Only ivy leaguers could be this'smart' - aka dumb - guy wins 3k at ivy champs by seven seconds from slow heat in 817

This just happened in the ACC as well, with the top 3 men coming from the slow heat.

rojo wrote:

Slow heat is won by Columbia's Tait Rutherford in a PB of 817. What do the guys in the stacked fast heat - which included two sub 8 guys an 801 guy and 804 guy - do?

They go out in 450 for first 1600. Game over. Around 1k in I was like, 'wait a minute they probably can't close any faster than just under 410 on this track' and when I saw 405 for 1400 I knew it was over.

http://lancertiming.com/results/winter14/IVYHEPS/140301F022.htm

I've got a post race interview with Rutherford coming later.

Photos as well.

Rojo.

PS. This answers all the questions you all have about ivy leaguers having so many typos on the front page. Apparently we aren't good with numbers or letters.

Who controlled the pace in the fast heat? Any chance someone was smarter than they are getting credit for?

C/M Runner wrote:

Second place also came from heat 1.

Yeah, and people have been complaining these last few years that the distance races at Heps have been way too tactical (particularly in the mile). I hope this opens their eyes a bit on too much tactics can be a bad thing.

I hope one day your eyes open and realize that tactics doesn't mean slow.

jsj wrote:

I hope one day your eyes open and realize that tactics doesn't mean slow.

In the Ivy League, it has become synomonous.

Absolutely hilarious.

Geoghegan should be ashamed of himself. "I have a pr of 7:51 but I'm going to treat my double like it's the Bataan Death March." So not good!

rojo wrote:

Slow heat is won by Columbia's Tait Rutherford in a PB of 817. What do the guys in the stacked fast heat - which included two sub 8 guys an 801 guy and 804 guy - do?

They go out in 450 for first 1600. Game over. Around 1k in I was like, 'wait a minute they probably can't close any faster than just under 410 on this track' and when I saw 405 for 1400 I knew it was over.

http://lancertiming.com/results/winter14/IVYHEPS/140301F022.htm

I've got a post race interview with Rutherford coming later.

Photos as well.

Rojo.

PS. This answers all the questions you all have about ivy leaguers having so many typos on the front page. Apparently we aren't good with numbers or letters.

Can't read the post because it's half covered with a huge ad, regardless of what I do -.-

Second week in a row that we have a 3K controversy.

I've never really liked the idea of deciding places using multiple heats. Why not have a prelim and a final if you're going to allow a field that is too large to run in a single heat?

To me, having two "final" heats is kind of like playing the AFC and NFC championship games and then skipping the Superbowl and awarding the NFL title to whichever team scored more points in their conference championship game. It's a race, not a time trial. You're supposed to be competing against the other people on the track.

It's kinda weird but the first heat is a feel good heat for the losers who aren't good enough to actually matter. Seems like in this case that didnt hold true and heat two were the real losers.

no dog in this fight, but wrote:

I've never really liked the idea of deciding places using multiple heats. Why not have a prelim and a final if you're going to allow a field that is too large to run in a single heat?

To me, having two "final" heats is kind of like playing the AFC and NFC championship games and then skipping the Superbowl and awarding the NFL title to whichever team scored more points in their conference championship game. It's a race, not a time trial. You're supposed to be competing against the other people on the track.

This is a horrible analogy. Not only are the athletes in heat #2 better, they know what time they have to beat before they start the race. The first heat puts up an 8:17 and the next heat goes out in 4:50? Nonsense.

Ivy Fan wrote:

no dog in this fight, but wrote:

I've never really liked the idea of deciding places using multiple heats. Why not have a prelim and a final if you're going to allow a field that is too large to run in a single heat?

To me, having two "final" heats is kind of like playing the AFC and NFC championship games and then skipping the Superbowl and awarding the NFL title to whichever team scored more points in their conference championship game. It's a race, not a time trial. You're supposed to be competing against the other people on the track.

This is a horrible analogy. Not only are the athletes in heat #2 better, they know what time they have to beat before they start the race. The first heat puts up an 8:17 and the next heat goes out in 4:50? Nonsense.

My comment relates to the format, not to the particular race. I'm not arguing that the people in the fast heat didn't run stupidly given the existing format.

My point is that it is silly to determine one result from two separate competitions. A race consists of multiple people on the track at the same time trying to beat each other. If you are trying to beat people who aren't running on the same track at the same time, you're just time trialing. I personally prefer watching and competing in races over time trials.

Can someone explain the objection to this? Why is the existing system preferable to either accepting only the number of runners who can run in a single heat final or having a prelim and then a one heat final?

Boogie Knights wrote:

Second week in a row that we have a 3K controversy.

+1

this was my first thought- "wait, didn't they KNOW the time they had to beat BEFORE they started their own race? wow, amazing

Ivy Fan wrote:

This is a horrible analogy. Not only are the athletes in heat #2 better, they know what time they have to beat before they start the race. The first heat puts up an 8:17 and the next heat goes out in 4:50? Nonsense.

Bill Burke from Princeton did the same thing in '90 or '91. Might have been the outdoors 5000. He was in the slow heat because he didn't have a qualifier. Of course, he better than anyone in the fast heat. Are you sure that the slow heat isn't run after the fast heat?

Was Everett or the other Columbia guy setting the pace? If so, they probably executed the best strategy to maximize team points.

Section one comes before section two.

NOPing NOPers wrote:

Bill Burke from Princeton did the same thing in '90 or '91. Might have been the outdoors 5000. He was in the slow heat because he didn't have a qualifier. Of course, he better than anyone in the fast heat. Are you sure that the slow heat isn't run after the fast heat?

"Was Everett or the other Columbia guy setting the pace? If so, they probably executed the best strategy to maximize team points." That WOULD be taking one for the team...and an interesting strategy. Certainly seems plausible...

I wasn't following the race closely, but when I heard "3:01 for the first 1,000 meters" as the seeded section was running, my attention was riveted immediately. To win, the "fast" heat's winner would have to cover the last 2km in 5:16 or better--no joke on any track, and certainly a tough row to hoe on that one.

I could not believe that everyone in the stud heat would continue to let the pace lag, but that's what happened for another X laps. By coincidence, a bunch of Columbia guys, including Tait, were standing where I was--with about 1,000m to go, we were telling him he was the winner. There was just no way the second section was going to beat 8:17.

Seriously? You run 80-100mpw, and you can't manage to make a decent effort on your second (and last) race of Day I? I don't care *what* races you've got coming on Day II, that's just crazy.