Brigid Kosegi 2:14:04 doesn't surprise me AT ALL!8

What's the name if the website that shows equal performance for the marathon to other events. I bet her marathon is worth about 28:55 10kn LOL

VIPAM wrote:

What's the name if the website that shows equal performance for the marathon to other events. I bet her marathon is worth about 28:55 10kn LOL

These website should remove comparison with marathon for the pro times.

It's now obvious that the heavy stamina and muscle endurance needed for marathon is much more easier to reach than the raw endurance speed needed for the 5k or 10k.

Anyone's who's familiar with Rosa's "methods" and the spring "shoe" technology shouldn't be surprised either.

EssosLindi wrote:

VIPAM wrote:

What's the name if the website that shows equal performance for the marathon to other events. I bet her marathon is worth about 28:55 10kn LOL

These website should remove comparison with marathon for the pro times.

It's now obvious that the heavy stamina and muscle endurance needed for marathon is much more easier to reach than the raw endurance speed needed for the 5k or 10k.

But the fastest 5 and 10K'ers are still the fastest marathoners. Kipchoge was an Olympic silver medallist in the 5k. And we already know Bekele's accomplishments.

So true just look at how many 5000/10000m runners have dominated or posted all-time top 10 performances at the marathon:

Paul Tergat (Ken)

Haile Gebrsellasie (Eth )

Kenenisa Bekele (Eth)

Eluid Kipchoge (Ken)

Carlos Lopez (?)

Ingrid Kristasen (Nor)

Paula Redcliffe (GB)

Tirunesh Dibaba (Eth)

Vivian Cheroiyut (Ken)

The all-time top 10 list is stack with 5000m/10000m runners compared to pure marathoners.

Me too I started a thread last week, will Kosgei get the World Record? I Predicted high 2:15 to low 2:16, but said she would eventually go 2:14, Now I think she will likely better that if she defends her title in London, Ruth Chepngetich is another one I can see getting to these times and more are coming.

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess.

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess. wrote:

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess.

I remember that was on the thread I started.

You, just can't say her performance is surprising or that she came out of nowhere. She's been knocking on this record for a while. The thing that convinced me, even more than the London Marathon, was her Great North Run performance. I knew she could get it if she wanted.

VIPAM wrote:

So true just look at how many 5000/10000m runners have dominated or posted all-time top 10 performances at the marathon:

Paul Tergat (Ken)

Haile Gebrsellasie (Eth )

Kenenisa Bekele (Eth)

Eluid Kipchoge (Ken)

Carlos Lopez (?)

Ingrid Kristasen (Nor)

Paula Redcliffe (GB)

Tirunesh Dibaba (Eth)

Vivian Cheroiyut (Ken)

The all-time top 10 list is stack with 5000m/10000m runners compared to pure marathoners.

But how many of them dominated down to the 800/1500? Bekele's 3:32 are NOTHING compared to his 5k, 10k or marathon. The great Gebrselassie, 1:49/3:31. Hassan ran 1:56 and 3:51, and a 65 half WHILE training for shorter distances. So either she will drop off massively in the marathon, OR she is doing something/taking something/using something etc that's not supposed to be. Under Salazar and NOP, nothing would surprise me.

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

EssosLindi wrote:

These website should remove comparison with marathon for the pro times.

It's now obvious that the heavy stamina and muscle endurance needed for marathon is much more easier to reach than the raw endurance speed needed for the 5k or 10k.

But the fastest 5 and 10K'ers are still the fastest marathoners. Kipchoge was an Olympic silver medallist in the 5k. And we already know Bekele's accomplishments.

To be clear, I am not saying that the best track athlete are not the best marathoners, they are.

But the time don't relate. Neither Kipchoge or Bekele could run sub 27 in the 10k on the track right now or sub 12:50 in the 5k right now. They are older and are lacking that speed.

The marathon records are being beaten by athlete who are past their prime on track and who couldn't beat the track records.

Women will eventually narrow the gap significantly in the next 40-50 years in endurance events compared to top make athletes. Women distance runnobg is still relatively young when compared to the start of men endurance running.

Ididn't theorized this it was done by several scientists many times un the last 20 years. Women have a bigger upside in every event from 5000m to ultra distance compared to men. Women only started competing in distan e running 40-45 years compared to men who been competing in distances for a couple centuries.

P.S. does anyone know the name of the websitecIm looking for?

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess. wrote:

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess.

Anyone know comparing the new WR 2:14:04 marathon is equivalent to women's 800, 5000m, and 10000m track?

Sadly (yes, I said that and bloody well mean it), it doesn't surprise me in the least either. At this state of the sport (and all other sports - even golf and archery are in the same boat), it wouldn't shock me if a female did run a 2:12. A 2:10? Yeah, that would blow me away. But possibly not for much longer.

Anyone know comparing the new WR 2:14:04 marathon is equivalent to women's 800, 5,000m, and 10,000m track?

Based on over 400 performances from the WR level to mid-pack recreational level, I've got 2:14:04 "equal" to 1:47.97, 3:59.61 mile, 13:45:05, and 28:45.41. There are no women's performances in sub-marathon distances that approach that yet), so we have to consider men's and women's performances when making comparisons.

That's right - it's pretty much the equal of a sub-4:00 mile. If you don't think that jives with real world performances, consider that the WR in the men's marathon was 2:17:40 (Jim Peters on a point-to-point course) in June of 1954, just after Bannister broke 4:00, and wasn't under 2:14:04 until 1964, when the mile WR had been improved to Peter Snell's 3:54.4h. Taking into account faster track surfaces (worth @ 5-6 seconds per mile vs. well-groomed grass or cinder tracks) and spikes, the 2:14:04 is still the equal of something in the immediate neighborhood of a 4:00 mile or better.

We must of course realize that that are far more runners who are competitive in the 1,500/1,600/ mile at the HS and college levels than there are marathoners, so the pro performances should be expected to be better in the marathon (where a lot of money is) vs. the non-pro performances. But a 2:14:04 still stacks up well with a 4:02 mile even at that level.

You make an interesting point. When men like Bikila were running 2.12-2.15, from 1960-64, the men's world mile record was 3.54. That's what Kosgei's time can be compared to.

Forgot to mention that women (in general) might be expected to be better in longer distances than they are in middle distances, owing to their lower muscle mass and their ability to use fat as fuel. I haven't crunched any numbers using only women's performances from real-world results, and statistical predictions shouldn't be extended outside of the available data set, but I suspect the 2:14:04 has got to be the best female running performance of all time, "worth" better than the current WRs in the 5 and 10 - so most likely sub-14:00 and near or under 29:00.

douglas burke wrote:

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess. wrote:

somewhere on here I said she would go 2:13, good guess.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9640139

Thanks for finding it, I figured with how she did at the great north run she could run faster than the previous world record.

I'm not surprised the OP isn't surprised at Kosgei's run. After about the 400th Kenyan doping bust the same week, who can be surprised at another Kenyan-run record.