The stakes were high in the same way that the stakes at qualifying round 1 at the world championships are high. I want to see Hocker treating this race like a championship title he cares about defending, not like qualifying round 0 of 4 for the world's final.
Well then you need to shift the incentives in ways that people wouldn’t like. Only first place gets an auto bid. Some sort of scoring system/committee for the other 2. As long as top 3 get slots, athletes won’t be life-or-death about winning a Trials race.
Or you could move away from having a single all or nothing championship, which is what my original post was complaining about.
Have 3-4 equally high stakes meets throughout the season, akin to the triple crown in horse racing or grand slams in tennis. Give some top runners by season best or season ranking autoqualifiers to the semis for these, and have more extensive qualifying meets to fill the remaining spots.
This way you avoid the problem of the top runners only taking one race each season seriously, mitigate the downsides of having just a single bad race or short term injury, and give some lower ranked athletes more opportunities to make a name for themselves via upsets.
GST had lots of dumb gimmicks and was horribly managed, but at least it had the right idea of not just focusing on a single final meet.
Or you could move away from having a single all or nothing championship, which is what my original post was complaining about.
Have 3-4 equally high stakes meets throughout the season, akin to the triple crown in horse racing or grand slams in tennis. Give some top runners by season best or season ranking autoqualifiers to the semis for these, and have more extensive qualifying meets to fill the remaining spots.
This way you avoid the problem of the top runners only taking one race each season seriously, mitigate the downsides of having just a single bad race or short term injury, and give some lower ranked athletes more opportunities to make a name for themselves via upsets.
GST had lots of dumb gimmicks and was horribly managed, but at least it had the right idea of not just focusing on a single final meet.
I don’t have a problem with it. I’d like World Indoors, World XC and World Roads to operate as a second major (one each year) and the DL Final maybe as the 3rd. That would work within the confines. Putting the meets in China, and poor scheduling needs to be addressed as well as athlete buy-in.
I think you guys are missing what he's saying. He had a lot left, he says he thought the time could've been 3:37 with how much it felt like a sit-and-kick race. Recall he's looked flat in pretty much every race this season especially in the last 100. Even in Philly, Kerr mowed him down despite a decent gap. He noted he thought he could've gotten to the front a few times in the race, and passed on it because in his mind he cared most about top 3. He spent the next bit praising the "unbelievable" depth of the US, which is respect to his competitors. And then he said he felt "way too good" to not catch 2-3 guys in the last 100 after he got "swallowed up." So, it's the "easiest race" mostly because he's at his fittest, and assuredly training through the least. Even though he fumbled the tactics a bit he admits, he still felt quite good and confident.
And I think you are missing that in fact, by saying he had a lot left, he is coping with the reality that no matter how "easy" it was, he did was not capable (today) of catching those guys.
Remember, Jakob cut him off in the Olympic final last year with 150 to go and he still managed to run 3:27 and mow everyone down. Hocker today is not that guy.
Sure, he pays respect to his competitors. But his coping style is like a kid saying he didn't actually try. I see my kid and his friends do this every single day.
loooool, good post bruh!!! he is a useless coward. cant lose with honor
I’ll watch the video from Wejo later, but the quote sounds like a 5 year old saying they didn’t try when they lost. It’s weak, and if he was the same level above everyone as last year, he would have won. Either they are better or he’s worse.
Fact is, he’s had a lot of defensive talk since the Olympics and hasn’t been all that impressive on the track.
“That wasn’t hard” after a loss (blowout loss) is weak sauce. Lame, loser mentality.
You’re being highly critical before even taking the time to watch the 3 minute video.
He says, quote, “In a weird way—obviously I got 3rd today, but—that was the easiest race I’ve run all season.” He said he was surprised by the time because it felt like a kicker’s race, and he did in fact run 12.54 for the last 100m.
Shortly after that, he says “I’m not going to lie, I really wanted to win…in that, it always stings a little bit not to.”
He also practically acknowledges that the level of the competition is higher than ever.
The interview shows a combination of
1) Relief that he made one of the toughest teams in the world, when guys like Nuguse and Kessler did not
2) Dissatisfaction with being beaten into 3rd
3) Encouragement from clocking 3:30 in an imperfect race where he didn’t hit top gear until late, knowing he’s capable of considerably faster
I found the interview totally reasonable and didn’t find anything unlikable in it.
I think people on the internet are so eager to tear others down.
P.S. “Blowout loss”? 0.20 seconds?
at this level fine margins means anything above .1 is blowout loss!!
I believe it. He ran more conservatively this year than last, and the last 180 was honestly a debacle for him. Both Strand and Koech beat him to the kicking position and he had to check up after Strand in particular. He kept calm, but then had to run even wider to get a clear run to kick. His 12.5 was competitive with the top 2, but the gap was too big despite the fact that he clearly had more zip today than his GST/Pre race. He just had nearly everything go wrong on that turn.
if he is that good he will write his race prediction in an envelop and seal it shut before it's run lool
You're harsher than I would be but I did get the impression he was trying to cope with the loss by making that comment. It's kind of silly to call it the easiest race of the season when he didn't even win, and although he never came out and said it directly, his statements gave the impression that he could've/would've won if he tried harder or took more of a risk.
I think you guys are missing what he's saying. He had a lot left, he says he thought the time could've been 3:37 with how much it felt like a sit-and-kick race. Recall he's looked flat in pretty much every race this season especially in the last 100. Even in Philly, Kerr mowed him down despite a decent gap. He noted he thought he could've gotten to the front a few times in the race, and passed on it because in his mind he cared most about top 3. He spent the next bit praising the "unbelievable" depth of the US, which is respect to his competitors. And then he said he felt "way too good" to not catch 2-3 guys in the last 100 after he got "swallowed up." So, it's the "easiest race" mostly because he's at his fittest, and assuredly training through the least. Even though he fumbled the tactics a bit he admits, he still felt quite good and confident.
I believe it. He ran more conservatively this year than last, and the last 180 was honestly a debacle for him. Both Strand and Koech beat him to the kicking position and he had to check up after Strand in particular. He kept calm, but then had to run even wider to get a clear run to kick. His 12.5 was competitive with the top 2, but the gap was too big despite the fact that he clearly had more zip today than his GST/Pre race. He just had nearly everything go wrong on that turn.
If it was so easy, why didn't the self-proclaimed "Worlds Best Racer" win?
It is all very well saying "he had everything go wrong for him", but unfortunately you have to be better with positioning, tactics and speed to win races, and so that things don't go wrong. You can say "he had more zip today than Pre", but he didn't do anything with it.
Over the last 12 months, I have heard many excuses for Hocker's losing performances:
"He peaked for the Olympics and is past his peak fitness"
"It is February, he is peaking for Worlds"
"It is April, he is peaking for Worlds"
"He is training through GST"
"He is doubling, and not training for the 800m"
"He ran better than last year at Pre"
"It is only US Champs, he did enough and is peaking for Worlds"
Can we just say he is not good enough right now and needs to improve if he hopes to medal at Worlds, let alone grab a gold?
The idea that Hocker is supremo at peaking for world championships is somewhat of a fallacy, because he has only done it once in 2024.
As I have said in other past threads, in all likelihood he won't repeat it this year because, A) timing your peak for a single race once a year is very hard and competition is stiff, and B) there isn't a strong trend of Hocker peaking and winning year on year.
I believe it. He ran more conservatively this year than last, and the last 180 was honestly a debacle for him. Both Strand and Koech beat him to the kicking position and he had to check up after Strand in particular. He kept calm, but then had to run even wider to get a clear run to kick. His 12.5 was competitive with the top 2, but the gap was too big despite the fact that he clearly had more zip today than his GST/Pre race. He just had nearly everything go wrong on that turn.
Surprised no one mentioned the 5k that he’s racing today.
If it was so easy, why didn't the self-proclaimed "Worlds Best Racer" win?
It is all very well saying "he had everything go wrong for him", but unfortunately you have to be better with positioning, tactics and speed to win races, and so that things don't go wrong. You can say "he had more zip today than Pre", but he didn't do anything with it.
Over the last 12 months, I have heard many excuses for Hocker's losing performances:
"He peaked for the Olympics and is past his peak fitness"
"It is February, he is peaking for Worlds"
"It is April, he is peaking for Worlds"
"He is training through GST"
"He is doubling, and not training for the 800m"
"He ran better than last year at Pre"
"It is only US Champs, he did enough and is peaking for Worlds"
Can we just say he is not good enough right now and needs to improve if he hopes to medal at Worlds, let alone grab a gold?
The idea that Hocker is supremo at peaking for world championships is somewhat of a fallacy, because he has only done it once in 2024.
As I have said in other past threads, in all likelihood he won't repeat it this year because, A) timing your peak for a single race once a year is very hard and competition is stiff, and B) there isn't a strong trend of Hocker peaking and winning year on year.
In 2023, he was at his best form of the season at Worlds. It was a good peak to get in the finals over a couple of guys with 3:29 SBs, and get 7th with Habz, Nader well behind him and Reynold as well.
He wasn’t “world’s best racer” yesterday, he was solid through 1200 then flat-out bad the last 200. So yeah if you wanna say he showed that putting together a good tactical race wasn’t easy for him, I agree. But that doesn’t mean what he said was wrong. You don’t run a 12.5 last 100 if the race hasn’t felt somewhat easy for you. And you say he didn’t do anything with his form yesterday? He crushed 3rd and 5th from the Olympics in the last 100 with it. The odds are stacked against repeating, but he still has the best last 100 of the guys who’ve broken 3:28. I’d say Kerr is better tactically and Jakob has shown he can be fitter. The Koechs are wild cards.
being good tactically gets harder and harder when the number of game competitors basically doubles.
He got stuck yesterday, despite having decent position throughout the race, because two guys who were basically as fit as him left before him, and they didn't die.
Good luck being tactically good at worlds when there are 6 or 7 guys in a huge mass, game to run a 3:27 or better.
Are you gonna go with 400 left, 300, 250, 200, etc.?
honestly, i guess if it was SO EASY for him, he should left with 300 or 400 to go. Or 600 to go like Kerr did at Prefontaine last year.