Goucher finishes in 13:22
Goucher finishes in 13:22
chitown wrote:
does anyone have a link to the ritz win over hall back in 03? the one where he falls....
I assume you mean the NCAA XC Championship race, as it was the only race they ran together, but I don't know what you mean by "...the one where he falls...". The race was shown on TV, and he didn't fall.
I'll say Ritz wins in 13:13, with a nice early-season PR. Goucher in second at 13:19.
I have no idea what I'm talking about though.
8:11.74 for 2M!? Damn.
See what I'm sayin here people? He's gonna roll 5K and 10K if he stays healthy. I almost want to bring that 27:11 prediction down to 27:06 now, but.....
8:11 is not even worth 27:11. 8:11 = 13:08-13:10 and that's around 27:25ish.
You know Ritz lacks a bit in the speed category right?.....and that he's an aerobic animal? Alright, cool, then we're all on the same page now.
666 wrote:
8:11 is not even worth 27:11. 8:11 = 13:08-13:10 and that's around 27:25ish.
What are you smoking? 8.11 is way better than 13.08, Ritz gets better with the distance. So in perfect conditions he might have a shot at sub-27, but he would still be off the WR by 40 sec.
McMillan Calculator:
2M 8:11.0
5K 13:17
10K 27:36
1/2 1:01:25
... all dead in line with his PRs. Move along, no story here.
webb ran 8:11.48 in June at Pre and 13:10 toward the end of the Euro season in great shape, so that's what we can look to for ritz and then of course webb ran 27:34, but ritz should do better at 10k comparably than webb with regard to their 5k pr's. bottom line: ritz is ready to challenge the american 10k record in the right race.
Well, you MIGHT not want to use "McMillan" (who? - HAHA) race calculators when talking about WORLD CLASS performances. What an idiot.
Let's look at something that MEANS something, like perhaps, the IAAF 'distance' tables point systems:
8:11.74 = about 27:17
Now wait, let's go to the 'middle distance' IAAF page:
The same points (1209-1210) equal a 3:52 mile.
SO, MORON, I doubt Ritz can go 3:52 for the mile. Which means, if you make a chart, he'd be worse in the mile and BETTER in the 10K.
Oh, and I'm a 200lb, weight-lifting, beer drinking, no abs, fat FUKK who used to run a lot. Do your homework bro.
8:11 is clearly superior to 13:17. f*** the mcmillan calculator
HAHAHAHAHA!!! YESSS!!! Joe Friday got served!! HAHAHA!!!
Jack's VDOT Calc
5K - 13:17
10K - 27:41
VO2Max Formula
5K 13:13
10K 27:32
Again, I'm sure these guys are smart dudes and everything, but c'mon.....(see my previous post).....
You're way off here dude. How old are you?
I'm sure you can only HOPe he fails...Its amazing americans do so well with so much negativity on t hese posts...the dude just ran 8:11 and if Teg had helped him a bit he could have gone faster. Teg was sucking off of him untill he made his move...
fromafar wrote:
Ritz is right on his usual pace.
Get super fit.
Run a fantastic race too soon.
Run good at US qualifying race.
Get hurt and miss major event.
Repeat.
Tables Schmables. Ritz ran an 8:23 and a 27:35 in the same season. So now he runs an 8:11+...... and you're saying that's worth a 27:35?
Ritz also ran 13:16 that season, obviously the 8:23 was a off day.
Joe Friday ... wrote:
McMillan Calculator:
That McMillan Calculator is way off. The IAAF tables put 8:11.74 at 13:02.7 and 27:17. Ritzenhein is much better at the two longer distances than he is at 2 miles.
sucking off him? ha. he was in the back for the most of the race because he ran smart. whatever you need to tell yourself so you can sleep at night.
3 tables seem to be DEAD ON with his PRs 8:11, 13:1x and 27:3x. As it stands, his PRs are his PRs and they fall ***Exactly*** in line with what is predicted by them. Who is way off? Has he run a faster 10K yet? No. Has he run a faster 5K yet? No. Look at his 1/2 marathon PR - 1:01:26, what does McMillan predict? 1:01:25 - DEAD ON BRO!
Sorry Malmo - McMillan is dialed in on Dathan.
McMillan
2M 8:11.0
5K 13:17
10K 27:36
1/2 1:01:25
Dathan's PRs
2M 8:11
5K 13:16.61
10K 27:35.65
1/2 1:01:26
I'm sure that all of this is just merely coincidence.