Debate: Who will be the top American woman at the 2017 Boston Marathon - Jordan Hasay or Desi Linden?

rojo wrote:

As we get ready for Monday's Boston Marathon, Jonathan Gault has written a article previewing the American women's chances in Boston that you can find here:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/04/2017-boston-marathon-u-s-womens-preview-can-desi-linden-end-u-s-major-drought-will-jordan-hasay-fare-debut/

Normally, at LetsRun.com when we write a race preview, we put it up as "by LetsRun.com" as for the most part we generally agree on the analysis that goes into it. But I put that article up under his name as I simply don't agree that Desi Linden will finish ahead of Jordan Hasay.

When Jon finished his article, he sent me a text that said it was ready to be edited and added "I didn't make predictions but if you want to make one for the Americans, I would say Linden gets third and Hasay 7th."

I saw that and was like, "Wait. What? You think Linden will finish ahead of Hasay?" Jon replied that that he most definitely did and I said, "Well I most certainly don't."

I actually fully expect the opposite - for Hasay to be the top American woman. Let me tell you why.

Based on her success on the roads at 10 miles and 13.1, it seems obvious to me that Hasay is made for the marathon.In some ways, she reminds me of a poor woman's version of Paula Radcliffe.

Both were teen prodigies (Radcliffe on the global stage - world jr xc champ, Hasay on the US stage) who didn't quite live up to the hype on the track but that's mainly because they didn't know at the time that the track way way too short of an event for them. A marathon is more than 4 times farther than a 10k.

Radcliffe was a very good track runner (with no kick) who was amazing once she moved up to the marathoner. Hasay is an ok track runner (with no kick) who will be very good at the marathon.

As Jon points out, Hasay's half marathon pb of 67:55 equates to 2:22 high in the marathon. She ran that half just 12 days ago. 13 days before Hasay's race, Linden ran 71:03 for the 13.1 distance. Yes, I'm aware that running a half-marathon 5 weeks out from a marathon is different than doing it 3 weeks out, but come on - the two races were run less than two weeks apart. You've got to be in at least 2:22 shape to dream of winning Boston so Linden running 71 flat 5 weeks out isn't a great sign even if you are in a huge training block.

Contrast that to Hasay, who has indicated in interviews that 71 flat pace is easy for her. She's been running something close to that pace for 20 miles in practice.

“I’m excited [about the full marathon]," Hasay told us after Houston. "I think I’ve got the 5:20, 5:30 pace (2:20, 2:24 marathon) down even better than [the 5:10s for the half marathon]. To be honest I was a little more scared of the half because the longer 20-mile tempos have gone so well. I’m a little bit more used to that rhythm actually."

That quote right there also alleviates any fears I have about the fact that a marathon is twice as far as a half-marathon. The limited number of data points that we have all indicate that Hasay gets better the longer she runs.

Jon also seems to think that Hasay's age and inexperience is a negative.

JG wrote:

As bright as Hasay's future appears, though, the marathon is a tough beast to master. .... A top-five finish would be terrific, but she's 25 years old and it's her debut; if she doesn't run well, it's not the end of the world.

I don't agree with that all. In my mind, it's a total myth that it takes time to get good at the marathon and that it's better to be older to run it.

The fact of the matter is if you are made for the marathon, it's not a tough beast to master. Paula Radcliffe ran 2:18 in her first try. Sammy Wanjiru decided to try the marathon for the first time at age 21 - he ran 3 at that age and did the following (won Fukuoka 2:06:39, 2nd in London 2:05:24 and won the Olympics 2:06:32)

So much for age and experience.

How old and how many marathons had Alberto Salazar ran when he won New York in 1981?

He was 22 and had never run one before.

So in my mind, the fact that Hasay is 25 is a good thing. She's in her physical prime. The injuries haven't started to pile up (Look at Rupp's injury - I wisih he had moved to the marathon earlier).

Let's don't over complicate this. Hasay and Linden have nearly identical 10,000 pbs 31:37 for Linden , 31:39 for Hasay) but Hasay is 8 years younger and just ran more than 2 minutes faster than Linden did at 13.1 in a recent prep race. Based on that, who do you think will finish first?

The answer is Hasay but it's just hard for some to say that as Linden is such a good blue-collar success story.

What do you think? If you want to jump on the Hasay hype bandwagon, hop on board as I'm leading the charge.

-Robert

rojo wrote:

As we get ready for Monday's Boston Marathon, Jonathan Gault has written a article previewing the American women's chances in Boston that you can find here:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2017/04/2017-boston-marathon-u-s-womens-preview-can-desi-linden-end-u-s-major-drought-will-jordan-hasay-fare-debut/

Normally, at LetsRun.com when we write a race preview, we put it up as "by LetsRun.com" as for the most part we generally agree on the analysis that goes into it. But I put that article up under his name as I simply don't agree that Desi Linden will finish ahead of Jordan Hasay.

When Jon finished his article, he sent me a text that said it was ready to be edited and added "I didn't make predictions but if you want to make one for the Americans, I would say Linden gets third and Hasay 7th."

I saw that and was like, "Wait. What? You think Linden will finish ahead of Hasay?" Jon replied that that he most definitely did and I said, "Well I most certainly don't."

I actually fully expect the opposite - for Hasay to be the top American woman. Let me tell you why.

Based on her success on the roads at 10 miles and 13.1, it seems obvious to me that Hasay is made for the marathon.In some ways, she reminds me of a poor woman's version of Paula Radcliffe.

Both were teen prodigies (Radcliffe on the global stage - world jr xc champ, Hasay on the US stage) who didn't quite live up to the hype on the track but that's mainly because they didn't know at the time that the track way way too short of an event for them. A marathon is more than 4 times farther than a 10k.

Radcliffe was a very good track runner (with no kick) who was amazing once she moved up to the marathoner. Hasay is an ok track runner (with no kick) who will be very good at the marathon.

As Jon points out, Hasay's half marathon pb of 67:55 equates to 2:22 high in the marathon. She ran that half just 12 days ago. 13 days before Hasay's race, Linden ran 71:03 for the 13.1 distance. Yes, I'm aware that running a half-marathon 5 weeks out from a marathon is different than doing it 3 weeks out, but come on - the two races were run less than two weeks apart. You've got to be in at least 2:22 shape to dream of winning Boston so Linden running 71 flat 5 weeks out isn't a great sign even if you are in a huge training block.

Contrast that to Hasay, who has indicated in interviews that 71 flat pace is easy for her. She's been running something close to that pace for 20 miles in practice.

“I’m excited [about the full marathon]," Hasay told us after Houston. "I think I’ve got the 5:20, 5:30 pace (2:20, 2:24 marathon) down even better than [the 5:10s for the half marathon]. To be honest I was a little more scared of the half because the longer 20-mile tempos have gone so well. I’m a little bit more used to that rhythm actually."

That quote right there also alleviates any fears I have about the fact that a marathon is twice as far as a half-marathon. The limited number of data points that we have all indicate that Hasay gets better the longer she runs.

Jon also seems to think that Hasay's age and inexperience is a negative.

JG wrote:

As bright as Hasay's future appears, though, the marathon is a tough beast to master. .... A top-five finish would be terrific, but she's 25 years old and it's her debut; if she doesn't run well, it's not the end of the world.

I don't agree with that all. In my mind, it's a total myth that it takes time to get good at the marathon and that it's better to be older to run it.

The fact of the matter is if you are made for the marathon, it's not a tough beast to master. Paula Radcliffe ran 2:18 in her first try. Sammy Wanjiru decided to try the marathon for the first time at age 21 - he ran 3 at that age and did the following (won Fukuoka 2:06:39, 2nd in London 2:05:24 and won the Olympics 2:06:32)

So much for age and experience.

How old and how many marathons had Alberto Salazar ran when he won New York in 1981?

He was 22 and had never run one before.

So in my mind, the fact that Hasay is 25 is a good thing. She's in her physical prime. The injuries haven't started to pile up (Look at Rupp's injury - I wisih he had moved to the marathon earlier).

Let's don't over complicate this. Hasay and Linden have nearly identical 10,000 pbs 31:37 for Linden , 31:39 for Hasay) but Hasay is 8 years younger and just ran more than 2 minutes faster than Linden did at 13.1 in a recent prep race. Based on that, who do you think will finish first?

The answer is Hasay but it's just hard for some to say that as Linden is such a good blue-collar success story.

What do you think? If you want to jump on the Hasay hype bandwagon, hop on board as I'm leading the charge.

-Robert