Ritz and the US 10K record

It also looks like Koech ran a 10K in sub 28min less than a week before he produced that record which means he was looking for money and not time. I would imagine his 28:10 wasn't anywhere close to as fast as he could have run that course (I mean as soon as he broke the field he probably just cruised in for the payday). Nothing to take away from Ritz, but that was a good performance for him at this point in the year (not great, but even he thinks this is just the start of his season so he shouldn't be race fit).

Remember that Ryan Hall averaged 4:33 pace for a 1/2 marathon. Ritz just averaged 4:32 pace for a 10K. He has a ways to go.

SPEEDY56 wrote:

It also looks like Koech ran a 10K in sub 28min less than a week before he produced that record which means he was looking for money and not time. I would imagine his 28:10 wasn't anywhere close to as fast as he could have run that course (I mean as soon as he broke the field he probably just cruised in for the payday).

It imagination of 18 min 5k runners

Completely different courses bro. Can we also apply that to Mottram?....."Hall ran faster over 13.1 than Mottram can for 6.2."

Don't be an idiot.

historical facts- I agree. It just seems like the messageboarder-mass drops people's stock too soon. Probably because the typical messageboarder has no idea what it takes to be really god, and that there are going to be ups and downs. Oh, and because most people are idiots in general.....especially on Letsrun.

A runner who has run 27:35 at Ritz's age should be reasonably assumed to be capable of running in the low 27's and, if a lot breaks right for him, he would have a shot at going under 27 minutes.

Didn't change anything. All it showed was that he was continuing some progress...depending on how one perceives his performance level yesterday. If you chose to ignore this prior to yesterday then that is your issue.

Ritz had given every indication that he could run "really fast someday" prior to yesterday. Why one would assume that a runner could run in the 27 teens yet have no shot at going under 27 just defies logic.

Chances of Ritz breaking 27 are probably pretty small but it's not out of the question.

SPEEDY56 wrote:

It also looks like Koech ran a 10K in sub 28min less than a week before he produced that record which means he was looking for money and not time. I would imagine his 28:10 wasn't anywhere close to as fast as he could have run that course (I mean as soon as he broke the field he probably just cruised in for the payday).

I witnessed that race gun to tape from the press truck and that is not the way I saw. He did break the field early, at 3 km, but he ran hard the entire way, winning the race by 51 seconds.

David Monti, Race Results Weekly

P.S. Can you believe that season Koech had in 1997? 26 races/11 victories

David--are you sure you want to let the facts insinuate themselves here!? The "indirect" criticism of Ritz--a young man who's only trying to be as good as runner as he can--is astonishing. Mottram had a bad day, etc. Koech just cruised in for the money. As I see it, Mottram and Ritz both toed the starting line and Ritz finished far ahead. And Ritz broke Koech's record, who, in 1997, came in fourth in both the World Cross and the World 10,000, and who ran 26:36 for 10,000, and who won the Carlsbad 5,000 in 13:15, and who ran 12:56, and who . . . . When one breaks a record held by Peter Koech, one has done something. Period.

David Monti wrote:

SPEEDY56 wrote:

It also looks like Koech ran a 10K in sub 28min less than a week before he produced that record which means he was looking for money and not time. I would imagine his 28:10 wasn't anywhere close to as fast as he could have run that course (I mean as soon as he broke the field he probably just cruised in for the payday).

I witnessed that race gun to tape from the press truck and that is not the way I saw. He did break the field early, at 3 km, but he ran hard the entire way, winning the race by 51 seconds.

David Monti, Race Results Weekly

P.S. Can you believe that season Koech had in 1997? 26 races/11 victories

Montesquieu wrote:

David--are you sure you want to let the facts insinuate themselves here!? The "indirect" criticism of Ritz--a young man who's only trying to be as good as runner as he can--is astonishing.

I'm confused by Motesquieu's post and feel as though my post must have been misunderstood.

I was trying to convey the following points:

1. When Koech set the record he was in great shape and the race was part of the best season of his career.

2. Koech ran hard throughout the entire race when he set the record, a race which I witnessed gun to tape. It was my observation that he did not cruize in for the payday.

3. By breaking the record, Ritzenhein indeed broke a high quality mark give how good the athlete was who set it (in great form at the time to boot), and given the difficulty of the course. I also watched this race from gun to tape.

I hope this makes things clearer.

--David Monti, Race Results Weekly

David Monti wrote:

P.S. Can you believe that season Koech had in 1997? 26 races/11 victories

Yes. What's so hard to believe about that?

malmo wrote:

David Monti wrote:

P.S. Can you believe that season Koech had in 1997? 26 races/11 victories

Yes. What's so hard to believe about that?

That's about a third more races an athlete at that level typically runs in a year, especially given that Koech ran five track 10,000m races.

Compared to ten years ago, athletes make a higher percentage of their income from shoe company payments vs. money paid by meet organizers (appearance fees, prize money, time bonuses). Athletes tend to race less as a result.

David Monti, Race Results Weekly

since i still hold a central park record on a course that utilizes the easiest part of CP, i think i can comment here.

1. I think everyone understands david's comments about koech and the comparison. Koech ran a good hard run on a tough course. Ritz just ran faster on the same course. enough said.

2. that course is worth WAYYYY more than 10-20sec down to the track. will ritz run that much faster? who knows, but a betting man says he will. I've run right around 18flat for a 4mi (slowing up to a jog/walk the last 200m to float the official time closer to 18:30) in CP......on the easiest 4mi in the park. i was in sub4, 13:30, 28low shape on that day.

holding that pace for the other two miles means YOU ARE IN SHAPE. those other two miles are a real bitch, no other way to put it.

3. Mottram is one of the most consistent athletes around. I have NEVER (perhaps someone can show me?) seen him truly "bomb" at a race. anyone who ever beats him has a valid "claim," as they say in the surf world.

dude-

Dave, I agree his season was amazing. I still think a sub 28 10K is going to zap quite a bit out of your legs when you race a second hard effort (as you called it) at the same distance in less than a week. I really can't see a guy, who dropped the field at 3K, pushing his limits on that hilly course on the way in (in his situation with the previous race). Not to say he didn't run fast (he ran mid 26 later that year).

Aberdeen wrote:

Completely different courses bro. Can we also apply that to Mottram?....."Hall ran faster over 13.1 than Mottram can for 6.2."

Don't be an idiot.

Its a closer comparison than trying to figure out what there track times will be for 10K. And yes we can compare that to Mottram too (he ran slower "that day" than Hall's avg for the half marathon). It just shows that both guys are early on in their respective seasons and aren't ready to race the worlds best yet.

Not to say they won't be in the next month or so.

David Monti wrote:

P.S. Can you believe that season Koech had in 1997? 26 races/11 victories

malmo wrote:

Yes. What's so hard to believe about that?

David Monti wrote:

That's about a third more races an athlete at that level typically runs in a year, especially given that Koech ran five track 10,000m races.

Compared to ten years ago, athletes make a higher percentage of their income from shoe company payments vs. money paid by meet organizers (appearance fees, prize money, time bonuses). Athletes tend to race less as a result.

Yes, I'll stipulate each and every one of your points, but back to your original statement:

"Can you believe that season Koech had in 1997? 26 races/11 victories

Yes I can believe it, what's so hard hard to believe that a 26:36 10k runner could do that? Gebrselasssie himself ran 26 races in 1998 and won an astounding 24 of them. I can believe that, as well. That's what really really fast runners are capable of.

I can also believe that for a sub 27 runner, a 28:00 10k requires just a little more effort than Josh McDougal needed to run his sick[sic, emphasis by others] double at ICAAAA. All it requires is to put a proper perspective and scale on the big picture.

malmo wrote:Yes I can believe it, what's so hard hard to believe that a 26:36 10k runner could do that? Gebrselasssie himself ran 26 races in 1998 and won an astounding 24 of them. I can believe that, as well. That's what really really fast runners are capable of.

Thanks, Malmo. I guess I was struck by how much things have changed in a decade. The top guys just don't race that much anymore, while the lower-tier athletes have to race like crazy because they have no sponsor income and need prize money income.

DFM

aside from Geb, are there really that many sub27 guys that run that often in a year with that many victories? it really doesnt seem as common as you make it out to be, and Geb is a very extreme case. the guy is a machine! Koech has a had a few fast times but nowhere in the same league as Geb.

David, thanks for the interesting perspective and info. Neat to see that Koech not only ran sub-28 the week before NYC, but also ran 13:15 the week before that, and another sub-28 the week before that!

As for Malmo's point about successive 28min 10K's for a 26:36 guy being comparable in effort to MacDougal tripling at that conference meet -- that kind of backs up the point some others have been making, that the Central Park race wasn't a one-off 26:36-effort race. In other words, being fit enough to string together this series of fast races may have been an indicator that Koech was ready to blast a 26:36 -- but any single one of those races, on its own, wouldn't necessarily have been an indicator for 26:36.

Regardless, it's a very good -- and mostly unexpected, I think -- indicator for Ritz, and only time will tell what it will bring on the track.

My apologies for the confusion. I'm in entire agreement with you. My opening question was ironic. The rest of my comments were aimed at those criticizing Ritz for defeating a not entirely fit Mottram and breaking a weak record. I give him kudos for defeating a world class guy and for breaking a substantial record held by a very substantial guy. But while we are at it, would you mind providing your own description of Ritz's race?

Aberdeen wrote:

historical facts- I agree. It just seems like the messageboarder-mass drops people's stock too soon. Probably because the typical messageboarder has no idea what it takes to be really god, and that there are going to be ups and downs. Oh, and because most people are idiots in general.....especially on Letsrun.

Does ANYBODY know what it takes to be really god???

;-)