Scorpion_runner wrote:
It appears that reality is setting in with her, as her form and running are not very good.
Those things can be corrected, but it will take years of high quality training, mechanics building and racing in order
to be an elite body.
Her body and form need a LOT of work, and her mechanics need to be redeveloped.
I'm sorry if you're just trolling and I'm wasting my breath, but what is this garbage? Despite my irritated tone, I really am genuinely curious as to what specifically you could be referring to when you say "her form and running are not very good" and "Her body and form need a LOT of work". If you're referring to the simple fact that, while her progression thus far has been impressive and I would say hopeful, she has not [yet] demonstrated the requisite fitness to win an olympic marathon gold - very well, this is obvious to everyone involved.
But this idea that some outside observer, without any inside information on an athletes training and so forth, can just watch them run and immediately flag obvious issues indicating they need " a LOT of work" - I just don't buy it. I mean, this isn't a middle school meet, Gwen is a high quality athlete and runner. Elite women's marathoning is replete with examples of exceptional athletes that many casual (and, dare I say, ignorant) observers might dismiss as having forms that "need a lot of work"; yet, I just can't imagine believing that many of these women are sitting minutes away from their ceilings and could get there if they just did some "mechanics building".
This has probably been a pointless diatribe that plainly reveals my point of view on the limiting factors of road running performance (such as metabolic and mechanical fitness that are rather amorphous qualities and certainly indistinct and, in their finer points, "invisible" to the casual observer), versus this really outlandish notion that easily correctable aesthetic form flaws constitute the real barriers to improvement. Anyways, my apologies if this is a real misinterpretation of your point; at any rate, if anyone has anything to contribute to this type of debate (especially if it runs counter to my proposed point of view) I'd be happy to hear it.