Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Sell made a breakthrough
Only to the uneducated that have not followed the sport very carefully. This performance was no better than his 9th at the WC. The problem is that the uneducated are more impressed with times. Times are meaningless in the marathon.
The serious follower of the sport knows these Boston results don't signal a "revolution" in the sense that the 2006 version of the Boston marathon has vaulted American marathoning back into the forefront at the world level. Americans know they wouldn't get 5 in the top 10 at London or have 10 sub-2:08s on the yearly list. But this was an opportunity for many of the top American marathoners to come together in a reasonably decent field (obviously not an awesome field) and perform, on average, at least as well as could be expected, probably a little better than expected. In essence, it showcased the positive steps Americans have made in recent years, so why not talk it up?
The competition at the the top was about like some of the Boston marathons of old, when guys like Seko were the marquée non-Americans and there weren't so many Africans who could run sub-2:08s. This year's race shows that Americans can once again run really well in a field like that and can post some 1970s type times. The depth is still sorely lacking, of course, as there used to be plenty of sub-2:20s from Americans, but 5 in the top 10 (with solid times), even in a second-tier field by today's international standards, is definitely worthy of putting as much positive spin on the showing as possible. Boston didn't have the stars of London or Rotterdam or Berlin, but it's a major marathon all the same and it just saw a course record and a 2:08 second-place time. So the race is pretty strong, with a smattering of world class guys, and it can once again become a big deal to American runners if race organizers and fans all help build on what was done this year. Having an American winner would be a huge boost, obviously, but just putting the race back into the limelight through good American performances (as it was 20-30 years ago) will bring more potential stars into the marathon game or will keep them running after college.
A marathon with the tradition of Boston (on American soil) which can attract a few foreign stars and most of the top Americans to challenge those stars can provide the chance for some Americans to emerge as world class and will give the next tier of runners the desire to run Boston and be part of something big once again. This year's field was perfect for getting that underway. With the elite performances (2:07-2:09 times) at the very top, the race didn't come off like a total joke that was watered down just so some regional class Americans could have their day in the sun with 2:15-2:20 performances. At the same time, there weren't 20 Africans with 2:05-2:08 PRs in the race to push the Americans out of sight.
Times aren't entirely meaningless. They're still the best way of comparing runners of different eras. The times posted by the top Americans were to me what made their showing respectable. In fact, those guys could have run a couple of minutes slower per man and still looked good place-wise, but they didn't do that. They ran times that almost rival those of the old days. There were recent years in which a 2:14-2:17 guy could point toward Boston with the dream of being able to put "top American at Boston" on his resumé, even though he and other serious runners and fans would know that it wouldn't mean a whole lot as far as top-level marathoning goes. Now, as in the 1970s and 1980s, at least a few Americans are thinking about winning it. And as long as there are enough legitimate world class runners in the field to make winning a notable accomplishment, even if the depth is nowhere near that of London, an American winning Boston (or even being a serious contender) can't be a bad thing.
Bump
Luigi Vercotti wrote:
With the elite performances (2:07-2:09 times) at the very top, the race didn't come off like a total joke that was watered down just so some regional class Americans could have their day in the sun with 2:15-2:20 performances. At the same time, there weren't 20 Africans with 2:05-2:08 PRs in the race to push the Americans out of sight.
This field was a faaaar superior field than anything that Rodgers or Salazar or Shorter had ever witnessed as a competitor.
3 men with sub 2:07
2 more with sub 2:08
3 more with sub 2:09
That does not even include the Olympic Silver medalist along with 3 others under 2:10.
Wejo,
Just wanted to thank you, and offer support for your words on TV coverage at Boston. Not sure you went far enough though, and were much too kind to the Lewis/Johnson team. The fact is that their coverage of most track events, outside of the sprints, leaves just as much to be desired as their performance at Boston. Most of us who are runners want informed commentary on tactics and athletes, real-time as the race is run, not CNN-type snippets and soap-opera saga's on the one or two athletes that were picked out ahead for human interest stories.
For me, the sad and unforgettable nadir of commentary in this country was the breathtaking incompetence of their colleague Dwight Stones's calling the mile race in 2003 at Prefontaine. But truly, that is too painful and embarrassing even to recall ......
On the other hand, I had the great privilege to be down-under during the recent Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, Australia. There were lots of local grumblings about coverage there, but I can report that the 5000m, a spectacular race in front of 80,000 people at 10:00pm on a Monday night, was covered in full, without ad breaks, with informed and informative commentary before and afterwards ..... and with some guy named Steve Ovett describing the race. He seemed to know a thing or two about both runners and racing ;-)
Son of Sam Horn wrote:
Where in my post did I infer that the top guys weren't real athletes?
It was when you wrote, "Why not an article on a real athlete?" That implies that the articles written -- including those on Negussie, Teso, Maiyo, Meb, the Hanson team, etc. -- were not written about real athletes.
I thought the local papers did a very nice job of covering the elite end of the race.
Apparently the animosity exhibited by letsrun posters against Carol Lewis isn't shared by the average viewer or the networks. Most viewers simply don't care about the intricate details of a race since it probably doesn't have their full attention for three plus hours. I suspect the average viewer would be just as happy if Simms or Pitt or Madonna(at least she runs) did the announcing.
I know one well-known runner who is very articulate in his writings but a complete bust at getting up in front of an audience. How about a TV booth like pro football? A couple of announcers with back-up expertise provided by elite distance runners, current or has-beens?
This field was a faaaar superior field than anything that Rodgers or Salazar or Shorter had ever witnessed as a competitor.
3 men with sub 2:07
2 more with sub 2:08
3 more with sub 2:09
That does not even include the Olympic Silver medalist along with 3 others under 2:10.[/quote]
only a complete jerk would not realize that the above mentioned african are drug frauds
Bomp
PCS wrote:
... much too kind to the Lewis/Johnson team. The fact is that their coverage of most track events, outside of the sprints, leaves just as much to be desired as their performance at Boston.
Not knowing a damn thing about bobsledding, I thought Carol Lewis did a pretty decent job covering that during the winter Olympics. That made me wonder if people who do know about bobsledding thought Carol Lewis was a drooling imbecile who completely butchered the facts about their sport so blatantly that every single viewer was bound to catch the errors. Maybe those people - and the public at large - think Carol Lewis is very insightful and on top of things when it comes to distance running.
Carol Lewis is a world class bobsled