Culpepper would have been out of the top 5 and possibly the top 10 had the big dogs not chosen to run London or were out for other reasons.
US Distance running still has a long way to go.
Culpepper would have been out of the top 5 and possibly the top 10 had the big dogs not chosen to run London or were out for other reasons.
US Distance running still has a long way to go.
And your last 2:13 marathon was when...?
Both posts are fair...
Both UK & US marathon running is still in the doldrums - syre, we have Paula and you guys have Meb & Deena, but they are the exceptions to the rule.
Alan ran well and posted a great time for the course - Jon Brown got another sub 2:10 to his name at London.
But after that there seems to be another drop off. Huw Lobb did really well to crack the 2:15 barrier and we have another ever growing group of guys working hard to join him. Equally there is a mass of British ladies following some distance behind Paula - not just Yelling and Morris, but many more like, Haining, Michelle Lee et al.
But the truth is that a sub 2:20 performance (and equivalent for women) is much rarer than it ought to be and there are very few pushing much further beyond that.
Much to pleased with, but much to look for in the future too...
Thank you for your points.
I am curious as UK Observer still has not answered my question. I myself have never run a 2:13, and at my age never will, so again I ask:
'when was the last time YOU (UK Observer) personally ran a 2:13 for the full marathon'?
Meaningless rhetorical question. Why should he answer, when you already know?
That fact has NOTHING to do with his point (which YOU ignore yourself!), and your ad hominem attack shows only your insecurity and the fact that you know he's right.
and your last 2:13 marathon was when?
Still given that Boston is a slower course and was a tactical race, his time would have placed him 11th at worst.
UK Observer wrote:
Culpepper would have been out of the top 5 and possibly the top 10 had the big dogs not chosen to run London or were out for other reasons.
US Distance running still has a long way to go.
Why not be excited? I don't get it. Do we always have to be negative? Does the Letsrun mentality have to take over our real lives as well? I say look at the positive and BE excited, it's OK. Everything doesn't have to be spun negatively.
Every race is different and every course is different. If Culpepper had run London, he may have tried to stay right behind the lead pack as he did in Boston, the pace may have been too hard for him and he may have faded to 50th. On the other hand, he may have gone with the lead pack and discovered that he was ready to make a breakthrough, run a huge PR and finished 4th again or better.
He came in 4th in a slowish race, and was competitive against who there was to run against in Boston. It's impossible and useless to pretend to know what he would have or would not have done in London.
UK Observer wrote:
US Distance running still has a long way to go.
Fortunately not as far as UK distance running does.
The UK has distance runners?
As an American it means a lot more to me that Culpepper ran in THE American marathon than going overseas to run in London. Alan helped promote the running here where we need it. And he did darn well in the process.
the problem with your post is that you don't have to be able to beat someone in order to talk bad about them unfortunetely. I know I talk bad about the Chicago Cubs when they play bad even though I could never play like they do. People are entitled to comment on professional athletes.It is sad, however, to do it hiding behind a fake name. Plus doing it just to start an arguement is just as bad.
Yank wrote:
Thank you for your points.
I am curious as UK Observer still has not answered my question. I myself have never run a 2:13, and at my age never will, so again I ask:
'when was the last time YOU (UK Observer) personally ran a 2:13 for the full marathon'?
US Observer wrote:
Fortunately not as far as UK distance running does.
We'll see what happens in Helsinki in the summer. I reckon the UK will do better than the US across the distance events (800m upwards, men and women). It was pretty even in Athens. The UK were boosted by Kelly Holmes's double gold but hit by Paula's problems, the US best performances were 2 marathon medals.
"We'll see"? Is that what you "reckon"? Those are some pretty strong words there, mate.
FYI: 800 meters is not quite "distance running". Neither is 1500m But I can understand wanting to go down that far in distance as without that reach you really don't have much of anything counter Kastor and Keflezghi.
When Holmes runs a 5k, we'll talk.
A much better way of looking at things is to see how many people made the final of these events. In the men, the US had 8 guys in the final while the UK had only 4.
800: no one
1500: UK: Michael East in final (6th)
steeple: US: Dan Lincoln in final (11th)
5000: US: Tim Broe in final (11th)
10000: US: Browne (12th), Abdi (15th), Ritz DNF (final)
mara: US: Meb (2nd), Culp (12th), Browne (65th), UK: Brown (4th), Robinson (23rd), O'Dowd (50th)
Women:
800: UK: Holmes (1st); US: Miles-Clark (6th)
1500: UK: Holmes (1st)
5000: UK: Pavey (5th)
10000: UK: Butler (12th), Radcliffe (DNF); US: Dryer (19th), O'Neill (21st)
mara: UK: Yelling (25th) Morris (29th), Radcliffe (DNF), US: Kastor (3rd), Rhines (34th), DeReuck (39th)
UK gets the nod 8 to 6
I wonder if an Ethiopian or a Kenyan would look at this debate between UK and US distance teams and just yell, "Cripple Fight!"
Silverback wrote:
I wonder if an Ethiopian or a Kenyan would look at this debate between UK and US distance teams and just yell, "Cripple Fight!"
I forget how the saying goes exactly, but it is someting like "Arguing on the Internet is like winning the special Olympics, even if you win your still retarded"
counter wrote:
A much better way of looking at things is to see how many people made the final of these events. In the men, the US had 8 guys in the final while the UK had only 4.
Actually, a much better way of looking at things is remembering that the US has a much larger population than 2 to 1 to the UK, so the numbers of UKers in the finals are really much better than the US.
Why do I keep reading so many posts by people who are seemingly so bothered about whose own country has the better marathon? Seriously, is this what it's come to? Should I be proud, as a Brit, that London had some faster athletes (and result) than Boston? Of course not..... but to then start bragging about it is puerile to say the least.
It's such a matter of non-significance (if we're concerned about national pride, which is apparently what this seems to be about), and the fact that it's now spawned an argument about whether US or UK distance running is better is completely ridiculous and illogical.