Kara at Lisbon

Not a joke.

1:08:30 is nothing to write home about. Is it good for an American? Yeah. So what? It's crap on the world level. She'll continue making excuses for every single race (conditions, training through it, whatever), and she'll do the same in Boston when she runs 2:2x high. If you want to race during your build-up, that's cool with me, but Goucher needs to learn to stopping running her mouth before hand and then making excuses after.

And she is no where near Shalane or Rowbury's level. What don't you understand about that?

Her 1:06.xx half is on a ridiculous course, and indicates not much in my opinion.

She ran a 4:33 at Milrose...so? She ran a decent 3k at Boston...so? Name ONE performance this year that would lead anyone to believe Goucher could run something faster than maybe 1:07 mid, at best. Name one. All of that record talk before hand was asinine.

And yes, she should be happy with anything under 2:30 at Boston. If you think she's going under 2:25, you're crazy. 2:28 - 2:31 is about right. Her brutal last 1k at Lisbon is an ominous harbinger. She tanked in a race half the length of what she's training for. Come back to this thread after the race, and we'll see what Goucher's excuse is then.

charlie day wrote:

[quote]

My reference to A.Goucher was simply as an analogy to those naive people who predicted an unrealistically fast time for him a few years ago. Your prediction of sub 66 was a bit absurd. As previous posters have pointed out, I don't think that winning a 3k and Millrose translate into anything at the half-marathon (and certainly not full marathon) distance....

I don't really want to get into word war because that doesn't solve anything. Your apparent attitude of superiority is, frankly, unwarranted. Your analogy was bad and dissimilar. And, for whatever reason, you chose to parse my original thought by nit-picking a part of the argument instead of looking at the whole construct. The time was not a prediction, but it was a hypothecation based on Kara's recent display of speed and her and AlSal's claim of level of fitness. I already agreed with an observant poster who correctly noted that she is most likely in her highest mileage phase and will be affected by the currend demand of her training. So, good sir, you don't need to be a dick by posting a snobbish reply.

Best regards

What has she done? wrote:

Not a joke.

1:08:30 is nothing to write home about. Is it good for an American? Yeah. So what? It's crap on the world level.

Not true at all, a 1:08:30 a few weeks before a marathon is a very solid time. And even if it weren't in the middle of marathon training (and a comfortable WIN no less), it would still be a great time. In 2008, 1:08:30 would have been the 8th fastest time of the year. Saying it's "crap on the world level" makes absolutely no sense at all given the actual statistics.

In other years, a 1:08:30 would have ranked:

2007: 9th

2006: 7th

2005: 2nd

2004: 2nd

2003: 4th

Frankly, it seems a bit a silly to be knocking on this performance. Don't see anyone giving Wanjiru's 1:01:25 7th place a hard time.

Worth 2:23:58 on the IAAF scoring tables. Pretty good for a run in warm conditions in the middle of heavy marathon training.

I think you guys misunderstood the whole prediction of a world record thing. Weren't Kara's quotes taken from a Portugese translation? Races like to hype thing up to get more press, and one way to do that is to ask if there's the possibility for a WR. An athlete usually replies, "Sure, I think I'm capable of a WR if everything goes well."

And next thing you know, there's an article the next day touting a world record attempt.

Wanjiru had reasonable expectations going into Lisbon, and wasn't boasting about something he had no shot of accomplishing.

KG and AlSal were talking American and World Records. Those were never, and never will be, within Kara's grasp. I won't entertain the Great North agrument, because we know what that course is like.

And don't kid yourself; it wasn't a "comfortable win" for Kara. She blew up. She struggled. She tanked and came dang close to blowing her lead entirely.

I don't care who you are - that is not a good result. I'd be worried, if I was her. The wheels falling off at the end of a half-marathon is in no way indicative of an athlete prepared to run a fast marathon. She won't run under 2:25 in Boston.

sorry, meant to type the World Record will never be within her grasp. The half probably is, only because it's relatively weak.

gd it...the AMERICAN half record.

They may not have achieved a WR (most attempts don't pan out btw) but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong about it being crap on the world level.

And by "comfortable win" I mean she won easily, not the manner in which she won. She had a very comfortable cushion on second place most of the race.

http://iaaf.org/LRR09/news/newsid=49913.html

Jesus. People love to tear our top athletes down.

Everyone is making this out to be a terrible run, but it should be pointed out that the only American to ever run faster is Deena. Her 67:34 PR came 3 weeks before she ran 2:19:36.

Joanie ran her 68:34 a few weeks before running 2:21 in Chicago.

Stats courtesy of arrs.net

USA Women

1:06:57 a ( 1) Kara Goucher (OR) 09 Jul 1978 30 Sep 2007 South Shields ENG

1:07:34 ( 2) Deena Kastor (CA) 14 Feb 1973 02 Apr 2006 Berlin GER

1:07:53 ( 1) Deena Kastor- 2 14 Feb 1973 18 Sep 2005 Philadelphia PA USA

1:08:34 ( 1) Joan Samuelson (ME) 16 May 1957 16 Sep 1984 Philadelphia PA USA

1:09:10 ( 1) Joan Samuelson- 2 16 May 1957 18 Sep 1983 Philadelphia PA USA

1:09:38 (16) Deena Kastor- 3 14 Feb 1973 14 Oct 2007 Udine ITA

1:09:39 ( 1) Cathy O'Brien (NH) 19 Jul 1967 16 Sep 1990 Philadelphia PA USA

1:09:44 ( 1) Joan Samuelson- 3 16 May 1957 15 Sep 1985 Philadelphia PA USA

1:10:00 a ( 1) Colleen deReuck (CO) 16 Apr 1964 21 Jun 2003 Duluth MN USA

1:10:03 ( 1) Anne-Marie Lauck (NJ) 07 Mar 1969 18 Sep 1994 Philadelphia PA USA

yeah I guess Al Sal's plans didn't work out which is funny because in the grand scheme of his master plan, he has a mentality that he must succeed. with this type of mentality, when he experiences a failure or a dispointment, he will not be able to handle it because of his ego. however, his ego has enabled him to develop a chosen few of athletes in a way that no one is aware of. his methodology of training is in fact secretive because it is probably being carried out illegally. I would carry on with this extremely informative rant but I have a 10 miler to do..I'll get back to y'all soon.

Old Runner wrote:

I don't really want to get into word war because that doesn't solve anything. Your apparent attitude of superiority is, frankly, unwarranted. Your analogy was bad and dissimilar. And, for whatever reason, you chose to parse my original thought by nit-picking a part of the argument instead of looking at the whole construct. The time was not a prediction, but it was a hypothecation based on Kara's recent display of speed and her and AlSal's claim of level of fitness. I already agreed with an observant poster who correctly noted that she is most likely in her highest mileage phase and will be affected by the currend demand of her training. So, good sir, you don't need to be a dick by posting a snobbish reply.

Best regards

Relax, homeboy. There is no war of words here. I simply stated that your 'hypothecation' was a bit silly (it was silly before the race, and it certainly is certainly silly after the race). Al was rather optimistic in his prediction of sub 66, but you took it a step further (a large step further) and said 17 seconds sub 66. Your prediction was absurd. Nothing snobbish about it, man- if you're going to 'hypothecate' (ha ha) things like that, then you gotta take the heat.

And yes, the comparison to people predicting ridiculously fast times from A.Goucher in his 10k debut (after his fast 5k) are in fact an apt analogy to your predicting a ridiculously fast time for Kara in her second half marathon (and after a fast 3k). If I have to explain that, then you really don't understand.

But, listen, it's all good. I appreciate your enthusiasm for Goucher- I also expect big things from her and hope she races well in Boston. You hypothecated 55:43. It was silly. No need to get defensive.

Not being defensive 'homeboy'. I think you should hop off your high horse and take a look at the women's record for the half. It's soft, homeboy. Just because the WR is roughly 66:30, a suggestion of drpping 30-40 seconds isn't absurd, unreasonable or idiotic. The men's marathon record has been dropping in chunks and they were strong times. The women's Half time is soft. dropping a chuck of time is possible and plausible. So, homeboy, before you get all up in my grill with your self proclaimed knowledge of what's absurd or silly, take look at the broader issue. As I said before, you can disagree without being a dick about it. Got it homeboy?

Old Runner wrote:

Not being defensive 'homeboy'. I think you should hop off your high horse and take a look at the women's record for the half. It's soft, homeboy. Just because the WR is roughly 66:30, a suggestion of drpping 30-40 seconds isn't absurd, unreasonable or idiotic. The men's marathon record has been dropping in chunks and they were strong times. The women's Half time is soft. dropping a chuck of time is possible and plausible. So, homeboy, before you get all up in my grill with your self proclaimed knowledge of what's absurd or silly, take look at the broader issue. As I said before, you can disagree without being a dick about it. Got it homeboy?

Tsk tsk. There you go again, getting all upset. Listen, the issue here is not the women's half marathon WR. The issue here is your original post: you started a thread asking for predictions (oops I mean "hypothecations") of what Kara Goucher would run today. You based your predictions off of: a 3k, a mile, Kara's marathon training, and Kara's and Al's big talk. You proceeded to hypothecate that she would run 55:43 (over a full minute faster than what she ran on a downhill course). My point was, and has always been, that your hypothecation was a bit absurd. In retrospect, I believe I am more than vindicated. I don't care if the WR is "soft," or if, for example, the Ethiopian ladies could destroy the WR and run 62 minutes- the softness is neither here nor there. The larger point being that, yes, the record can be broken, but that Kara would not break it today. Again, given how things played out, I'm not so sure what you are still trying to argue about. Bottom line: your hypothecation of 55:43 (based on a relatively fast 3k, a one mile win, the confidence of her coach, and her marathong traing) was silly. If you think I'm on some sort of high horse by stating this simple fact, well then I guess I can't argue. But there's really no point in "debating" this any further, so that is all I will say on the matter. Cheers.

Do you mean to keep typing 55:40, or are you really that confused? Because you're consistently typing 55's that should be 65's. It's very annoying.

wisest man in the world wrote:

Do you mean to keep typing 55:40, or are you really that confused? Because you're consistently typing 55's that should be 65's. It's very annoying.

Ha ha. Yes, I obviously mean 65. However, it would appear that it was as likely she would have run 55 as 65 today.

Here's the thing, I know everyone wants to hype her up. But let's be honest about things: Kara has a lot of potential, but is she really already as good a marathoner as Deena was at Deena's peak? Right now, I don't think so. Deena ran, what- around 30:50 and 14:5x during her track prime? Kara has run very similar PRs, perhaps even slightly faster. Kara obviously has more speed over 3k, 1500, and closing speed, but what does that matter in the marathon? Remember- it took Deena a few YEARS of marathon experience before she was winning majors. I just don't know that Kara is deserving of all the marathon hype just yet. Her debut was impressive, but I think people need to just wait and see what she can do over the course of a few more half and full marathons before they start declaring things like sub 66 minutes. I think she should be capable of low 2:20s with some good conditions at Boston, which should put her right in the mix.

Call me crazy, but I think Hall's got a better shot at winning it this year. Sounds like his training is back to where it was a year ago...

The account from the IAAF seems very different from the account given in the front page LetsRun story. With a reported 15K split of 49:34, the IAAF has her covering the last 6K (plus a few meters) in just under 19 minutes. That would seem to mean she actually picked up her pace in the last 6K (and obviously did not run the last 1K in anything like 4:10).

Unless there's something wrong with my math.

From the IAAF website:

"Goucher’s solitary run

In the women’s race, the north Amercian Kara Goucher (pb 1:06:57), the 10,000m bronze medallist at the 2007 World championship and third place finisher last year in the New York Marathon, showed why she was a favourite, making an almost solitary race (after the first one-third of the race), but she compromised the World record passing 15 km in 49:34.

She crossed the line in 1:08:30, 30 seconds ahead of Kenya’s Alice Timbilili (pb 1:08:49), a former 3000m World junior champion, and 37 seconds ahead of Jane Kiptoo."

http://www.iaaf.org/LRR09/news/newsid=49913.html

That split can't be right either, because it would mean she clicked off about 4 roughly 5 flat miles the last part of the race. That didn't happen, not for an athlete who can only hit 14:5x in an all out track effort. There's some bad math somewhere.

charlie day wrote:

[quote] My point was, and has always been, that your hypothecation was a bit absurd. In retrospect, I believe I am more than vindicated. I don't care if the WR is "soft," or if, for example, the Ethiopian ladies could destroy the WR and run 62 minutes- the softness is neither here nor there. The larger point being that, yes, the record can be broken, but that Kara would not break it today. Again, given how things played out, I'm not so sure what you are still trying to argue about. Bottom line: your hypothecation... was silly. If you think I'm on some sort of high horse by stating this simple fact, well then I guess I can't argue. But there's really no point in "debating" this any further, so that is all I will say on the matter. Cheers.

You're as dense as a brick. Since you don't want to look at the whole arguement, then let's look at how silly you were in predicting a time that was within 5-10 seconds of the WR in your original posted response. Based on all the tripe you've put up since, your guess was silly and ridiculous as well. Therefore, you're shown to be a hypocrite with your words and certainly not vindicated by how far off you were either. Great Job Chuck!

Old Runner wrote:

You're as dense as a brick. Since you don't want to look at the whole arguement, then let's look at how silly you were in predicting a time that was within 5-10 seconds of the WR in your original posted response. Based on all the tripe you've put up since, your guess was silly and ridiculous as well. Therefore, you're shown to be a hypocrite with your words and certainly not vindicated by how far off you were either. Great Job Chuck!

Ha ha ha! I feel like Carlito- "every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in." I just can't resist...

Now you've resorted to personal insults. Hmm, seems to me that's the first sign of a weak "argument" (or is it "hypothecation"?). Let's do a close reading, shall we:

your first post stated, "I project she runs 65:43," versus my first post, "best case scenario she's around the WR, give or take 5-10 seconds." Can you see the difference between a straight prediction vs. my saying "best case scenario"? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can, but I'll try to explain anyway. One phrase has to do with what you legitimately thought she would run, the other phrase put the cap on her absolute best day, while not necessarily predicting that to be what she WOULD run. But hey, you're absolutely right- in restrospect, even THINKING she would be within sniffing distance of the WR was ridiculous. There, you see? I have no problem in saying my stated "best case scenario" was ridiculous. But it still wasn't as ridiculous as "projecting" a time over 30 seconds faster than the current WR, and over a minute faster than her PB based solely on the underwhelming factors of a mile win, a 3k time, bold talk by her coach, and "marathon specific" training.

Please, I'd love to hear this phantom "whole arguement" that you seem to think I'm missing. I think your argument has been quite simple: you think the WR is soft, and based on the aforementioned underwhelming factors, you projected her to absolutely destroy the women's WR. I realize I am but a humble, dense as a brick person, but please feel free to elaborate how it's a good idea to continue trying defend your wacky projection.

Allegedly, you wanted to know what we think. Well, I told you what I thought, and then you got all sensitive and defensive. It's too bad, I hate to see people get aggravated like that. But don't worry, this WILL be my final post on the subject. Thanks, and good night.