[ Return to Index ] [ Original Message ]Original Message
By entering these forums you agree to our Rules
on the logo to return to our homepage
|Author: ||Sir Lance-alot|
|Subject: ||RE: Time for an Honest Assessment of Ritz's Performance|
I posted this on another thread comparing his 2 mile to his marathon. Not quite on topic, but still relevant:
"RE: Which is greater: 8:11 two-mile or 2:10:00 marathon?
smart alec response wrote:
8:11 is 6.5 seconds per mile off the wr
2:10:00 is 13.75 seconds per mile off the wr
8:11 is much, much better
You are correct, 8:11 is much better, however, the 2-mile is rarely run. Komen's 7:20 3k is what...? 7:56 about. That would put Ritz off of the deuce record by 15 seconds, or 7.5 per mile.
Still, way better than his marathon. Ritz would need to run about 2:07:15 to match his 2 mile. And of course he feels he is capable of that, but hasn't come close to it. Still, as others point out, let's even assume he could run a 2:07:15. If he is that strong at the far ends of the spectrum (2 mile and marathon), he should be strongest at 10k. If he got to the point of being 7.0 seconds mile off the 10k record (a reasonable assumption IF....which is a big if.....he could indeed run 2:07:15), he'd run 27:00. Which would be fantastic, but probably never give him a chance to medal since he can't kick. Which is why he moved to the marathon in the first place, because he thought he could pull off a Meb ('04) and grab a surprise marathon medal someday. But that was before everyone and their brother started to run 2:06 or better.
It's called: between a rock and a hard palce.
To combat message board spam (by non runners). We are making people answer a brief question before they can post on a thread that is over 20 days old.
If you answer this question you should be able to post.