Lawi Lalang wins Pac12 10k and 1500???

3.38 is a crazy time, that's faster than any other collegiate has gone this year and he did it in a conference championship race front running having run the 10k before.

The Pac 12 is also one of the strongest conferences for the 1500m.

WTF is going on around here where folks think a 19.79 200m and a 3:38 1500m are not impressive? There's a reason the kid won by 3 seconds in a major conference against guys that will most likely sign shoe contracts following college: his performance was great.

I hope he and the guy from Texas Tech go after that collegiate 5,000m outdoor record at nats. It's not likely, but I'm hopeful.

I'm most impressed with his last 200m of 19 seconds.

Nappy Roots wrote:

WTF is going on around here where folks think a 19.79 200m and a 3:38 1500m are not impressive? There's a reason the kid won by 3 seconds in a major conference against guys that will most likely sign shoe contracts following college: his performance was great.

I hope he and the guy from Texas Tech go after that collegiate 5,000m outdoor record at nats. It's not likely, but I'm hopeful.

The problem is that you guys don't have any reading comprehension. I never said 3:38 wasn't impressive. I was shocked that he won so easily and by so much in a conference that has traditionally been very strong. 3:38 shouldn't have won by 3 seconds in the pac12.

jwjwj wrote:

Nappy Roots wrote:

WTF is going on around here where folks think a 19.79 200m and a 3:38 1500m are not impressive? There's a reason the kid won by 3 seconds in a major conference against guys that will most likely sign shoe contracts following college: his performance was great.

I hope he and the guy from Texas Tech go after that collegiate 5,000m outdoor record at nats. It's not likely, but I'm hopeful.

The problem is that you guys don't have any reading comprehension. I never said 3:38 wasn't impressive. I was shocked that he won so easily and by so much in a conference that has traditionally been very strong. 3:38 shouldn't have won by 3 seconds in the pac12.

I's sorry suh...I's do betta nex time suh

Where is Kithuka?

jwjwj wrote:

3:38 doesn't seem that fast. Was that from a big kick or an early gap or what?

i'll try to leave semantics out of this, but as an english teacher, i'll have to admit poor reading comprehension skills, at least with the subsequent responses to the original post. i thought i understood the original post, too, but i may be wrong there as well.

so, i'll ask the question: under what circumstances would 3:38 NOT seem fast (at least at a pac 8/10/12 conference meet--i hope i can add this qualifying statement since it is explicitly part of the subject)? well, if we're back in the days of rono or cruz, 3:38 would NOT seem fast. i don't know every year's winning time, but i'd bet this is in the top 3 (i am prepared to admit i may be wrong here, but i can at least vouch for 3 years of that history). granted, lalang is a 3:36.77 guy based on invitational results from last year, so maybe you're pointing out relative to his ability and not within the context of a conference championship where he was doubling, but to "not seem fast" when you're within 2 seconds of that PR in a largely solo effort, after a 1500 prelim and 10k the night before? i don't get it.

which leads to the next question: under what circumstance would a 3:38 solo run NOT seem that fast? well, if you hicham, nourredine, or a host of others who are 3:35 guys or faster, then it would NOT seem fast. but under most other circumstances, i'm not sure how you could say it does not seem fast.

finally, regarding the qualifying second sentence: i'm not sure how it changes the overall context--unless i'm mistaken, it serves only to emphasize your first sentence, which is that is does not seem fast, such as "he must have been alone ('early gap'), so it seems like a slow ('not seem that fast') time," or, "he must have run a slow, tactical race ('big kick') to explain the slow ('not seem that fast') time.

sheesh, i wish i could have run some not seemingly fast solo efforts/doubling times like his in my day. maybe i've misunderstood the post, so i am prepared to be edified...

jwjwj wrote:

The problem is that you guys don't have any reading comprehension. I never said 3:38 wasn't impressive. I was shocked that he won so easily and by so much in a conference that has traditionally been very strong. 3:38 shouldn't have won by 3 seconds in the pac12.

Considering that Lalang set a PAC 12 conference meet record, perhaps this is more a perspective than a reading comprehension issue.

jwjwj wrote:

The problem is that you guys don't have any reading comprehension. I never said 3:38 wasn't impressive. I was shocked that he won so easily and by so much in a conference that has traditionally been very strong. 3:38 shouldn't have won by 3 seconds in the pac12.

The problem is definitely not that we don't have reading comprehension. The problem is that in your original post you said the time was not fast, and didn't mention the gap to second place at all. How were we supposed to know that by "3:38 doesn't seem that fast," you meant, "How did he win by so much, surely there must be someone else in the Pac-12 that can run 3:38?"

It's ok, you can admit that you didn't make your point very clearly- it happens to all of us. Because right now you're trying to argue that "it's not that fast" is qualitatively different than "it's not impressive," and that's a tough nut to crack.

Any video of either race?

Buffalo Orange wrote:

The problem is definitely not that we don't have reading comprehension. The problem is that in your original post you said the time was not fast, and didn't mention the gap to second place at all. How were we supposed to know that by "3:38 doesn't seem that fast," you meant, "How did he win by so much, surely there must be someone else in the Pac-12 that can run 3:38?"

"Was there a big early gap" or "a large kick at the end" (or whatever the exact words were that I said). That's how you were supposed to know what I meant by "3:38 doesn't seem that fast". So, yes, this is a reading comprehension issue because I definitely mentioned the gap in my original post. I even used the word "gap" I think. So now you have poor reading comprehension AND are partially blind. Are there any more issues that you want to add?

So by "early gap" you meant "gap at the finish." And by "not that fast" you didn't mean it wasn't impressive.

Yeah, you're a paragon of clarity and precision.

Buffalo Orange wrote:

So by "early gap" you meant "gap at the finish." And by "not that fast" you didn't mean it wasn't impressive.

Yeah, you're a paragon of clarity and precision.

No, I didn't mean any of that. Stop separating my statements and isolating them out of each other's context. Read them as a whole and the intent is clear.

Anyone know the story of why he didn't run the 5000M? Did it end up where the team couldn't be helped with him in the 5000M anyway? Was he physically beat?

It was my understanding he was going for the triple.

Dude everyone in this thread read your OP the same way: that you didn't think 3:38 was a fast time. If everybody misreads your statement then maybe reading comprehension isn't the problem...

Will everyone stop responding to this idiot, he is clearly trolling. Kind of funny because Lawi's performance last weekend is probably one of the greatest conference double ever and the PAC 12 has never been stronger.

jwjwj wrote:

Buffalo Orange wrote:

So by "early gap" you meant "gap at the finish." And by "not that fast" you didn't mean it wasn't impressive.

Yeah, you're a paragon of clarity and precision.

No, I didn't mean any of that. Stop separating my statements and isolating them out of each other's context. Read them as a whole and the intent is clear.

"What had happened was..."

"Well you know, what I meant to say was this but I can't help it if you heard what I really said...."

LOL

Stellaaaaa! wrote:

Will everyone stop responding to this idiot, he is clearly trolling. Kind of funny because Lawi's performance last weekend is probably one of the greatest conference double ever and the PAC 12 has never been stronger.

Is that even true? This year is stronger than when Rupp, Centrowitz, and Wheating were on the team together? Call me crazy, but I think these guys would not have gotten gapped by 3-6 seconds at 3:38.

jwjwj wrote: So now you have poor reading comprehension AND are partially blind. Are there any more issues that you want to add?

So now you're a sloppy thinker, poor communicator AND an insulting and aggressive prick. Cool! I wish I lived near you so we could hang out more.