Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kara Goucher and the New York Marathon?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Kara Goucher and the New York Marathon?

    I've just read from an unreliable source that Goucher is running it this year. Is this true?! I hadn't heard about this...
    http://twitter.com/Trackside2011

  • #2
    She did express this interest at a press conference before Millrose, back in January, which now seems like ages ago. It's possible someone is remembering that, and speculating about what she might do.

    Here's a link to that press conference info:

    http://www.letsrun.com/2008/karagoucher0131.php

    Nothing announced on NYC marathon web site about elite athletes as yet.

    Comment


    • #3
      goucher was on a video tape after her 30:55 10k at the olympics saying she wants to run the marathon POSSIBLY in the fall, or in the spring, and she said her coach alberto salazar hugged her after her olympic 10k and the first thing he said was now we can prepare for a marathon. the interviewer tried to get her to say which marathon she would like to do? and she said were still deciding on that, she also said she would still run 5 and 10k's during the track season, but she said she will never be able to beat runners like defar and t. dibaba. but in the marathon she thinks she can be the best in the world.

      Comment


      • #4
        she definitely can based on her 10k / 1/2M ability

        she has 30'55 / 66'57

        now, it's not usually worth predicting M times off anything involving a track time, but if she was in simultaneous shape for both ->

        ~ 2"17'07

        more realistically, those bejiing conditions weren't conducive to fast times & it doesn't appear she has actually run many 10ks

        i'd have to say, she must be more capable of 30'30 - 30'45 in a well-paced race in nice weather

        with say, 67'00 on a flat course

        30'30 - 30'45 / 67'00 -> ~ 2"17'57 - 2"18'56

        there's absolutely no reason why she can't go <2"20 on her debut on a flat course/nice weather & i believe she has some of that "paula-esque" quality where her endurance extends "perfectly" from 10k upto the M

        Comment


        • #5
          From a reliable source, it's true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by eldrick

            there's absolutely no reason why she can't go <2"20 on her debut on a flat course/nice weather & i believe she has some of that "paula-esque" quality where her endurance extends "perfectly" from 10k upto the M
            But New York is not flat. It's not Boston, but it sure ain't no London, Berlin or Rotterdam either.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ponytayne
              Originally posted by eldrick

              there's absolutely no reason why she can't go <2"20 on her debut on a flat course/nice weather & i believe she has some of that "paula-esque" quality where her endurance extends "perfectly" from 10k upto the M
              But New York is not flat. It's not Boston, but it sure ain't no London, Berlin or Rotterdam either.
              NY is always a race, not a time trial. I think of it as even more of a race than the other top (and faster) race - London, although London might get better talent, on average. With a late-August Olympics run at a faster pace than expected, there will be many runners that are not yet ready for a hard NYCM. The women have one more week and it will be easier for them. For that that did the 10,000 it is not as much of an issue, but the top runners also did the 2x5000 as well, which is tougher and extended the timeframe a week.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think 2:23 in N.Y. would be a wonderful debut for Kara.
                phsstt!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                  I think 2:23 in N.Y. would be a wonderful debut for Kara.
                  You think that she will win it? That is a mark that will often win NYCM, I think.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 26mi235
                    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                    I think 2:23 in N.Y. would be a wonderful debut for Kara.
                    You think that she will win it? That is a mark that will often win NYCM, I think.
                    CR is 2:22:31. It has taken sub-2:24 to win only three times (Okayo's CR, Radcliffe in 2004 and 2007).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KevinM
                      Originally posted by 26mi235
                      Originally posted by SQUACKEE
                      I think 2:23 in N.Y. would be a wonderful debut for Kara.
                      You think that she will win it? That is a mark that will often win NYCM, I think.
                      CR is 2:22:31. It has taken sub-2:24 to win only three times (Okayo's CR, Radcliffe in 2004 and 2007).
                      Mmmmmm, i thought the c.r. was a little faster. Maybe 2:25-27 is a more resonable goal in N.Y.
                      phsstt!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ponytayne
                        Originally posted by eldrick

                        there's absolutely no reason why she can't go <2"20 on her debut on a flat course/nice weather & i believe she has some of that "paula-esque" quality where her endurance extends "perfectly" from 10k upto the M
                        But New York is not flat. It's not Boston, but it sure ain't no London, Berlin or Rotterdam either.
                        you're right - i typed in "flat" & remembered times aren't great there ( ?steep last few miles )

                        i might not sure whether new york is maybe 3'00 ( or 4'00 ) slower than a london, so we can add in an adjustment

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Given how much faster the dead-flat courses are then those that have some hills but are not hilly (NYC), does that say that hills are as bad as heat? [If this is the case, Hall's performance at the Trials is even more impressive -- he could not do it again at the Olympics and had just a 'good' race finishing 10th but losing to Ritz who had a great race for him.]

                          Complicating this question is the likely case that course that are not 'fast' evoke different racing plans - runners going out a little more conservatively and then racing to the finish.

                          In Chicago this year it was quite hot and the last part of the race was very much faster than the average for those that survived the hear and left some for the finish.

                          In Beijing, the Kenyans apparently determined that they would take more competitors out of the race by going hard the whole way, even if they ran positive splits , especially on a dead-flat course.

                          I suspect that both the heat and the hills will result in a much higher rate of blowing up but that some runners are likely to survive if enough good ones go for it.

                          I would like to see the likes of malmo discuss this as he has had experience at the top levels (unlike mine, which are at more modest levels), including having raced in the heat a number of times. My experience is that I raced very will in the hills, especially I beat runners that I could not touch in uphill races. However, I found that my quads and thighs were a constraint in a marathon that was not the case in shorter races and running a hilly race (NYC or Boston) would likely have caused me more problems. However, this might simply be because 100mi/week was good for a very good recreational runner [and essentially never got passed in the second half of a marathon] to do well in a marathon but not enough to get those weak links in the legs to still be working well if there was the added stress of hills. (There was a big freeway overpass at 25 miles in my last marathon and both the uphill and the downhill portions were dicey for my legs but not for my cardio system.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eldrick
                            Originally posted by ponytayne
                            Originally posted by eldrick

                            there's absolutely no reason why she can't go <2"20 on her debut on a flat course/nice weather & i believe she has some of that "paula-esque" quality where her endurance extends "perfectly" from 10k upto the M
                            But New York is not flat. It's not Boston, but it sure ain't no London, Berlin or Rotterdam either.
                            you're right - i typed in "flat" & remembered times aren't great there ( ?steep last few miles )

                            i might not sure whether new york is maybe 3'00 ( or 4'00 ) slower than a london, so we can add in an adjustment
                            Boston is more variable because the weather is more variable and the wind can be a hindrance or a help. Also, while hilly, it is also downhill.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 26mi235
                              Given how much faster the dead-flat courses are then those that have some hills but are not hilly (NYC), does that say that hills are as bad as heat? [If this is the case, Hall's performance at the Trials is even more impressive .
                              The trials course was not the same as the NYC course. The difficulty of the NYC Marathon course is caused by three bridges: mile 1, mile 13 and 15. Additionally the marathon course runs 21 miles to the North, while prevailing winds in October come from the Northwest.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X