Sarah Sellers performance at NY shows just how odd 2018 Boston’s results were

OP, you do realize there's already a asterisk next to Boston performances because it is a net downhill point to point course. Thus the question is irrelevant.

I'm a fan!!! wrote:

I'm a fan of Sarah - not just because of her attractive looks and gorgeous rearend - but because the pressure was on her and she delivered. she set a realistic goal for herself and accomplished that, on a not-so-east course. It seems like a lot of folks on here just wanted her fail so they could pile on her saying she wasn't worthy of a second place at Boston.

Great job Sarah - this and working full-time.

Can we have one thread on here about a woman without being disgusting and saying how much you like their bodies? Honestly, stop it. Grow up. If it's not something you should say to her face, don't type it. If it's not the way a woman would talk to you, don't type it.

Sarah had a good run. 2:36 at NYC means 2:32-34 maybe on a faster course. I think that's a good result and shows some improvement from Boston after training full time for this one. That's plenty elite and puts her in the second tier of American women's marathoning. She still has a spring and fall marathon to try to get closer to 2:30 and can give some faster courses a try. She'll probably have to go back to Boston but then hopefully she tries Chicago next fall before the Trials.

What we can definitely say is she wasn't in 2:44 shape in April. That day was probably worth 3-5 minutes.

Uchch wrote:

Should there be an asterisk next to Boston 2018?

yes

What's really irritating is wrote:

Not all of Sellers' press at Boston was for her result. A ton of it focused on the inherent unfairness of the women's elite start and how it screwed here out of $20k or whatever it was. This wasn't just uninformed commentators - Sellers herself complained bitterly until the BAA were forced to say "screw it" and pay twice.

Six months later though, Sellers is more than happy to call it water under the bridge and lap up the screen time and crowd support that comes from an elite female start and avoid being subsumed in the mass of sweaty men running 2:35 - 2:40.

I'd probably have done exactly the same thing in both situations but pretty embarrassing hypocrisy in my book.

Get your runners straight. You're mixing up Sarah Sellers (2nd, and was in the elite start) with Jessica Chichester (5th fastest time, but started with the masses). Sarah Sellers ran NYC. Jessica Chichester did not. And for what its worth, Jessica Chichester didn't "complain bitterly", that was a bunch of SJWs complaining on her behalf.

Good job responding to his post, you must have known he was talking to you when you read the word "moran".

The better question is, should the American elite runners find harsh weather marathons to run in where they have a better chance of winning than in perfect conditions?

Uchch wrote:

Should there be an asterisk next to Boston 2018?

Why? Unless the organizers cancel the race, runners have to accept the weather they get. Sometimes, the weather is nice, and sometimes it's nasty. And every so often, it's even worse.

Mother Nature can be a b*tch.

What's really irritating is wrote:

Not all of Sellers' press at Boston was for her result. A ton of it focused on the inherent unfairness of the women's elite start and how it screwed here out of $20k or whatever it was. This wasn't just uninformed commentators - Sellers herself complained bitterly until the BAA were forced to say "screw it" and pay twice.

Your mixing up the stories. The prize money controversy involved a Dashing Whippet club runner that chipped some of the elites for 5th place from corral 3. With the obvious benefit of drafting from thousands of runners.

It was not about Sellers, who started in the elite field.

Er... wrote:

Determination? Effort? Grit? Persistence? Perseverance? Commitment? Something freaky like that allows a runner to cross the finish line first and so become...the winner? Imagine that.

You’re an idiot. You do know that she’s run Boston before and not won. In fact she’s run a lot of marathons and not won. So, the only time you believe Desi showed determination, effort, grit, persistence, perseverance and commitment was the one time she won? That’s insulting.

I think she puts in the same work ethic every race. She’s just not that fast. However, the race conditions that day favored her body type so she was able to finally win. In trying to deminish the other women who couldn’t perform well in that weather you necessarily deminish every other marathon effort Desi has run. Is that what you want? Would it not be easier to accept that weather conditions can effect people differently? Especially if they are incredibly low body fat.

Ghost of Marathon's Past wrote:

What's really irritating is wrote:

Not all of Sellers' press at Boston was for her result. A ton of it focused on the inherent unfairness of the women's elite start and how it screwed here out of $20k or whatever it was. This wasn't just uninformed commentators - Sellers herself complained bitterly until the BAA were forced to say "screw it" and pay twice.

Your mixing up the stories. The prize money controversy involved a Dashing Whippet club runner that chipped some of the elites for 5th place from corral 3. With the obvious benefit of drafting from thousands of runners.

It was not about Sellers, who started in the elite field.

And Jessica didn't complain bitterly. If I remember she didn't even stay in town for awards because she had to be at work Tuesday. There were SJWs that said having an elite women's start was sexist.

BAA wasn't forced to pay. They we're happy to pay and would have paid just for the good press, not because of the SJWs who think everything is sexist.

She's still closer to making the team than Gwen - 2:41. Nothing against either of them, but if we're looking at straight across time I'd say She'd doin well, and she's got time to bring that down into the competitive range - if thats what she wants. As a "young professional" the 2nd run or 1st run of the day isn't always the day's top priority.

Most everyone understands that weather conditions are part of what makes Boston. It goes both ways too, see the Duel in the Sun. If you aren't mentally prepared for a day like last April, then you aren't ready to run Boston. The elites (except Des), most of whom never do a training run in less than 50 degrees, nor snow, nor freezing rain, weren't mentally prepared for racing in those conditions.

That's part of the deal with Boston, you train through the winter, for a race that may be winter like (or summer). But most of th elites have the luxury of training in Flagstaff or Kenya or some other warm weather place. By doing so, they become totally unprepared for a race like Boston this year.

Sarah and Des and Yuki were simply better prepared mentally for those conditions. They didn't QUIT like all the others who crybabied their way into a DNF. Oh, it's too cold. It's too windy. It's too wet. It's not a day for "elite" marathoning lol. Is that what the sport has become? We can only run a race when it's 45-55 degrees with no wind or precipitation?

Who ever said the results weren’t odd/unexpected?

Who ever said Sarah Sellers is a top elite, herself included?

And why is saying a particular person is sexy (male or female) sexist? Too many people get upset over a compliment.

Would you consider different standards for male and females sexist? If anything, that would more resemble the definition of sexist.

If someone said “Usain Bolt has a great body”, how would that be sexist?

Running might be the least sexist enviornment in all athletics. Same appearance fees, same pay for winning races, same coverage at all major events.

Hell, they even have “equalizer” bonuses.

1976 Boston Marathon was run in real hot weather and won by an unknown, should we use an asterick next to that one too?

Disagree....why in the heck shouldn't it hold as much weight as any other year? A few years ago they had unseasonably high heat/humidity but since the professional athletes are typically well acclimated to heat/humidity no one questioned the results. Just because it was cold, windy, rainy well suck it up buttercups your not in a controlled environment. You need to be prepared for all sorts of weather and make sure your sponser supplying gear knows there New England weather crap.

Sellers had it together that day....it's the pros who didnt check mark all possible prep responsibilities....

Exactly

Aren't the Hansons pretty notorious for having their athletes practice/workout in all different types of weather? I was trying to think of an athlete who ran Boston last year to examine if that approach helped at all and remembered Des Linden.

Jesus.

He said 'in shape to cross the line in 2nd place.'

What did you get on your SAT??

Yup, success is how you define it wrote:

well..... wrote:

... and, of course, she publicly stated her goal in advance of the race:

> Sellers’s goal for New York is to run faster than 2:37, which is the Olympic marathon “A” standard qualifying time (her Boston time met the “B” standard to qualify for the trials).

and how did she do?

> 18 122 Sarah Sellers 2:36:37 AZ United States USA

A runner achieving her goal. Looks like a good result to me.

Absolutely. Equally, when Ragen Chastain achieved her goal of being the heaviest woman to ever complete a marathon (288 pounds), victory. Focusing on time is for losers, not goal achievers like Ragen and Sarah.

Um...her goal was a time, you drooling illiterate.

Olympic A standard is "equal" to heaviest marathoner ever. K bye.