Ritz 61:23 at Great North

Was that Steve's debut marathon as well? If not then the comparison is useless. Ritz proved this weekend that he has a tremedous amount of talent for the half marathon.

i watched the race in full.was fantastic race,.

Ramalla was throwing surges in after 6miles of racing.

he then had a 50m gap and ritz didnt go with the front 2.then he reeled them in after 8miles and looked really strong.sure he was gona get 2nd but wheels came of bit at end.he probably has alot of miles in legs.expect a great debut and good luck to him.

As Brendan foster siad during race ''great to see American distance running back on the map'''

Like Meb, Ritz can dip under 2:10 in NY- IF he runs a smart race (lays back and stays on his own pace).

And he should definitely lay off Ramalla- those 4:30 surges on 1st Avenue don't do anyone any good.

Gonna have to agree with everything malmo has said in this thread. On a better day, Ritz could have run low 60 minutes in that half.

I think calls for 2:14 for him at New York are silly. Unless the weather is horrible, sub 2:10 is a certainty, and sub 2:09 is possible. I would be more surprised with 2:12 than 2:07:something from Ritz.

My guess is 2:08:42.

61:25 is pretty much you would expect from someone is 27:30 10k shape(a bit on the slow side but with the headwind it levels out), it shows that he's in good shape but it's not more of an indicator for the Marathon as his 10k times are, Marathon is a different animal.

____________________________________________________________

You are right malmo, it wasn't a PR kind of day. It was very humid. You predicted 60.40 for Ritz. If the humidity had been low, he would have run that time.

Breaking News wrote:

61:25 is pretty much you would expect from someone is 27:30 10k shape(a bit on the slow side but with the headwind it levels out), it shows that he's in good shape but it's not more of an indicator for the Marathon as his 10k times are, Marathon is a different animal.

??? Of course it is more of an indicator of his marathon times than his 10k times are -- it's closer to the distance.

Could Alan Webb run that half marathon time? Perhaps, but most would say Ritz is likely a better half marathoner than Webb even though Webb currently has a better 10k PR.

A half marathon time doesn't for sure tell you what someone's marathon time might be, but it IS a better indicator than a 10,000 time. Sorry dude, but it is.

That is not true. More americans in the top 10 of the 10k are in the top 50 of the marathon than top 10 of the half marathon. You may want it to be true, but it is not.

how can you be more pedantic that Flagpole Willy?

Charles in charge wrote:

That is not true. More americans in the top 10 of the 10k are in the top 50 of the marathon than top 10 of the half marathon. You may want it to be true, but it is not.

About the same.

10k Meb, Abdi, Salazar, Virgin, Williams, Culpepper

1/2 marathon Abdi, Meb, Cummings, Williams with Curp (54th) just outside the top 50

and Khannouchi

Charles in charge wrote:

That is not true. More americans in the top 10 of the 10k are in the top 50 of the marathon than top 10 of the half marathon. You may want it to be true, but it is not.

Given that the half is run less frequently and that there are course variances in the half that don't exist in track 10,000s, that's not particularly relevant. Smaller data sample from a different pool.

That said, I don't consider a half a much better predictor of marathon performance than the 10,000 simply because, as malmo has correctly pointed out, the marathon is unique and despite being longer, the half still has more in common with the 10,000 than it does the marathon.

The key is the trend up, which we already knew. Ritz performs better at longer distances. But this is not news. We've known that for years.

We'll have a better idea of the answer to the last remaining question -- does that trend extend all the way to the marathon? -- after NY. I personally believe it does, and I believe we'll find that Ritz possesses all the necessary physical and mental tools for marathon success, but we won't know for sure until runs one (or two or three).

And for whatever it's worth, according to Purdy 1:01:23 is worth 2:08:46. The IAAF tables are almost identical, with 1:01:23 being worth 2:08:47.

i was at the course yesterday and conditions were not as good as the previous sub-60min effort runs (there are about 4 sub 60 times from over 1million finishers in 26years so not that common as suggested ;-) ).

it was not windy but had been raining early morning so the roadswere damp and slippy. conditions were not bad but the last 2 years have been near perfect......especially last year which was v.warm and dry and also had a strong following wind (hence 59.05 world best). the course heads in the same direction for 80% of the race and last year there was a STRONG down river wind blowing from behind from start to finish with only small sections where the wind would have been blowing across rather than from behind but hever a headwind due to the direction of the course.

in previous years it has never been known as a fast course due to the north east england weather conditions and the hilly course (it is marginally downhill but never flat so is not an easy course at all).

The races are traditionally settled ate on with several surges as in marathons so this should bode well for ritz in NYC.

He beat some world class marathoners and looked good.

Charles in charge wrote:

That is not true. More americans in the top 10 of the 10k are in the top 50 of the marathon than top 10 of the half marathon. You may want it to be true, but it is not.

That stat means nothing. The half isn't run nearly as often as those other two races.

A great time in a half marathon is a better indicator how the runner will do in a marathon that a great time in a 10,000. FACT.

Not bad, but a far cry from some of the stuff, I've pulled out my .....

Flagpole Willy wrote:A great time in a half marathon is a better indicator how the runner will do in a marathon that a great time in a 10,000. FACT.

Agreed, but only marginally better. as has been pointed out, the marathon is unique, and the half-marathon has a lot more in common with the 10,000 than it does the marathon. but you are correct that the longer distance is theoretically the better indicator, but not by enough to make a lot of difference IMHO.

malmo wrote:

Great North wrote:

He CAN race mature. He HAS that within him. He IS a great runner. He DOES, however, run his mouth off a bit too much to the press.

I don't believe that's true. He's being interviewed, and he answers the question truthfully. Ritzenhein feels he can win New York. That's exactly what he should be thinking.

Quit over-analyzing everthing, you'd enjoy the sport much more.

I kind of agree with GN.

Ritz should believe he can win NY, but when he states his thoughts publically, I think it puts too much pressure on him.

Maybe it's acting on a subconscious level, but when he states he thinks he can win and then he finds himself struggling during in the race, he may take himself out mentally, thinking 'maybe I CAN'T win'.

The pressure of saying he has a good shot and struggling midrace, whereas he might be able to pull through sans public comment and still place high, but it's not that win he had claimed so he therefore bombs. Without the blister, isn't that what essentially had happened at World Cross a few years ago?

It works both ways. Imagine Raamala is having an off day (let's say rain is almost certain and he gets another bad night of sleep and the rain makes him nervous)then imagine a kid who has weathered Boulder winters hanging on and making a surge. Raamala may be take himself out mentally. A coach of mine once used the quote ,"sooner or later, the one who wins is the one who thinks he can." Good luck Ritz we are behind you!