Emily Sisson Runs 30:49 in Stanford 10000m, moves to #3 on US list. Beat Molly Huddle (30:58).

Aussiestatman wrote:

dfsdf wrote:

a. they can probably run about 67 flat

b. that would be slowing 6 mins in the marathon, not unreasonable

so sure they are potentially on track for about 2:20

good luck when they hit 'the wall'

elites don't seem to hit 'the wall' so much. I wasn't suggesting going through 1/2 in 67. Africans usually run with a higher risk, all or nothing, strategy so are more likely to hit the wall. I'm sure Huddle and Sisson won't go off crazily fast. Going through in 70 should be pretty comfortable.

Aussiestatman wrote:

dfsdf wrote:

a. they can probably run about 67 flat

b. that would be slowing 6 mins in the marathon, not unreasonable

so sure they are potentially on track for about 2:20

good luck when they hit 'the wall'

Mate, they're not running London over Boston to go slowly!

As others have stated, 2:20 is possible with everything going perfectly, but I can’t imagine that they plan on going out in 5:20s. It’s hard to get under 2:20 when you come through halfway in 1:11+. I think 2:21-2:22 is the most likely result, but would be thrilled to be wrong.

As for the post suggesting that 1:07:30 isn’t enough half speed for 2:20 - don’t be ridiculous. Of course it is. These are well trained athletes, not hobbyjoggers. My (very realistic) goal this Spring is 2:22 and there is no way I go any faster than 1:08-1:09 in my HM that is 4 weeks prior.

GBohannon wrote:

As others have stated, 2:20 is possible with everything going perfectly, but I can’t imagine that they plan on going out in 5:20s. It’s hard to get under 2:20 when you come through halfway in 1:11+. I think 2:21-2:22 is the most likely result, but would be thrilled to be wrong.

As for the post suggesting that 1:07:30 isn’t enough half speed for 2:20 - don’t be ridiculous. Of course it is. These are well trained athletes, not hobbyjoggers. My (very realistic) goal this Spring is 2:22 and there is no way I go any faster than 1:08-1:09 in my HM that is 4 weeks prior.

You say don't compare these elite runners to hobbyjoggers, but then in the very next sentence you compare them to yourself - a hobby jogger.

Sisson and Huddle are in terrific shape and they should have been at World XC. We have got to send our best teams and just as the IAAF should penalize countries for not sending teams to World XC by eliminating spots at World Track and Field, so too should USATF penalize athletes for not going to World XC by eliminating their spots at World Track and Field.

GBohannon wrote:

As others have stated, 2:20 is possible with everything going perfectly, but I can’t imagine that they plan on going out in 5:20s. It’s hard to get under 2:20 when you come through halfway in 1:11+. I think 2:21-2:22 is the most likely result, but would be thrilled to be wrong.

As for the post suggesting that 1:07:30 isn’t enough half speed for 2:20 - don’t be ridiculous. Of course it is. These are well trained athletes, not hobbyjoggers. My (very realistic) goal this Spring is 2:22 and there is no way I go any faster than 1:08-1:09 in my HM that is 4 weeks prior.

I hope they both have a shot at 2:20, if they go out in 1:10-1:11 and have others to run with that will be a very big help. They will be able to focus on runners coming off the back of the lead pack to catch and maintain or increase pace slightly.

The top tier runners all capable of running 2:18 will be going out at perhaps WR pace which will cause carnage to many of the runners in that group.

I have to agree with you that a 2:21-2:22 is more likely and will be an excellent result.

I am rooting for both of them, should be fun to watch.

WaddleOn wrote:

GBohannon wrote:

As others have stated, 2:20 is possible with everything going perfectly, but I can’t imagine that they plan on going out in 5:20s. It’s hard to get under 2:20 when you come through halfway in 1:11+. I think 2:21-2:22 is the most likely result, but would be thrilled to be wrong.

As for the post suggesting that 1:07:30 isn’t enough half speed for 2:20 - don’t be ridiculous. Of course it is. These are well trained athletes, not hobbyjoggers. My (very realistic) goal this Spring is 2:22 and there is no way I go any faster than 1:08-1:09 in my HM that is 4 weeks prior.

You say don't compare these elite runners to hobbyjoggers, but then in the very next sentence you compare them to yourself - a hobby jogger.

Fair. I am well-trained though which was my point. “Double your marathon plus 10 minutes” or whatever RunnersWorld suggests is not useful for people who are training hard/smart and, as such, 1:07:30 shouldn’t be viewed as a limiting factor for someone aiming for 2:20. Quite the contrary, if you ask me.

GBohannon wrote:

GBohannon wrote:

Uh... yeah, I understand the difference between performers and performances. I even highlighted said difference in my post. Dork.

And another thing - OP referred to Sisson’s performance as #3 all-time US. That would be in reference to performers. Just saying, man!

Have you finished grading the papers professor?

zxcvzxvc wrote:

Sisson and Huddle are in terrific shape and they should have been at World XC. We have got to send our best teams and just as the IAAF should penalize countries for not sending teams to World XC by eliminating spots at World Track and Field, so too should USATF penalize athletes for not going to World XC by eliminating their spots at World Track and Field.

So the Caribbean countries are all out of the World Champs sprints.

SKOSSY award contender for today.

A common factor is 2.10 or 2.11 which would yield 2:21-22 from 67:30 but if an athlete's best distance is the marathon and one is prepared accordingly, s/he will often beat the typical "equivalent time". OTOH a lot can be not ideal in a particular marathon race, obviously.

I think 2:21-2:23 would be a very successful performance for both of them. Not totally convinced the marathon is Molly's best distance. I do think it might be for Emily.

WaddleOn wrote:

You say don't compare these elite runners to hobbyjoggers, but then in the very next sentence you compare them to yourself - a hobby jogger.

What a waste of space you are, a complete loser to call another runner who is shooting for 2:22, a hobby-jogger. I hope that made you feel real good about yourself for a few minutes. Twat.

Neither will run 2:20, unless they convert to Nike and get those 4%.

*stipe wrote:

I think 2:21-2:23 would be a very successful performance for both of them. Not totally convinced the marathon is Molly's best distance. I do think it might be for Emily.

Not sure why people are still saying this - Huddle hasn't yet had an outing on a fast course. Think Sisson is an aerobic monster though - the longer the race for her the better she does relatively.

Doubt you will get the carnage with the experience of the big six. A few more might get towed along as well. 2.22 is more realistic but might not be top ten

Out of the loop ~ wrote:

Has Sisson ever run a marathon?

And Huddle hasn't ever bettered 2:25, has she?

If one or both of them better 2:25 at London, then that would be a good result for them.

Looking forward to seeing what they can do in London! Daniels gives their 10k's 2:22 and their halves 2:21. Huddle's AR for 10k comes out to 2:19:20, again, using Daniels. Deena's AR is 2:19:36. I agree that 2:21-2:23 seems more likely but I can't imagine they were fully tapered for Stanford. Will be interested to see what their plan through halfway is. London is usually pretty good about letting us know those things a few days before the race. An opening half of 70 vs. 71 feels like a big enough difference. 70 puts the AR in play (on the best day) but 71 is much more realistic to set up a 2:22-23. It would have been fun to see Huddle rip another half after Houston, 2018. I think she can get under 67 in the right race. Sisson will have plenty of chances in her career. Whatever happens I think it'll be cool to see two of the best in the US line up for a fast European race. I hope the weather is good and that we see a pair of fast times. When is the last time two American women dipped under 2:23, 2:22, 2:21 in the same race? Probably not a ton of examples since those times are super legit.

Stanford10K wrote:

Both of them were impressive, but Sisson in particular. She was absolutely hammering the last 5 or 6 laps, running her last 1600 meters in around 4:39.6 and dropping Molly Huddle. And she looked great on those laps. Controlled and powerful. Molly was hanging on as best she could. When you can power away from a fit Molly Huddle, you're in fantastic shape.

They went out in around 15:41 and considering they're deep into marathon training I thought it would be a great performance if they matched that the second half but Sisson almost ran faster than her 5,000 meter PB during the second half of the race.

I watched the race live on Flotrack and will watch the second half again today.

I was at the meet. They both looked great. Huddle has the better physique. I’m sure she purposely isn’t in great shape right now because of the longer schedule going into Worlds this year. It was a nice race. Huddle is a thoroughbred, Sisson is built like a small Clydesdale. Sisson is chunky but it is all muscle. I’m leaning towards Huddle as the one with more upside though she’s been at a high level for years and at 34 years old may finally be somewhat mentally tired. Interesting they have the same coach.

never at those times, try 2.26.06