another dumb post, ttc.
another dumb post, ttc.
lee corso wrote:
isn't it the same guy? he moved down to the 1500/mile.
Welcome back from your cave. It's not the same guy.
girlie poo wrote:
another dumb post, ttc.
At least you backed it up.
ttc wrote:
Athletes have to learn to run fast on their own. Ryan Hall is maybe my favorite runner, because he won't think twice about running as he sees best. He also doesn't see leading as a barrier, but as the opportunity it should be for some.
Leading a fast race should be the strategy for many who have a top PR in a given field. If it's darned windy, then there's a problem. But otherwise, the "psychological frame of mind to getting pulled along" is a weak excuse for a professional athlete to alter their strategy. The U.S.'s best and fastest races the last 2-3 years have come when leading and running away from everyone else. It can't be done in every race, but in many it can.
duh, someone has to lead ttc.
Since high school, besides his half marathon and cross country nationals last year when Ritz had pnuemonia, what other races has Hall ever led?
Keep in mind also that Hall never led at FL nationals, although Dobson certainly did.
Hall leads one race when Meb admittedly isn't in shape and wins by two minutes. Ergo, according to ttc, he's one of the greatest front-runners of all time!
That only proves the depth of your knowledge, ttc.
For my money, Virgin was one hell of a front runner throughout his entire career.
girlie poo wrote:
duh, someone has to lead ttc.
Since high school, besides his half marathon and cross country nationals last year when Ritz had pnuemonia, what other races has Hall ever led?
Keep in mind also that Hall never led at FL nationals, although Dobson certainly did.
Hall jumped in front and pushed the 2005 5K nationals hard. Before that, Broe had been pushing a hard pace. In that same race, Goucher (who ran the fastest U.S. 5K that season) chose to sit back to run with people. Look how the race turned out. Far as other examples of leading, Webb lead early in the 2004 trials and got in trouble partially by not front-running at the Games. In the trials before that, Gabe won the race because he led early. KRob lead last year's USATF 800M, just like Johnny Gray and Earl Jones did before him. The Africans always want to lead. In fact the Kenyans and Ethiopians often fight for it.
Some strategize off a sit/kick, which is fine. But to eliminate running from the front is wrong IMO.
Well your Hall-in-the-lead example is hardly compelling evidence that's he's a great front runner. You're saying he lead part of a race, are you? That's brilliant!
You're probably one of those all-knowing 17:30 5K guys who never even saw the lead during your illustrious running career.
But as a veteran runner, I can assure you that in big races, sometimes the lead just falls into your lap, whether you want to lead or not.
girlie poo wrote:
Well your Hall-in-the-lead example is hardly compelling evidence that's he's a great front runner. You're saying he lead part of a race, are you? That's brilliant!
What's compelling isn't that Hall led for only part of the race, but that he made it a huge part of his strategy to lead and break it open. Broe even stated how huge Ryan's strategy was. Of course, it was only a partial race though. But again, his 59:43 and 12K XC races to go with that 5K, while remembering he's only been a pro for 18 months. One a record-setting one and the other to win a national championship. Before then, his best races were NCAA XC nationals and the track 5K, both of which he did lots of leading/pacesetting in.
The only thing you actually qualify quite nicely for, ttc, is malmo's comparison of age 5 kiddie soccer where everyone runs to wherever the ball is kicked. And when the ball is kicked somewhere else, everybody runs there. You're championing Hall because that's where the ball is right now. As soon as Hall proves that a January peak is impossible to keep past January, you'll be running off in a different direction, or (more likely) you'll accuse whoever beats Hall of being on EPO.
In one paragraph, I've detailed you're entire schtick, ttc.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Zurich is the best track meet in the world.
Why change it?
Different meets serve different puroses. Zurich compiled the best athletes and the fastest conditions to produce world leading times.
The Olympics and World Championships used nationally selected athletes to run through rounds and compete in finals in a pure setting without rabbits to determine a champion.
If you won both events you were a total bad ass.
I agree. My big regret is by the time I get my finances together enough to go to Zurich, the men's 5K will be won in 13:18 instead of seven guys under 13:00. To that end, Zurich will be just another meet, and then the sponsors will pull out and then it won't be a meet at all.
Changing a venerable, legendary meet is so minor league. It's as though major league baseball wanting to try a new rubber ball this year, or the NBA trying a new synthetic ball this year.
Ok....so how exactly will they keep out rabits? If someone like bekele has his brother rabit for him what will they disqualify Bekele? The great athletes have their own personal rabits for a lot of races and they are good enough to get in on their own credentials. Whats to stop from someone organizing their own...they do it all the time!
Rabbits rabbit because there is a finacial incentive to do so. Meets usually pay rabbits to hit times. If the meet pays most of its money to winners then people will try to win the meet.
This will result in some very fun finishes but probably not a lot of fast times.
I doubt they'll out and out ban rabbits, but why would a rabbit run if he's not getting paid to do it from the meet?
toro wrote:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Zurich is the best track meet in the world.
Why change it?
Different meets serve different puroses. Zurich compiled the best athletes and the fastest conditions to produce world leading times.
The Olympics and World Championships used nationally selected athletes to run through rounds and compete in finals in a pure setting without rabbits to determine a champion.
If you won both events you were a total bad ass.
Yes, exactly. It's a real shame to change this. It certainly was the greatest one-day meet on the planet. I suspect now that it will be just one more decent track meet--a big, big step down.
toro wrote:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Zurich is the best track meet in the world.
Why change it?
Different meets serve different puroses. Zurich compiled the best athletes and the fastest conditions to produce world leading times.
The Olympics and World Championships used nationally selected athletes to run through rounds and compete in finals in a pure setting without rabbits to determine a champion.
If you won both events you were a total bad ass.
Sounds like the organizers have decided to screw the top athletes and keep the money for themselves. So, guys like Asafa and Bekele go from where the top guys are maybe getting $100K in appearance fees, to where less than that is aplit among everyone in their event.
Wejo might be right that this is a good thing for the "runners"--and that's what they'll probably get...some runner, but not what they used to get. I can't imagine a top guy wanting to go to Zurich now, unless they need it for a piece of the golden league pot.
The best meet in the world becomes a has been.
ttc wrote:
The U.S.'s best and fastest races the last 2-3 years have come when leading and running away from everyone else. It can't be done in every race, but in many it can.
---2006---
Lagat - 3:29, 3:31, 3:32 x 2, 3:34 x 2
Lukezic - 3:33, 3:34 x 2
Famiglietti - 3:35
Ahmed - 3:35
Tegenkamp - 3:35
Lincoln - 8:08, 8:11
Lagat - 7:34
Tegenkamp - 7:34, 7:39 (2M)
Goucher - 7:36 (2M)
Lincoln - 7:37 (2M)
Lagat - 12:59, 13:12
Tegenkamp - 13:04
Goucher - 13:10, 13:15
Ritzenhein - 13:17
Abdi - 13:18
Abdi 27:22
Webb - 27:34
Ritzenhein - 27:35, 27:45
Famiglietti - 27:37
Goucher - 27:59
Clement - 4:03, 4:04
Wurth - 4:05
Goucher - 4:05
Tollefson - 8:44
Rhines - 14:55, 15:05
Goucher - 15:08
Slattery - 15:08
Goucher - 31:17
Rhines - 31:24
McGregor - 31:32
Slattery - 31:57
---2005---
Lagat - 3:29, 3:30, 3:31 x 2, 3:33 x 2
Webb - 3:32, 3:33 x 2
Meyers - 3:34
Lukezic - 3:35
Rankin - 3:35
Lincoln - 8:12, 8:15
Webb - 7:39 (8:11 for 2M)
Lagat - 12:59, 13:14
Goucher - 13:10
Webb - 13:10
Broe - 13:11, 13:13
Abdi - 13:13 x 2
Abdi - 27:33
Dobson - 27:59
Fleshman - 8:43
Rudolph - 8:49
Fleshman - 15:02
Rudolph - 15:03
Rudolph - 31:18
Dryer - 31:21
McGregor - 31:25
Rhines - 31:39
---2004---
Webb - 3:32, 3:33, 3:34 (3:50 for 1M), 3:35
Gruber - 3:34
Browne - 13:16
Broe - 13:18
Meb - 27:24
Abdi - 27:34
Kennedy - 27:37
Ritzenhein - 27:38
Browne - 27:42
Shook - 9:29
Runyan - 14:59
Rudolph - 15:00
Culpepper - 15:01
Tollefson - 15:04
Flanagan - 15:05, 15:09
Fleshman - 15:09
K. O' Neill - 31:34
McGregor - 31:51
Mosqueda - 31:57
All of these performances were achieved at meetings with pacemakers.
Being "tough" doesn't trump fluid dynamics.
I'm Confused wrote:
So the records were set because of PED such as EPO and the drugs are getting more potent and harder to detect, wouldn't that make for an increase in WR's? I'm finding your logic to be faulty.
Not if the drugs have put things at the 'limit'. I think that's what he meant.
I think it's good news that the rabbits are gone. It's better for the runners too. They'll learn how to race.
The only USA runner over 800 meters I can think of who almost always grabs the lead and runs until she absolutely drops is Tiffany McWilliams. If you really want to look up to someone, ttc, you should read up on her someday.
I never consider track races with pace makers such a bad thing and it seems likely if pacers become part of Zurich's history, the legacy of time-trialers like El G might be seriously diminished. And personally, I'll miss those 1500s where 15th place was 3:35.
girlie poo wrote:
The only USA runner over 800 meters I can think of who almost always grabs the lead and runs until she absolutely drops is Tiffany McWilliams. If you really want to look up to someone, ttc, you should read up on her someday.
I never consider track races with pace makers such a bad thing and it seems likely if pacers become part of Zurich's history, the legacy of time-trialers like El G might be seriously diminished. And personally, I'll miss those 1500s where 15th place was 3:35.
This is one year. If it degrades the quality of the meet, they'll reverse it.
in the long term this will do more good than harm. it will give people more chances and make them think more about their race tactics. If all the big meets did this initially times will slow down but after a while i think they would get faster again.