The pace was so slow that I thought the results were really 7:33 up front...I did the same thing last year with the slow 5k.
Is this going to become a trend? If so, should they reduce the race to a 2000 in 2003?
The pace was so slow that I thought the results were really 7:33 up front...I did the same thing last year with the slow 5k.
Is this going to become a trend? If so, should they reduce the race to a 2000 in 2003?
I'm guessing that the people complaining that high schoolers could have won the GP final are the same people you hear in art galleries saying "What a bunch of crap! My four-year-old could have painted that!" Missing the point, in my opinion.
The point about entertainment value is more troubling. I think the racers were all doing what they felt would maximize their chance at a good placing, and thus making money. But if that makes the sport less interesting to the public, and leads to the long-term decline of the sport, that's a problem.
I don't think the solution is to tell the runners: "Don't just try to win. Be heroic. Be entertaining." Other sports have had similar problems -- men's tennis has been accused of being very boring thanks to all the serve and volleyers. Several years ago, there was a lot of criticism of players like Pete Sampras for being boring to watch. But the solution wasn't to tell Sampras how to play -- instead, they started experimenting with marginally bigger and fuzzier balls to slow the game down enough to encourage longer rallies. Same with hockey -- the trapping defence of the New Jersey Devils won them the Stanley Cup, but was stultifyingly boring to watch. So the NHL has tried to clamp down on clutching and grabbing, to free the ice up for talented offensive players.
It's more difficult for running -- one of the attractions of track is its inherent simplicity, so there aren't a lot of rules that can be tweaked. Perhaps if a major meet director were to split his prize money equally between placing and time bonuses, with no rabbit, that would produce the mix of tactics that would create an exciting race.
Apologies for the lengthy post. It just frustrates me to see the athletes coming under such heavy criticism for making completely rational decisions which are dictated by the nature of the races they're in.
Ferris
The point you so majestically stated is noted; however,
Ferris everyone in that field couldn't have thought they
had the best kick. The race had plenty of talent and
some potent KICKERS off any pace and everyone knew who
they were. I must admit that the pay had something to
do with the tactics; nonetheless, I disagree with that
everyone thought that the slow pace was in their best interest. The saddest part is those men ran less than
2 miles at over 4:30 mile pace and a high school boy leads
off a x-country 5k with a 4:28 mile the same week (has nothing to do with the subject, just wanted to slip that info in). Ferris the fans of track and field have a right to be slighted by such a slow 3000m. Look at the outdoor
women's 3000m list, women have run faster in 2002.
Would you also enjoy seeing Khalid and Paul Tergat run and win with a 2:20 marathon at Chicago and justify it.
SpeedUpGrandmaCatchingUS
koech,
you mean,"Guess whos more focused in money???"
Im not naive but everytime I race on the road I would be thinking about the money first, how to tackle the front runner, to stay up with the front pack, not about the time.
koech was absolutely right.
Karangasem.