Nah. We never compare distance results. Some postings to this list. Why didn't people that are all upset by the 100 analysis also come leaping to Ndereba's defence. Radcliffe was nine seconds slower. Shouldn't that be the end of the discussion? Regards, Martin
"Her time of 2:18.56 was hailed as the greatest performance ever in marathon history " "That this record survived should take nothing away from Radcliffe's outstanding 2:18:55 effort, in a women-only race it must be an intrinsically superior performance." "Paula Radcliffe erased every women's Marathon record on the books bar Catherine Ndereba's 2:18:47 which, HOWEVER, was set in a mixed race at Chicago." "Only Kenya's Catherine Ndereba had ever run faster than Radcliffe when she clocked 2:18.47 in Chicago last year, but that was in a mixed race where she was paced by men and so the London organisers are recognising Radcliffe's time as a women's world record." Richard McCann wrote: > As another post said, we don't try to make similar > comparisons between distance races where varying conditions have > substantial influence.
