Our rankings and rationales are up. Great year for the American women with 2 in the top 10.
Our rankings and rationales are up. Great year for the American women with 2 in the top 10.
I'm huge Dibaba fan, but how they hell is she number 1 over Mary K?
Mary K broke the all women's marathon record in the london marathon, and destroyed Dibaba while doing it.
Mary K came in second in the New York Marathon.
Tirunesh D came in second in london and won the Chicago marathon.
Basically, both won a major and came in second in a major. But Tirunesh didn't beat Mary in a race.
So I guess they are going off of time. But no way in hell can Tirunesh ( right now ) keep up with a fresh Mary K.
Also Mary K destroyed Dibaba in the RAK half marathon race, where Dibaba got dropped around the 7th mile. Mary K finished second in a close race, where she could have won and broken her on half marathon record.
So Dibaba was destroyed twice in one year by Mary K, and she broke a WR.
There is nothing dibaba has done this year that was better than anything Mary K did in london. Running an all out death pace to break the the all women's WR was beyond insane.
Mary K is hands down the best female marathoner in the world and it s not even close. I love Dibaba to death, but Mary K is in a whole different universe.
Scorpion_runner wrote:
Also Mary K destroyed Dibaba in the RAK half marathon race, where Dibaba got dropped around the 7th mile. Mary K finished second in a close race, where she could have won and broken her on half marathon record.
So Dibaba was destroyed twice in one year by Mary K, and she broke a WR.
There is nothing dibaba has done this year that was better than anything Mary K did in london. Running an all out death pace to break the the all women's WR was beyond insane.
Mary K is hands down the best female marathoner in the world and it s not even close. I love Dibaba to death, but Mary K is in a whole different universe.
+1000
Gotta look at the half when two runners have a first and a second. Woman's only record trumps Dibaba's results. And the RAK Half should be some additional evidence for ya'll to make a decision.
These rankings are suspect. NO WAY ON EARTH, does Flanagan beat Hasay straight up. I'd reverse those rankings to Hasay #5, and Flanagan #8. Way too much weight given to that slow NYC win.
a;sldkfahkjadihlasdkhfa wrote:
These rankings are suspect. NO WAY ON EARTH, does Flanagan beat Hasay straight up. I'd reverse those rankings to Hasay #5, and Flanagan #8. Way too much weight given to that slow NYC win.
No way LRC would rank Hasay, a NOP runner, over Flanagan. Hasay would have to beat her decisively head-to-head, and even then, I'm not sure the brojos would rank Hasay higher.
IF NOP reads their rankings, I'm sure they are having a good laugh, and using it as motivation for Boston.
a;sldkfahkjadihlasdkhfa wrote:
These rankings are suspect. NO WAY ON EARTH, does Flanagan beat Hasay straight up. I'd reverse those rankings to Hasay #5, and Flanagan #8. Way too much weight given to that slow NYC win.
The rankings aren't about who would be who straight up. We'll find out about Hasay and Flanagan in Boston.
If Keitany raced Dibaba I'd bet on Keitany.
Dibaba and Keitany had the same WMM results (1 win and a second) but Dibaba had 2 fast times. New York isn't going to be fast, but Keitany's run there wasn't as impressive as Dibaba's 2nd place in London so we went with Dibaba even though Keitany beat her.
The point remains that Hasay still had a better year. Flanagan wins 1 major with a decent field-not as good as Chicago considering how much better shape than Dibaba/Kosgei we’re compared to Keitany and Kiplagat. Hasay runs #2 all-time American time in Chicago compared to Flanagan’s win, but slow race. So I’d say it’s fair to give Flanagan a slight advantage based on the fall marathons, but only very small one.
But Flanagan has no second marathon result, which you have precedent for certainly considering (ex. ranking Adola back in 7th behind someone w/ two races (Rupp, Kipsang), even if his was the best race between the three). Hasay has another great race in Boston, running a fast time on a generally slow course. I don’t think you can punish certain people such as the top 2 men in Berlin for only having one race but still putting Flanagan so high. Flanagan has no fast time either like they do, and you can’t talk about her closing speed considering you specifically showed that doesn’t matter compared to overall time when discussing Rupp vs Kipsang. If the runners were flipped I’d bet there’s no way Hasay gets the higher ranking.
suspiciouss wrote:
The point remains that Hasay still had a better year. Flanagan wins 1 major with a decent field-not as good as Chicago considering how much better shape than Dibaba/Kosgei we’re compared to Keitany and Kiplagat. Hasay runs #2 all-time American time in Chicago compared to Flanagan’s win, but slow race. So I’d say it’s fair to give Flanagan a slight advantage based on the fall marathons, but only very small one.
But Flanagan has no second marathon result, which you have precedent for certainly considering (ex. ranking Adola back in 7th behind someone w/ two races (Rupp, Kipsang), even if his was the best race between the three). Hasay has another great race in Boston, running a fast time on a generally slow course. I don’t think you can punish certain people such as the top 2 men in Berlin for only having one race but still putting Flanagan so high. Flanagan has no fast time either like they do, and you can’t talk about her closing speed considering you specifically showed that doesn’t matter compared to overall time when discussing Rupp vs Kipsang. If the runners were flipped I’d bet there’s no way Hasay gets the higher ranking.
Good post. Very much agree. Hasay had the better year. I think most people with no bias in favor of Flanagan would say that Hasay had the better year. I guess brojos are just giving way much too much weight to her NYC win. IMHO I would give more weight to Hasay's #2 all-time US performance at Chicago, than to a slow win in NYC. I would also have Hasay ranked ahead of Flanagan, BASED ON WHO HAD THE BETTER YEAR.
If you had to pick between having Hasay's year and Flanagan's year, you'd all really so easily give up a win in NYC over Keitany and Kiplagat, two of the best female marathoners ever? If Hasay broke the AR while finishing whatever she finished (can't even remember her exact placings...3rd?), then I agree she should should probably get the nod.
reer wrote:
If you had to pick between having Hasay's year and Flanagan's year, you'd all really so easily give up a win in NYC over Keitany and Kiplagat, two of the best female marathoners ever? If Hasay broke the AR while finishing whatever she finished (can't even remember her exact placings...3rd?), then I agree she should should probably get the nod.
Yes, I'd choose to have Hasay's year over Flanagan's year. To me, I'd rather run a wicked fast time and not win, than win NYC over two very great runners that clearly didn't have their 'A' game that day. In other words, I don't discount Hasay's 2:20:57 Chicago run like some others apparently do simply because Hasay faced two other ladies that had their 'A' game that day. And in this past year, Hasay had 2 very fast times (Boston and Chicago), so we shouldn't simply be comparing the one race.
wejo wrote:
a;sldkfahkjadihlasdkhfa wrote:
These rankings are suspect. NO WAY ON EARTH, does Flanagan beat Hasay straight up. I'd reverse those rankings to Hasay #5, and Flanagan #8. Way too much weight given to that slow NYC win.
The rankings aren't about who would be who straight up. We'll find out about Hasay and Flanagan in Boston.
If Keitany raced Dibaba I'd bet on Keitany.
Dibaba and Keitany had the same WMM results (1 win and a second) but Dibaba had 2 fast times. New York isn't going to be fast, but Keitany's run there wasn't as impressive as Dibaba's 2nd place in London so we went with Dibaba even though Keitany beat her.
^ Exactly.
First off, these are marathon rankings so the RAK Half doesn't mean anything. You don't give one 5k runner the nod over the other in rankings just because one has better 1500 speed.
Second, the NYC Marathon was slow and Keitany STILL couldn't win. A girl who got 5th, almost 6th in the rankings, crushed her. That's a lot more disappointing and a lot less superior to Dibaba's 2:18 in Chicago which was only a minute off Radcliffe's course record (a 2:15 woman). So less superior that it more than makes up the difference between Keitany and Dibaba at London and then some.
Don't forget, yes Keitany had her "problems" during NYC, but Dibaba was throwing up and had to stop in London and still finished within a minute of Keitany. Both had their problems in a marathon this year.
I agree with Dibaba >>> Keitany
verymuchagreed wrote:
reer wrote:
If you had to pick between having Hasay's year and Flanagan's year, you'd all really so easily give up a win in NYC over Keitany and Kiplagat, two of the best female marathoners ever? If Hasay broke the AR while finishing whatever she finished (can't even remember her exact placings...3rd?), then I agree she should should probably get the nod.
Yes, I'd choose to have Hasay's year over Flanagan's year. To me, I'd rather run a wicked fast time and not win, than win NYC over two very great runners that clearly didn't have their 'A' game that day. In other words, I don't discount Hasay's 2:20:57 Chicago run like some others apparently do simply because Hasay faced two other ladies that had their 'A' game that day. And in this past year, Hasay had 2 very fast times (Boston and Chicago), so we shouldn't simply be comparing the one race.
Hasay exceeded all expectations okay, but a WIN at a marathon major, especially when you take down the women's only marathon WR holder carries a lot of weight. Two third places are great, but it's hard to argue being in the top 5 in the rankings without a major win (unless you ripped a fast time like sub 2:20 and got 2nd).
Everyone went bonkers over Flanagan's win. I've never seen a women's marathoner get that much publicity. You could argue Hasay didn't get as much because her association with NOP, but she wasn't directly linked to the scandals (unlike Rupp who didn't get as much publicity as Flanagan after Chicago) and I doubt that had much to do with it. Plus the NYC field was tougher than Boston, Worlds, and slightly Chicago based on personel.
Flanagan >>> Hasay
NOP Skeptic wrote:
verymuchagreed wrote:
Yes, I'd choose to have Hasay's year over Flanagan's year. To me, I'd rather run a wicked fast time and not win, than win NYC over two very great runners that clearly didn't have their 'A' game that day. In other words, I don't discount Hasay's 2:20:57 Chicago run like some others apparently do simply because Hasay faced two other ladies that had their 'A' game that day. And in this past year, Hasay had 2 very fast times (Boston and Chicago), so we shouldn't simply be comparing the one race.
Hasay exceeded all expectations okay, but a WIN at a marathon major, especially when you take down the women's only marathon WR holder carries a lot of weight. Two third places are great, but it's hard to argue being in the top 5 in the rankings without a major win (unless you ripped a fast time like sub 2:20 and got 2nd).
Everyone went bonkers over Flanagan's win. I've never seen a women's marathoner get that much publicity. You could argue Hasay didn't get as much because her association with NOP, but she wasn't directly linked to the scandals (unlike Rupp who didn't get as much publicity as Flanagan after Chicago) and I doubt that had much to do with it. Plus the NYC field was tougher than Boston, Worlds, and slightly Chicago based on personel.
Flanagan >>> Hasay
NO. Hasay had the better 2017. I'm happy Flanagan won NYC, but as a result of 2017 I'm willing to bet that Hasay is commanding far more in appearance fees and opportunities. Also, from my observation, it is not true that Flanagan is getting more publicity. In our local Nike store there is a life size pic of Hasay, but not Flanagan.
crazy thread wrote:
NOP Skeptic wrote:
Hasay exceeded all expectations okay, but a WIN at a marathon major, especially when you take down the women's only marathon WR holder carries a lot of weight. Two third places are great, but it's hard to argue being in the top 5 in the rankings without a major win (unless you ripped a fast time like sub 2:20 and got 2nd).
Everyone went bonkers over Flanagan's win. I've never seen a women's marathoner get that much publicity. You could argue Hasay didn't get as much because her association with NOP, but she wasn't directly linked to the scandals (unlike Rupp who didn't get as much publicity as Flanagan after Chicago) and I doubt that had much to do with it. Plus the NYC field was tougher than Boston, Worlds, and slightly Chicago based on personel.
Flanagan >>> Hasay
NO. Hasay had the better 2017. I'm happy Flanagan won NYC, but as a result of 2017 I'm willing to bet that Hasay is commanding far more in appearance fees and opportunities. Also, from my observation, it is not true that Flanagan is getting more publicity. In our local Nike store there is a life size pic of Hasay, but not Flanagan.
10/10
my thoughts exactly. Looks like Nike is investing in the future and not the past.
Hasay is the best in the great USA!