73.9% of Letsrun.com voters are more impressed by sub-13 than bronze

same thing i was thinking

I watched both races and I was more impressed with his 1/2 marathon. Considering the wet, windy, hilly and multiple turn 1/2 marathon course, I believe 60:00 is a better performance.

Being third in the half marathon championship is akin to kissing your sister.

Being third at Zurich and beating most of the top 5000 contenders while running 12:56 is a huge deal.

what if my sister is hot?

Reeder wrote:

Being third in the half marathon championship is akin to kissing your sister.

Being third at Zurich and beating most of the top 5000 contenders while running 12:56 is a huge deal.

Um, ok. I think that Ritz has always been considered a runner with limited speed. For him to run 15:56 was somewhat of a shock (less so because of his 8:11, but still a shock). For him, I would think 12:56=26:50-26:55 and 59:30-59:40. But considering the conditions and slowish early pace, 60:00 is about an equal performance.

BUt 12:56 will be remembered longer because it was an American record, a much greater shock, he tried to take on Bekele in the last 500m, and the 1/2 world championships isn't really a championship (ie like Olympics/World champs), and Tadesse was never in doubt of the win.

Coming off of marathon training for the past 2 years to step on the track and crack out that time is amazing. If he had ran a fast 10,000 not as impressive. The half fit what his training has been geared toward more.

the half is way more impressive. with all the pressure that comes after running the 5k and to perform like that in the half makes it more impressive to me. the 5k was a perfect race with no pressure just went out and ran with nothing on the line.

Interestingly enough, Ritz's 5000 m time was the 117th fastest ever run while his half-marathon time puts him into a six-way tie for the 113th-best, i.e. 113-118th. The 5000 m got him an AR while the half got him a bronze medal. Looks pretty the same.

Bekele was never in doubt of the win in that 5k, either. He was probably even conserving energy for his next week's win over Teg et al

Nobody saw Ritz's 12:56 coming. He shocked everybody when he got the AR in the 5k. After his 10 mile workout, a great performance was expected from him in the Half. So I consider his 5k AR to be more impressive.

so when was the last time and american got a medal at this event?

I agree with the others who have said the 5000m is more impressive because:

a. The half marathon world championship is not on nearly the same level as the actual world championships and olympics, so the bronze doesn't mean as much

b. the 5000m came way the hell out of left field

I agree with the OP. The half marathon bronze was more impressive. The 5k AR was just more surprising.

You guys are treating the world half marathon like it's a major championship. It's not. It's no Olympics or World Championships. Many of the top marathoners skip this event to focus on fall marathons.

So on the one hand you've got a pseudo-championship that doesn't have all the best runners in the world, on the other hand you have a 5k time that can be put in its historical place.

We know how impressive sub-13 is based on how fast everyone else has ever run. We can't really say how impressive this half was.

been injured wrote:

Um, ok. I think that Ritz has always been considered a runner with limited speed. For him to run 15:56 was somewhat of a shock (less so because of his 8:11, but still a shock). For him, I would think 12:56=26:50-26:55 and 59:30-59:40. But considering the conditions and slowish early pace, 60:00 is about an equal performance.

BUt 12:56 will be remembered longer because it was an American record, a much greater shock, he tried to take on Bekele in the last 500m, and the 1/2 world championships isn't really a championship (ie like Olympics/World champs), and Tadesse was never in doubt of the win.

1) Not everyone was shocked by Ritz's 5000 AR.

2) I agree that both are equal in performance (time wise). The bronze medal is nice, but because of the quality of the runners he beat in that 5000, AND because it was an AR that had been held for so long, I've got to pick that as the more impressive race. Neither was shocking to me though.

lol wut wrote:

You guys are treating the world half marathon like it's a major championship. It's not. It's no Olympics or World Championships. Many of the top marathoners skip this event to focus on fall marathons.

So on the one hand you've got a pseudo-championship that doesn't have all the best runners in the world, on the other hand you have a 5k time that can be put in its historical place.

We know how impressive sub-13 is based on how fast everyone else has ever run. We can't really say how impressive this half was.

all of the above.

lagat passed him with 70 meters to go and bekele barely edged him out...in no way was he a sure win

1) He didn't break 60

2) It wasn't an American record

3) 5000's are run much more often than half-marathons so being 117th on the all-time 5k list is better than tied for 113th on the half-marathon list

It is pretty strange that the runners here get so caught up in time only.

Weather / course conditions and real competition is what racing has always been about.

Records will be broken championship medals last forever.

A 60:00 flat on a less than perfect day and course, beating some guys that have gone sub 59 was very impressive.

The time trial 12:56 was unexpected and great too, but I just have to give a bigger nod to the half marathon.