It was certainly frustrating that Solinsky's career was cut short by injury. He would have been on the Olympic team in 2012.
If he'd run the 10,000 in London that year, perhaps he would have forced the pace earlier. It would have been interesting. It was already an interesting race, with a quick 2nd half, but perhaps with Solinsky it would have been closer to 27:00.
ScottEvil wrote:
sub 12:50 isn't too much of a stretch, he ran 12:55. Put him in that 12:46 race from 2012 (
https://www.letsrun.com/2012/paris-0706.php) and maybe he'd hang on for a 12:49.
26:30/26:40 is a lot more of a stretch. 26:30.00 would make him 4th all time behind Geb, Bekele and Tergat. (Nicholas Kemboi ran 26:30.03.) 26:40.00 would put him 13th all time ahead of Wanjiru, Rupp, Farah, and Kipchoge i.e. people with a lot more global hardware than he has.
We rarely know what athletes are capable of in their perfect race (maybe Woody Kincaid's 12:58 is the exception?) but 2-3 seconds per K between real and ideal is a big leap of imagination.
If you can run 12:49, you can run 26:40 and 26:30 isn't much of a stretch either. The toughest part would be finding a race.
I got to ask though where all the drug accusations are. Guy goes from a 13:12 pr to 12:55 as a 26 year old? Doing stupidly hard training without getting hurt? Sounds like Centrosauce to me:) Or some minor injuries and not being in the right races and then things lining up for a year.
sprint fast wrote:
But there was that idiot in another thread claiming that nobody can break 15 minutes in a 5k and also break 13 in a 100. Obviously Solinsky could run 12 seconds if he could run 22 and 48.
Why would you think he could run 22 and 48? He was a 5k guy primarily whose second best event was the 10k, not the 1500. Being over 160 lbs doesn't automatically make him fast.
I like that the plan was 5K in 2012, 10K in 2016, and marathon in 2020.
Not related, but with more intelligent training and etc., I could see Salazar running a low-2:06 at Rotterdam at some point.
And in another different dimension I can see Chris battling for the 2-3 spot at the marathon trials a few weeks back.
All this said, it's crazy the backflips we did when Woody went sub-13 in a weird glorified TT. Solinsky was a bad, bad man.
Hobbyist wrote:
Sub Everything! wrote:
Given sub-7:30, 12:50, 26:40 were in the cards, where do you all think he was at for 1500, 800, 400, 200?
I'm guessing Solinski could've gone low 3:30, 1:44, :48 high, and sub:23.
22, 48, 1:44, 3:30, 7:2x, 12:4x, and 26:3x.
My god - who knew Solinski was the greatest runner of all time?! We need to redo the entire 'Greatest American Distance Runner' Bracket with this new knowledge!!
He ran 3:35 for 1500. You can't do that without being able to go sub 49. How about this guy? 27:30 in a 10k but can drop a 48 400 at the end of a workout. I would give him 10.9 out of blocks.
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
If you can run 12:49, you can run 26:40 and 26:30 isn't much of a stretch either. The toughest part would be finding a race.
Maybe you're right, but in the past decade, we've had handful of 12:43-12:48s but nothing faster than Rupp's 26:44 for the 10K. Do you think this is entirely about the lack of races? It seems to me that the comparative difficulty of < 26:40/10K and < 12:50/5K is also a factor.
sprint fast wrote:
He ran 3:35 for 1500. You can't do that without being able to go sub 49.
Solinsky: 3:35.89.
Rupp: 3:34.15.
Rupp had more leg speed than Solinsky, and I don't think either of them could do sub 49. Prefontaine had a mile PR only 1.5 behind what Solinsky's 1500m converts to.
There are plenty of guys that have run 3:35 that can't crack under 49 from blocks. Heck, some can't run under 50!
The key is to have a lot of aerobic strength, which these guys all do. Pretty much every guy running 3:35 can run under 14 minutes for 5K.
Given sub-7:30, 12:50, 26:40 were in the cards....... No!
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
ScottEvil wrote:
sub 12:50 isn't too much of a stretch, he ran 12:55. Put him in that 12:46 race from 2012 (
https://www.letsrun.com/2012/paris-0706.php) and maybe he'd hang on for a 12:49.
26:30/26:40 is a lot more of a stretch. 26:30.00 would make him 4th all time behind Geb, Bekele and Tergat. (Nicholas Kemboi ran 26:30.03.) 26:40.00 would put him 13th all time ahead of Wanjiru, Rupp, Farah, and Kipchoge i.e. people with a lot more global hardware than he has.
We rarely know what athletes are capable of in their perfect race (maybe Woody Kincaid's 12:58 is the exception?) but 2-3 seconds per K between real and ideal is a big leap of imagination.
If you can run 12:49, you can run 26:40 and 26:30 isn't much of a stretch either. The toughest part would be finding a race.
I got to ask though where all the drug accusations are. Guy goes from a 13:12 pr to 12:55 as a 26 year old? Doing stupidly hard training without getting hurt? Sounds like Centrosauce to me:) Or some minor injuries and not being in the right races and then things lining up for a year.
I agree that Solinsky's performances are HIGHLY SUSPECT.
And he's full of crap, he was not going to hit those marks he mentioned.
It's pointless to wonder what Solinsky could have run if he stayed healthy. He reached his full potential in 2010. It wasn't possible for him to train any harder while staying healthy because he was already training harder than anyone else. He completely and totally pushed the limits 100% and reached his potential in 2010 (likely with the help of EPO).
good runner but wrote:
I agree he could of just said yeah I think I could of lowered my personal bests had I been healthy and left it at that. To say sub 12:50? and 26:30s? My goodness that comes across as very disingenuous to just how fast those times are. Its a very millennial thing to do. I’m a millennial myself and stuff like this is why old timers dislike us so much.
How many old timers ran 26:xx for 10K? More to the point, who cares what boomers think lmao
Was 2011 the year he was tossed off the track by Merga?
ScottEvil wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
If you can run 12:49, you can run 26:40 and 26:30 isn't much of a stretch either. The toughest part would be finding a race.
Maybe you're right, but in the past decade, we've had handful of 12:43-12:48s but nothing faster than Rupp's 26:44 for the 10K. Do you think this is entirely about the lack of races? It seems to me that the comparative difficulty of < 26:40/10K and < 12:50/5K is also a factor.
In the last 10 years we have had the following sub 12:50 performances
12:45.82 Hagos Gebrhiwet
12:46.81 Dejen Gebremeskel
12:47.53 Hagos Gebrhiwet
12:48.77 Yenew Alamirew
12:49.50 John Kipkoech
4 were in one race.
Bekele ran 26:43 and Lucas Rotich ran a faster 26:44 than Rupp. But look at Rupp. Dude is a 12:58 guy who runs 26:44. Do is it really shocking that someone 8s faster over 5k can run the 10k 5-10s faster? And Rupp isn't some crazy outlier.
And yes it is mainly about races and opportunties. Joshua Cheptegei ran 26:48 last year splitting 13:33/13:15 at the world championships Was the weather ideal that day or were those the ideal splits? Probably not. If he was running 5 10k/years in good conditions, we would likely see times a bit faster.
Obviously all the times Chris is talking about are fast but they are in the same rough range of possibility.
Ya, It is nice he thinks he could have run those times but he is dreaming.
He was a great runner, but he was never going to hit those times.
I guess we all look back at what we could have done with a bit less reality than we should.
I don't get why this is so offensive to people. If he was doing better workouts in 2011 than he did in 2010, why is it crazy for him to think he could've taken 2 seconds per mile off of his 5k and 10k PRs?
With regard to the sprint discussion... 24.8 oh my god. The guy ran 28.x pace 7.5 times in row in a 1,500. He's closed 5ks in 26. He probably ran a 25 during an 800 at some point. Now he wasn't the fastest guy out there, but to think he would barely sneak under 25 is crazy. He could hold that pace for 400. 23.8 at worst.
Barega 12:43 and Kejelcha 12:46
If the pacing was better in the last decade and there was a gutsy front-runner (miss you Bekele) there would've been a lot more sub-12:50s. Farah was capable though his presence ruined many of the races. Lagat could've done it. Edris probably could.
My feeling is that if Woody Kincaid can pull off a 12:58, then the best East Africans could go at least 10 seconds quicker in perfect conditions.
tin can man wrote:
I agree that Solinsky's performances are HIGHLY SUSPECT.
And he's full of crap, he was not going to hit those marks he mentioned.
It's pointless to wonder what Solinsky could have run if he stayed healthy. He reached his full potential in 2010. It wasn't possible for him to train any harder while staying healthy because he was already training harder than anyone else. He completely and totally pushed the limits 100% and reached his potential in 2010 (likely with the help of EPO).
Pretty much everyone thinks they could have gone a bit faster. This years training was better. Splits in the PR race were wonky, and so on. Often times people struggle to recapture that prior form though because so much had to go right for them to hit those times. I think taking another 5s off your 5k time is was probably a bit optimistic. It is a fine dream to have though and if he didn't go into 2011 believing it was possible, I would be disappointed.
Seppo Kaitenen wrote:
I don't get why this is so offensive to people. If he was doing better workouts in 2011 than he did in 2010
He was going to make 2011 5k a pure guts race, run his last mile under 3:55 and DARE anyone to go with him....
I also heard he could of thrown a football over some mountains if Jerry would of kept him healthy.
Seppo Kaitenen wrote:
I don't get why this is so offensive to people. If he was doing better workouts in 2011 than he did in 2010, why is it crazy for him to think he could've taken 2 seconds per mile off of his 5k and 10k PRs?
With regard to the sprint discussion... 24.8 oh my god. The guy ran 28.x pace 7.5 times in row in a 1,500. He's closed 5ks in 26. He probably ran a 25 during an 800 at some point. Now he wasn't the fastest guy out there, but to think he would barely sneak under 25 is crazy. He could hold that pace for 400. 23.8 at worst.
To some extent it is easier for some of the distance guys to close fast. They don't have the slow first 50ms when the accellerate. Odds are he was a 49-50s+-.5s guy if he would have run a 400m all out when in shape. And yeah that tends to mean your are 24s type 200m runner.
ScottEvil wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
If you can run 12:49, you can run 26:40 and 26:30 isn't much of a stretch either. The toughest part would be finding a race.
Maybe you're right, but in the past decade, we've had handful of 12:43-12:48s but nothing faster than Rupp's 26:44 for the 10K. Do you think this is entirely about the lack of races? It seems to me that the comparative difficulty of < 26:40/10K and < 12:50/5K is also a factor.
The lack of races is the cause. There are very few if any attempts at fast 10K's. There isn't any reward for a fast 10K either. If you can't touch the WR (and 26:40 is a long way from the WR), it becomes pointless. There will be fewer and fewer attempts at fast 5K's as well with where we're headed.