mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Originally posted by: mugs
After seeing the times, I'm realizing that apparently the San Fransisco Nike Women's Marathon apparently doesn't attract real elite runners - the ones who would compete in New York or Boston or the Olympics or what have you. The only real distinction between the elites and the non-elites seems to be that the elites put the effort into sending in a resume with past times. I think this woman probably would have beaten the (not-so) elites if she were running with them.
There was no men's elite group in the marathon...
I know
Originally posted by: sdifox
Originally posted by: mugs
After seeing the times, I'm realizing that apparently the San Fransisco Nike Women's Marathon apparently doesn't attract real elite runners - the ones who would compete in New York or Boston or the Olympics or what have you. The only real distinction between the elites and the non-elites seems to be that the elites put the effort into sending in a resume with past times. I think this woman probably would have beaten the (not-so) elites if she were running with them.
I don't know anything about the frisco route (yes, I see the green line, but I don't know the geography at all). Is it flat or does it involve the hills? That might impact the time tremendously if they are going up or down a hill.
I googled some of top elite women's names, didn't come back with anything you'd expect if they were among the top women in the world. The third place elite woman came in first in a marathon in Rhode Island 2 years ago with a time 14 minutes slower, and of course the woman who is the topic of this thread ran the best time of her life. Also, all but one of the elite women are Americans. I'd guess the course wasn't particularly slow, they just didn't have real elite runners.
