for those wanting splits with just the minutes and seconds:
ttp://boulderroadrunners.org/results/USATFw40splitss.htm
http://boulderroadrunners.org/results/USATFm40splitss.htm
http://boulderroadrunners.org/results/USATFwjrsplitss.htm
http://boulderroadrunners.org/results/USATFmjrsplitss.htm
Impressive Win Culp wrote:
The sage marathoners kicked ass, and the 'fast' guys looked inexperienced, arrogant and foolish.
Yep, Gouch and Ritz sure looked foolish and inexperienced when they finished second and third at nationals. I was really embarrassed for them, could hardly watch.
sjc wrote:
abdi is hardly on the downside of his career. i don't know how you can say that when he was the top guy in 2006 from 10k through the marathon. he is only 28! how is that downslide.
goucher has put together two pretty good years in a row. whenever you are running 1310 in back to back years id say you are doing pretty good. throw in a 6th place at wxc and that is hardly a downslide. if the last two years have shown us anything, its that goucher is back with a vengeance and has many good years left to make some noise.
culpepper is the elder statesman, he's 34. he's been quiet for awhile but with his performance saturday he might be ready to have a monster year. he had talked about pr'ing in the 5k/10k and he could do it. he could very well make the olympics again at 10k or the marathon.
with your logic i guess we should count deena out too. she's 33 and too old to make anything happen on the world stage anymore. she should quit while she's still on top. note: colleen de reuck was late 30's when she made the olympics in 2004.
1) I didn't say Abdi was on the downside of his career. I said he was approaching the top of his hill.
2) Abdi is 30, NOT 28 --
http://www.usatf.org/athletes/bios/Abdirahman_Abdi.asp3) The word I used was "downside" not "downslide". Yes Culpepper and Goucher are still competing at a high (nationally) level, but they have fewer days ahead of them in their careers than they do behind them, thus the "downside" of their careers. I can't believe I have to explain this.
4) My "logic" doesn't necessarily carry over to the women's side. Besides, YES, Deena is also on the downside of her career. Doesn't mean she won't continue to run very well and even set PRs, but my point was that the FUTURE of American distance running lies with the younger guys (I wasn't talking about the WOMEN) who still have lots of time to improve.
I think many of you need to take a critical reading course.
FW is all over the place wrote:
[quote]Flagpole Willy wrote:
Culpepper did well with this victory of his, but I think his best has already happened. Still need to hope for better things to come from that under 30 group.
/quote]
congrats you pretty much just assured the fact that culp will win the OT thon and the OT 10k
He may very well do that. Good for him if he does. I don't think he'll ever run a marathon in 2:09 again. I never said he was washed up...just that his best times are behind him. He runs better than 2:09:41 or 27:33 again and I'll eat my words.
twice a runner wrote:
Impressive Win Culp wrote:The sage marathoners kicked ass, and the 'fast' guys looked inexperienced, arrogant and foolish.
Yep, Gouch and Ritz sure looked foolish and inexperienced when they finished second and third at nationals. I was really embarrassed for them, could hardly watch.
Both Goucher and Ritz admitted that their goal was to win. They both failed in reaching their goal. Why? Ritz ran a stupid race and Goucher followed. Ask Ritz or Goucher what they think. They both admitted that Culpepper ran the smarter race. Culpepper could only win if 3 things happened and he only had control over one of them.
1. Culpepper had to run a smart race.
2. Ritz had to run a foolish race.
3. Goucher had to run a foolish race.
If any one of those things didn't happen, then Culpepper would not have won.
Were you even there? wrote:
Ritz ran a stupid race and Goucher followed... If any one of those things didn't happen, then Culpepper would not have won.
So if Ritz/Goucher started slower and ran faster overall, we "know" that Culp wouldn't have been there at the end?? I'm not ready to make that assumption.
Were you even there? wrote:
Both Goucher and Ritz admitted that their goal was to win. They both failed in reaching their goal. Why? Ritz ran a stupid race and Goucher followed. Ask Ritz or Goucher what they think. They both admitted that Culpepper ran the smarter race. Culpepper could only win if 3 things happened and he only had control over one of them.
1. Culpepper had to run a smart race.
2. Ritz had to run a foolish race.
3. Goucher had to run a foolish race.
If any one of those things didn't happen, then Culpepper would not have won.
Had Ritz had a better day and held on everyone would be saying he ran brilliantly, with the right strategy -- to take it out hard and break everyone. Had he run more moderately and still not won, people would say his strategy was failed, that he should have gone out fast. Without Ritz (or Gouch) winning the race, you types would be going on about how his strategy was stupid regardless. There's no winning to Message Board coaches like yourself.
And your three points are hogwash. There's absolutely no way to know that for sure. You're assuming Culpepper is much more of a slouch than he is. He's run a 2:09 marathon and 27:33 10k, both faster than Ritz. His 5k isn't bad either.
That Ritz and Gouch say they didn't run the smartest race doesn't make them arrogant, nor does it make their race's foolish. Probably the last person you should ask about how one's strategy worked out is the racer. Did you see the video of Gouch afterwards? Full of excuses. He tripped here, rolled his ankle there.
It just wasn't his day to win. It was Culpepper's. Culpepper didn't need either of them to run foolishly (and they didn't --they got f***ing 2nd and 3rd place for christ's sake!) as he's an excellent runner himself.
twice a runner wrote:
Were you even there? wrote:Both Goucher and Ritz admitted that their goal was to win. They both failed in reaching their goal. Why? Ritz ran a stupid race and Goucher followed. Ask Ritz or Goucher what they think. They both admitted that Culpepper ran the smarter race. Culpepper could only win if 3 things happened and he only had control over one of them.
1. Culpepper had to run a smart race.
2. Ritz had to run a foolish race.
3. Goucher had to run a foolish race.
If any one of those things didn't happen, then Culpepper would not have won.
Had Ritz had a better day and held on everyone would be saying he ran brilliantly, with the right strategy -- to take it out hard and break everyone. Had he run more moderately and still not won, people would say his strategy was failed, that he should have gone out fast. Without Ritz (or Gouch) winning the race, you types would be going on about how his strategy was stupid regardless. There's no winning to Message Board coaches like yourself.
And your three points are hogwash. There's absolutely no way to know that for sure. You're assuming Culpepper is much more of a slouch than he is. He's run a 2:09 marathon and 27:33 10k, both faster than Ritz. His 5k isn't bad either.
That Ritz and Gouch say they didn't run the smartest race doesn't make them arrogant, nor does it make their race's foolish. Probably the last person you should ask about how one's strategy worked out is the racer. Did you see the video of Gouch afterwards? Full of excuses. He tripped here, rolled his ankle there.
It just wasn't his day to win. It was Culpepper's. Culpepper didn't need either of them to run foolishly (and they didn't --they got f***ing 2nd and 3rd place for christ's sake!) as he's an excellent runner himself.
Nice post. The top guys in the US can't lose a race without being called arrogant or foolish or ripped on for their training, or their coach sucks or they should have stayed in school, and on and on. Culpepper ran better today, and he might run better on future days too. Last I looked, he was quite good.
In Ritz' interview on Flocasts he said he took it out hard and hoped the others would follow, and they didn't follow as much as he'd hoped. That's a strategy worth trying at the U.S. champs against people of your own calibre and at altitude. Sure, the win is nice, but when they pick 9 for the World XC team the win is not as important, so you can experiment more with strategy. Much more room for error.
Ritz admitted the fast start was not a good strategy for World XC, and said he would try to run an even race there.
There's a fine art to that early attempt to sucker people into a race of attrition, and I have a feeling that many people who try it run themselves into the ground first (witness Bedford's 10k at Munich Olympics). On cross country where you don't have the feedback every 400m, and at altitude (even for an altitude trained runner) that strategy has a little more risk.
If Ritz had waited until 2km and then tried to stretch it out slowly he might have had better luck in bringing the others with him and tiring them out as well. Or not. We'll never know. It's not like Ritz got beat by chumps, and was entitled to the win. But it sure is fun to speculate.