
6-Lewy Boulet
7-Brown
8-Jones
9-Burla
10-Cragg
11-Runyan
12-Baillie
13-Larrieu-Smith
14-Catalano
15-Appell
16-de Reuck
***Burla used to be tied with de Reuck, at 15th.
Those of you claiming 8th -- who did you knock-out to get that?
Your order includes boston times, which as mentioned earlier are ineligible for record lists as it is not a record-eligible course. Here is the actual top 15 with their locations (combined from IAAF, all-athletics and alltime-athletics).
1. Deena Kastor 2:19:36 London 2006
2. Shalane Flanagan 2:21:14 Berlin 2014
3. Joan Benoit Samuelson 2:21:21 Chicago 1985
4. Kara Goucher 2:25:53 NYC 2008
5. Desi Linden 2:25:55 Houston 2011
6. Magdalena Lewy Boulet 2:26:22 Rotterdam 2010
7. Julie Brown 2:26:26 LA 1983
8. Serena Burla 2:26:53 Osaka 2017
9. Amy Cragg 2:27:03 LA 2011
10. Marla Runyan 2:27:10 NYC 2002
11. Renee Baillie 2:27:17 Chicago 2012
12. Francie Larrieu-Smith 2:27:35 London 1991
13. Kim Jones 2:27:50 Berlin 1991
14. Olga Appell 2:27:59 St. Paul 1996
15. Colleen de Reuck 2:28:01 Chicago 2003 -
One more thing RE "what else has she done?".
Serena's 1:10:08 (pre-cancer) was, when she ran it in 2010, was TOP TEN ALL-TIME on the US list: =9th, tied with Lisa Wiedenbach.
It went:
1-Goucher
2-Kastor
3-Benoit
4-Flanagan
5-Appell
6-O'Brien
7-deReuck
8-Lauck
=9 Burla/Wiedenbach
Weren't they all Olympians except for Burla? That's darn good company, folks!
Now, that =9 duo are =17. Still Top 20!!
Huddle =3
Hasay=6
Conley=9
Krifchen=10
Bawcom=11
Bolton=12
Gracey=12
Hall=16.
So, talk about range, too! You don't see Linden in that 1/2-Mar list, do you?
Or Lewy Boulet? Brown? Jones? Cragg? Runyan? Baillie? Larrieu-Smith? Catalano? ==> just looking at the other Marathoners in the USA Top16 -- apparently more than half of them do NOT have the speed for the 1/2-Mar!! -
Brown unfortunately had a cloud around her performances. Her coach (Debus) was suspended for PED distribution in 1990.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3699229
usnspecialist wrote:
Chandler wrote:
1-Kastor
2-Flanagan
3-Benoit
4-Linden
5-goucher
6-Lewy Boulet
7-Brown
8-Jones
9-Burla
10-Cragg
11-Runyan
12-Baillie
13-Larrieu-Smith
14-Catalano
15-Appell
16-de Reuck
***Burla used to be tied with de Reuck, at 15th.
Those of you claiming 8th -- who did you knock-out to get that?
Your order includes boston times, which as mentioned earlier are ineligible for record lists as it is not a record-eligible course. Here is the actual top 15 with their locations (combined from IAAF, all-athletics and alltime-athletics).
1. Deena Kastor 2:19:36 London 2006
2. Shalane Flanagan 2:21:14 Berlin 2014
3. Joan Benoit Samuelson 2:21:21 Chicago 1985
4. Kara Goucher 2:25:53 NYC 2008
5. Desi Linden 2:25:55 Houston 2011
6. Magdalena Lewy Boulet 2:26:22 Rotterdam 2010
7. Julie Brown 2:26:26 LA 1983
8. Serena Burla 2:26:53 Osaka 2017
9. Amy Cragg 2:27:03 LA 2011
10. Marla Runyan 2:27:10 NYC 2002
11. Renee Baillie 2:27:17 Chicago 2012
12. Francie Larrieu-Smith 2:27:35 London 1991
13. Kim Jones 2:27:50 Berlin 1991
14. Olga Appell 2:27:59 St. Paul 1996
15. Colleen de Reuck 2:28:01 Chicago 2003 -
I pulled that from a gigantic spreadsheet i am working on for both US and World rankings that has the top 100 performers (or as many as i can find on the US side) in all of the olympic events. I will be posted it on here when i finish some analysis of it (hopefully in the next few weeks), but i make clear that all performances that have not been officially removed for whatever reason are included. If we were to take away every performance that had a cloud of doping surrounding it, there wouldnt be very many performances left.
-
This thread is the reason for America's mediocrity in distance running. You sit around and celebrate mediocre performances. Unlike the East Africans who expect excellence.
-
Just mentioning because Brown was *much* more "cloudy" than anyone else on that list. The World list is another matter entirely.
usnspecialist wrote:
I pulled that from a gigantic spreadsheet i am working on for both US and World rankings that has the top 100 performers (or as many as i can find on the US side) in all of the olympic events. I will be posted it on here when i finish some analysis of it (hopefully in the next few weeks), but i make clear that all performances that have not been officially removed for whatever reason are included. If we were to take away every performance that had a cloud of doping surrounding it, there wouldnt be very many performances left. -
I ran with Serena at Mizzou. Nice person. Happy to see her doing well.
-
Yes and this thread is the reason for the end of civilization as we know it. One hyperbole deserves another.
Trumpknob wrote:
This thread is the reason for America's mediocrity in distance running. You sit around and celebrate mediocre performances. Unlike the East Africans who expect excellence. -
gfhfrgt wrote:
The problem is that you're assuming that the Mercier table actually provides accurate performance equivalents. That's not at all the case. The Mercier table assumes equivalence across gender and events right from the start by equating the, say, tenth-ranked performance in event x with the tenth-ranked performance in all other events. In this way it favors events with less depth (e.g. field events versus -- to remove this from the context of gender for a sec -- more popular events like the 100m).
Yes it does, because rank ordering is the only statistically appropriate and realistic way to compare between genders. If you want a secondary comparison within a gender, use the IAAF performance tables. Again, using a linear value isn't an appropriate statistical method when one population doesn't follow a normal distribution.
And my question about the 2:19 was rhetorical -- no spoon-feeding is necessary. Your claim that a time gap of nearly eight minutes in elite female marathoning (i.e. 2:26-high versus 2:19) is somehow equivalent to only about 4.5 minutes in elite male marathoning (i.e. 2:07-high versus 2:03-low) demonstrates the absurd conclusions your system leads to.
But it's the truth and fact. Women's performances at the top, even with greater depth of women in the open 19-39 age groups that represent the majority of elites, simply DO NOT follow a linear time drop off like the men. It's very probable to be due to biological differences, with elite men being a more homogenous population, whereas elite women have greater biological variability (anatomy, physiology). Elite women defy the norm, with a positive skew to the right (more normal women).
But like I said, no one here agrees with you, and most people can already see that the Mercier tables are complete bunk except for, say, determining qualifying standards for championships at the collegiate and international level. So while you're obviously free to reply, I'm not going to prolong this debate any further.
Objective fact will always trump opinion. I use fact- you use alternativefact.
P.S. And your repeated claims about the supposed objectivity of statistics are demonstrably false. Read up: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674009691
You simply can't debate IAAF performance rankings- they are what they are. Nothing is altered or "bias". It's straight data. Using linear values to compare between two different populations is theoretical, doesn't represent reality, and violates the proper use of statistics.
If you want to bring politics into this, your inability to comprehend stats and data is clearly a fault of lack of development of the frontal lobe. Playing to the emotional part of the brain (amygdala) is how Trump won the stupid vote. Putting down women, or Sabrina in this case, and using alternativefact is further catering to the emotional part of the brain of those who feel threatened/insecure by women and are too stupid to comprehend actual data/stats/fact. I wouldn't expect any less from the armchair critics of Letsrun who's asses would probably get kicked by Sabrina.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/#.WJC98vkrI2w
