Which is better: Radcliffe or Kipchoge's Marathon WR?

Real Question: What is now the most untouchable world record in distance running?

Kipchoge's Marathon? Radcliffe's Marathon? or Bekele's 10k? Each of those marks seem to be head and shoulders above the field.

The women's distance records are consistently about 30 seconds per mile slower than the men's records. A 13 minute adjustment results in a 2:14.39 women's time.

Radcliffe's record is already over 15 years old. I would give both an equal chance (about 50%) for surviving the next 5 years, but not an equal chance for reaching 20 years - that's about the same 50% for Radcliffe, and less than 10% for Kipchoge. Of course, Kipchoge also still has a chance of bettering his own record, while Radcliffe does not.

Radcliffe's performance was greater, coming 15 years earlier, but measured by today's standards, both are approximately equally good.

Str8 Facts wrote:

Real Question: What is now the most untouchable world record in distance running?

Kipchoge's Marathon? Radcliffe's Marathon? or Bekele's 10k? Each of those marks seem to be head and shoulders above the field.

Or Komen’s 3k?

Str8 Facts wrote:

Real Question: What is now the most untouchable world record in distance running?

Kipchoge's Marathon? Radcliffe's Marathon? or Bekele's 10k? Each of those marks seem to be head and shoulders above the field.

We just had a “which record is the most untouchable?” forum

Please don’t turn this into that again

Dibaba had her own personal male pacer yesterday, if you were watching, and so did Cherono. They also had a big group to run in, although that caused problems with the drinks at least once.

As impressed as I am with Kipchoge's marathon, I still think Radcliffe's will last longer (though I think both of them will last for at least 10 more years). The main reason is how much of an outlier the record is. Kipchoge's is definitely way out there and it will take years for an athlete to reach the level that he is now and have the optimal conditions of Berlin. Here is a stat though: 401 male athletes have run a half 60:49 or faster, while only 70 female athletes have run 67:42 or faster. I just found out that when Radcliffe ran her record, only 5 athletes besides her had run a half faster than she averaged for her entire marathon. That's crazy. It's a huge outlier, and there is a reason that neither Keitany nor Dibaba (some of the greatest distance runners/marathoners of all time) have been able to come anywhere close to it.

Women typically show a performance decline in running from men that equates to about 10%. In this case the marathon WRs are still very equivalent to that arbitrary approximation. This is the first time we can claim the men's WR is possibly stronger than the women's, so Paula's record does not seem so out of line in modern context.

It's interesting to note that Kipchoge and Radcliffe took similar mentalities to their marathon training. Both proved themselves quickly at the distance and then fed on their success to get increasingly hungry. Many others strive for a high level and their PRs or focus on championship style racing reign them in. These two both set out in their training to shatter their previous PRs.

Also, to prove that those numbers aren't just because fewer women ran half marathons in the past: in just the last 5 years, 211 men have run 60:49 or faster, while only 41 women have run 67:42 or faster.

I'm sure it's been said before, but, the main reason Paula ran so fast over the marathon distance, is because she had to.

She was beaten on the last lap in so many 5k/10k races that when she moved up to the marathon her training plan aimed at producing race performances where she would not be in a position where she could be out kicked.

And, in her great years, that's how it worked out.

Most of her main opposition would not have trained with that mind set.

And, I'm sure her training regime was more methodical and scientific - and generally harder and more painful than any of her rivals.

portsea57 wrote:

I'm sure it's been said before, but, the main reason Paula ran so fast over the marathon distance, is because she had to.

She was beaten on the last lap in so many 5k/10k races that when she moved up to the marathon her training plan aimed at producing race performances where she would not be in a position where she could be out kicked.

And, in her great years, that's how it worked out.

Most of her main opposition would not have trained with that mind set.

And, I'm sure her training regime was more methodical and scientific - and generally harder and more painful than any of her rivals.

In my opinion, most world class runners are capable of training harder than what is necessary to maximize results. All guys like Bedford and Salazar accomplished with fanatical training was to shorten their careers by 5 years or so.

J. Hassay wont get the record because she "wobbles" too much? Uh, have you ever seen Radcliffe run?

uh huh??? wrote:

J. Hassay wont get the record because she "wobbles" too much? Uh, have you ever seen Radcliffe run?

I could have termed that better, Hassan was barely holding herself together late in that race, extreme pronation, poor arm carry. Yes Paula had a ridiculous head nod.

Paula was paced all the way to the line in her 2:15.

Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 when he was paced all the way, so that’s the time you compare to Paula.

Which of those is better?

SDSU Aztec wrote:In my opinion, most world class runners are capable of training harder than what is necessary to maximize results. All guys like Bedford and Salazar accomplished with fanatical training was to shorten their careers by 5 years or so.

Ironically if they didn't like running hard, their fanatical training may have been an efficient way to provide an excuse not to run.

Because Radcliffe was paced all the way, her record might be better. It's not as much of an accomplishment, but is probably a better record, equivalent to what Kipchoge would have run if paced the entire way....2:00:20.

Also, Radcliffes record is probably safer because, and correct me if I'm wrong, women are not being paced by men anymore at the elite level, the race has to be women only.

Star wrote:

Paula was paced all the way to the line in her 2:15.

Kipchoge ran 2:00:25 when he was paced all the way, so that’s the time you compare to Paula.

Which of those is better?

I say 2:15 that is still the better time. You get the feeling the men's time was always being pushed down by the best of the best runners from the best countries. The fact that the best runners from the best countries haven't even sniffed 2:15 makes it just extraterrestrial

test

Querfeldein wrote:

Radcliffe's record is already over 15 years old. I would give both an equal chance (about 50%) for surviving the next 5 years, but not an equal chance for reaching 20 years - that's about the same 50% for Radcliffe, and less than 10% for Kipchoge. Of course, Kipchoge also still has a chance of bettering his own record, while Radcliffe does not.

Radcliffe's performance was greater, coming 15 years earlier, but measured by today's standards, both are approximately equally good.

77.3% of statistical percentages are made up.