Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Radcliffe At Worlds?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    >1) Over the past couple of years, while she's
    >been breaking through from "plucky loser" to
    >"overwhelmingly dominant," her coaches and
    >trainers have been saying she's still training,
    >and running, within herself, she hasn't maxxed
    >out yet, her best is yet to come. (It won't
    >surprise me if she puts up a 2:13 in Athens.)>

    I doubt she has two minutes in her and she's not going to do it in Athens if she does.

    Leave a comment:


  • tafnut
    replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    In the case of a marathoner or dec/heptathlete, I would say that yes, one superhuman performance can get you AOY. We've had 10K guys be #1 (in the 10K rankings) for one race.

    Leave a comment:


  • Petros
    replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    1) Over the past couple of years, while she's been breaking through from "plucky loser" to "overwhelmingly dominant," her coaches and trainers have been saying she's still training, and running, within herself, she hasn't maxxed out yet, her best is yet to come. (It won't surprise me if she puts up a 2:13 in Athens.)
    2) She hasn't dropped out of anything yet. All they're saying so far is, she "may" not make it.
    3) Never underestimate Radcliffe's toughness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    Even highly conditioned,great athletes are human.... perhaps the body can only take so much. Similar thing happened I believe to Regina Jacobs when she ran her 4:01 and 14:45 double in the Oly trials. The supreme effort of that incredible 2:15:25 may have pushed Paula's body "over the edge" making her susceptible to illness. Top athletes are always on the edge of going over the fine line edge of great fitness and breakdown.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bergman
    replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    It may be a little early for this, but Radcliffes illness brings an interesting point to mind. If she is indeed finished for the season (assuming there is no fall marathon) will she still be named female athlete of the year? There's no doubt that the 2:15 is perfomance of the year, but will that one incredible effort carry enough weight? Nobody else has been that hot in another event this year...has anyone ever won AOY on the strenght of one race before?

    Leave a comment:


  • jlanza
    replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    Yea, but the basic point is that it sucks that she won't be there, or even if she makes it, will be at a reduced level of fitness. Dunno about you, but I was looking forward to seeing what she could do on the track.

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    >No, RW the magazine remains eminently bashable.
    >The fact that they have a killer online presence
    >doesn't make their piece-o-crap paper product any
    >better.


    First of all, I presented my point without editorial comment but since you saw fit to respond, it must be pointed out that the content of the mag and the website are basically the same-one is just more dated than the other. Once again, I am not making an editorial comment on RW, but, rather, pointing out this rudimentary fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    No, RW the magazine remains eminently bashable. The fact that they have a killer online presence doesn't make their piece-o-crap paper product any better.

    Leave a comment:


  • MJD
    replied
    Re: No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    THE gh wrote:
    >See today's Runner's World
    >online:

    The RW bashers should take note of the above post.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    started a topic No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    No Radcliffe At Worlds?

    See today's Runner's World online:

    http://205.147.231.44/home/0,1300,1-0-0-ZNEWS,FF.html
Working...
X