Time for an Honest Assessment of Ritz's Performance

Ritz should concentrate in the 10k but there's no money in that race, unless you can beat the Africans, and that will never happen.

His only resort to stand out is in the Marathon and that he has already done by being our top marathon runner at the Olympics.

I am a Ritzenhein fan but I thought he was pushing it with his talk. He's more than three years out from the next Olympics and should have targeted something about 2:08:30 as a very encouraging incremental step.

Agree - I don't know if I am a fan of anyone; however, I do hate to see athletes with unreal expectations set unrealistic goals and fall miserably short of them.

A guy like Ritz needs to focus on today and his current fitness. "Today I am a 2:10 marathoner ... and train accordingly". He needs someone to "talk him down" not feed his delusional thinking.

At this point, Ritz will only run 207 when he is in "203 shape" - and he will be disappointed.

The mark of a great runner often is very lofty goals and expectations. If he was happy with 2:10 then he would be more complacent, now he'll just train even harder

Brutal Honesty wrote:

Ritz was living in the land of fantasy if he thought that he was in 206 -207 shape.

He had done nothing to indicate that he was in 206 shape - when was the last time that Ritz raced? If he hasn't put it on the line in a race, then as was pointed out earlier, he was living in fantasy land.

Contrast this with Hall - Hall ran < 60 for the half, then rolled a 2:06

Someone is filling his head full of crap.

2:10:00 is a great time, but ... he needs to put things in perspective and tell the guy that the road keeps getting steeper at the top.

Post-race he says cramping got to his hams and calves again. Since the weather was not 'that bad' for a marathon perhaps the distance is just too far for his body to adapt well. A 2:10 is certainly a top American time, but with the best guys in the world running 5 or 6 minutes faster, well...he's a very good American marathoner.

The answer is simple...He went out too fast.

His first 5k was at like 2:03:20 marathon pace....His 2nd 5k while they slowed a lot, was at 2:06 high marathon pace.

When you go out that hard, you die. He blew it burning way more glycogen then he should have been from the get go.

That's why everyone in that 2nd pack who went out like that, pretty much fell apart and positive split. Same thing happened in the first pack.

Having lofty goals is not the mark of a great runner! DELIVERING on your lofty goals is a mark of a great runner! If I am a 22:00 5K runner and I have the lofty goal of running sub 13:00 - that does not make me a great runner!

TO put things in perspective. Ritz's first 5k was essentially the same (14:35 to 14:37) as Geb's when he set the World Record...

Exactly correct. If you had told me before hand that he would go out in 14:37 for his first 5k, I would've guessed that he wouldn't even break 2:11. Marathoning is all about fuel management. That some elites can hang on to a fast pace is irrelevant. Ritz needs to take baby steps. He CAN run a 2:07, but not until he adopts better racing strategy. He committed suicide with that opening pace, and he needs to have a real heart-to-heart with his coach. Because that was stupid. And disappointing.

So let me get this straight...Ritz runs the Olympics, falls behind early by running his pace in the heat and humidity, finishes top-10 and he gets reamed by you guys for not going with the leaders and never being 'in the race'.

So his next marathon, he follows the leaders, gets 'in the race', pays for it, still runs sub-2:10 and he gets reamed by you guys for not running smart.

What a bunch of bitches.

Ritz didn't go sub 2:10. He ran 2:10 if you check the official results and not the Letsrun timers.

5 km 0:14:37 25 km 1:15:27

10 km 0:29:39 30 km 1:30:51

15 km 0:44:54 35 km 1:46:35

20 km 1:00:13 40 km 2:02:58

half 1:03:33 finish 2:10:00

Please tell us how the official results don't matter and that he really ran 2:09.

Hall got reamed for not going with the leaders at the Olympics, Ritz, not so much since I don't think anybody really thought he was a contender.

2:09:59 vs. 2:10:00. Whoop de doo.

You're avoiding the point. The previous poster is correct. People whined about his strategy in Beijing, and now they whine about his strategy in London. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the overall Let's Run culture. Jump on the bandwagon when runner X performs according to your expectations (and thus fills some emotional need in you) but be critical when the person contradicts your expectations / hopes.

I'm just glad to see Ritz (and all the other decent runners) trying to become better runners. Good for them.

Ritz is the one who claimed to be in 206 shape - which is pure BS - there was absolutely no basis for this claim.Ritz will continue to be disappointed and will continue to disappoint until his physical abilities and goals get in sync.As for 2.09.59 or 2.10.00 - everyone here knows that it IS a big Whoop de doo - it is the equivalent of 3:59 or 4:00 and Ritz just ran 4:00.

dnixon wrote:

2:09:59 vs. 2:10:00. Whoop de doo.

You're avoiding the point. The previous poster is correct. People whined about his strategy in Beijing, and now they whine about his strategy in London. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is the overall Let's Run culture. Jump on the bandwagon when runner X performs according to your expectations (and thus fills some emotional need in you) but be critical when the person contradicts your expectations / hopes.

I'm just glad to see Ritz (and all the other decent runners) trying to become better runners. Good for them.

But calculators, although helpful, don't tell the whole story. Hall, who HAS run a low 2:06, has "only" run 13:16 for the 5k and hasn't even broken (as far as I know) 28:00 for the 10K. Do we argue backwards and say that Hall is fully capable of running 13:00 and 26:5x? I don't think we can do that.

I agree with the poster who said that Ritz should've gone for incremental improvement, shooting for 2:08:30 and even or negative splits. But I'm not his coach, and he has his own life. Looks like he's trying to do the best he can, and for that he should be applauded.

I think Ritz said he thought he was in 2:06-2:07 shape, or am I mistaken? And I think he said he'd be disappointed with 2:08. I'm in agreement with you: his goals need to be in sync with his physical abilities, and it probably would've been better for him to shoot for the 2:08 range, but we weren't privy to his training and times, and maybe there were indicators that he could run 2:9=07. Don't know. Maybe some of the responsibility lies with the coach?

As for comparing a 3:59/4:00 mile with a 2:09:59/2:10:00, i don't think they're the same thing. My opinion. There's still a real mystique to breaking the 4:00 minute mile.

I generally enjoy watching and rooting for all of our guys and girls.

The one thing that does burn me up, however, is tons of talk and then not coming close to the scope of that talk.

Kara Goucher is the queen of this, in my opinion, and that's why I've taken a disliking to her. She just. Can't. Shut. Her mouth. She's a good national runner, and no better.

Ritz falls victim to the same thing, though he's a better runner, comparatively, than KG. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a terrific distance guy and has boat loads of potential, but it was never really reasonable for him to think of anything much faster than like 2:08 mid for this marathon. Like other posters have said, he had no performances to indicate these wild 2:06ish times were a possibility.

Same is true for Goucher. If you look at the months immediately before Boston, her performances indicated 2:28-2:29, at best, last Monday. And then people were surprised when she ran 2:32.

I'm a fan of just keeping your mouth shut and then going out there and getting it done. Hall and Shalane do it right, IMO.

A really good effort, I agree. He'll need to rethink his training approach since he's really hit 'the wall' in his last two marathons, both in different weather conditions and at different race paces. I wonder if he's running enough long runs to get his body (and mind) used to being dehydrated? Total mileage is one thing, but some people really need a single sustained continuous effort on a regular (weekly) basis. Of course, with his injury history that could be problematic as well.