Take the 3k split from Chris's last 5k and take off 10-15 seconds and you have the time he will run if he doesn't blow up.
Fancy math does not equate to running ability.
Take the 3k split from Chris's last 5k and take off 10-15 seconds and you have the time he will run if he doesn't blow up.
Fancy math does not equate to running ability.
ISTAF Berlin 3000m
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mev6tumRXLQ
Fell about 3 sec off 7:30 pace in the 5th lap. T. Bekele makes it all up and then some on the last lap. Lagat reaches for the same gear with about 300m to go, but he blows up about 100m later. A very un-Lagat-like race for Lagat.
malmo wrote:
The result of one race by runner "L" has little bearing to the result of another competition by runner "S".
Secondly, it's pretty clear that Solinsky has the hot hand right now, and Lagat is cold, cold, cold.
Lagat has performed extremely well all season, breaking the AR and doing ~12:55 twice. There is no reason to assume that Solinsky can do better at 3000 - a distance that plays even more to Lagat's strengths. In the 3000, if Lagat can't do it, Solinsky can't do it.
I generally agree with you, but Lagat actually is showing a few signs of age now. And he has said that he is training specifically for the 5000 this year. So who knows.
It's bad business betting against runner "S" to break records this year . . . but I predict 7:32.
If he runs 7:29, it will blow my mind almost as much as 26:59 did. (And he certainly might.)
Well, watch that race of Lagat running 7:35. It was not a good race for him, he fell behind due to bad pacing and didn't have the kick to make it up. Maybe just a bad day for him, maybe he's past peak for this season. But as you say he's had an extremely good season so it's not a huge stretch to say he was capable of sub-7:30 at some point this season. This isn't a simple case of Lagat can't do it, therefore Solinksy can't either.
running knowledge wrote:
Lagat has performed extremely well all season, breaking the AR and doing ~12:55 twice. There is no reason to assume that Solinsky can do better at 3000 - a distance that plays even more to Lagat's strengths. In the 3000, if Lagat can't do it, Solinsky can't do it.
That is factually incorrect. Lagat was hot 3 months ago. Since then, he has not been performing extremely well, just solid.
For Lagat to beat Solinsky he will have to up his game a notch (which isn't out of the question by any means) AND Solinsky would have to have NOT been prepared for the 3000. Judging by the difference in the finish of his last two races, it's clear that Solinsky has the speed preparation for the 3000.
Solinsky is quite a completely different runner now than when he ran his PR of 7:36.90 back in 2007. Lagat, too, is a different runner than when he ran his PR of 7:32.49 back in May.
Solinsky
7:36.90 3 Sheffield 15 Jul 2007
7:37.05 3 Eugene OR 7 Jun 2009
7:37.72 4 Saint-Denis 17 Jul 2009
7:39.16 6 Gateshead 31 Aug 2009
7:41.90 11 Monaco 29 Jul 2008
7:43.98+ 4 Eugene OR 8 Jun 2008
7:44.53 7 Zagreb 9 Sep 2008
7:47.03 8 Rieti 7 Sep 2008
7:49.80 8 Gateshead 31 Aug 2008
7:51.69i 2 Fayetteville AR 10 Mar 20
Lagat
7:32.43i 1 Birmingham 17 Feb 2007
7:32.49 3 Ostrava 27 May 2010
7:33.15 2 Saint-Denis 17 Jul 2009
7:33.51 5 Monaco 18 Aug 2000
7:34.41 1 Réthimno 21 Jul 2006
7:34.65i 1 Stockholm 21 Feb 2008
7:34.96i 1 Athína 22 Feb 2004
7:35.11 7 Berlin 22 Aug 2010
7:35.41i 1 Stuttgart 7 Feb 2009
7:35.92 1 Eugene OR 7 Jun 2009
Bob Kennedy
7:30.84 8 Monaco 8 Aug 1998
7:31.69 3 Bruxelles 23 Aug 1996
7:31.77 2 Oslo 4 Jul 1997
7:32.55 7 Monaco 4 Aug 1999
7:33.07 4 Monaco 16 Aug 1997
7:33.96 8 Monaco 10 Aug 1996
7:34.44 4 Paris 29 Jul 1998
7:35.33 4 Nice 18 Jul 1994
7:35.41 6 Paris 21 Jul 1999
7:35.50 7 Bruxelles 3 Sep 1999
How do I watch the race? Will it be online anywhere? Anyone got a link for later today?
Race is Sunday.
However, malmo, it is also true that Solinsky had a sub par effort with that 13:08 and he bounced back wonderfully. Surely Solinsky's 13:08 was not a better race than Lagat's 7:35. You may be right that Lagat might not be as sharp as when he ran 12:54. We shall see...
On another note, I hadn't realized that Kennedy finished in 8th place in his 7:30.84 U.S. record. That was quite a field in Monaco. Geb was first in 7:25.54, so you had 1-8 between 7:25.54 and 7:30.84.
Chet, a 165 lb white guy was not going to run faster than 13:08 in the Sun. That race was not subpar.
I understand your point, malmo, but prior to this season some people thought a 165 lb. white guy was not going to be running under 27 minutes, either. Of course, in the Rieti 3000 the sun will not have set, but it will near enough to sunset that it could surely have no impact. The sun is much less of a factor than the temperature.
Chet, Solinsky's race at Pre was predictable, and so was the fact that he'd close the gap again in an evening race, which he did. I even said a month before Pre that 13:00 was unrealistic unless the day was cloudy.
As far as your theory that the Sun is less than the temperature, that's very wrong. The altitude of the Sun makes a huge difference. The fastest 5000m of the year was made in 90 degrees temps. But that was 90 degrees at night with no humidity.
Reiti 3000m will be run at 6:50pm. Sunset is 7:50. It could be, and probably will be, 90 degrees at the start of the 3000m. That's not a problem, in fact, it's almost ideal. Reiti is very dry, just like Doha.
Run the race at 2pm, then you have a big problem.
Malmo, surely you rather run a 10,000 meter race with a temperature of 50 degrees and bright sunshine, if your other option was a cloudy and humid 95 degree day. That is my point...
Chet. The false dichotomy is not a very good way to make a point.
Well, neither is an absolute assertion which selectively avoids the facts...
chet wrote:
Well, neither is an absolute assertion which selectively avoids the facts...
Huh? Where?
It's possible that we're actually in agreement and that this is a matter of semantics. For example, Kenenisa Bekele ran 26:25.97 in Eugene under the sun. However, the race ended at 9:56 a.m., so if you want to argue that the sun angle and the temperature, humidity, wind, etc., must be considered in a package deal of sorts, then we are in agreement. However, your assertion that the sun is more important than the temperature is where I differ, if that is what you meant.
chet wrote: However, your assertion that the sun is more important than the temperature is where I differ, if that is what you meant.
It is more important. You can do this cool science experiment at home. On a 90 degree day is it more difficult to run at 2 pm or 7 pm? Or is it WAY more difficult?
malmo wrote:
chet wrote: However, your assertion that the sun is more important than the temperature is where I differ, if that is what you meant.It is more important. You can do this cool science experiment at home. On a 90 degree day is it more difficult to run at 2 pm or 7 pm? Or is it WAY more difficult?
This only proves that it is a factor, and your question is not much different from mine when you replied that false dichotomies are not a good way to make a point.
chet wrote:
It's possible that we're actually in agreement and that this is a matter of semantics. For example, Kenenisa Bekele ran 26:25.97 in Eugene under the sun.
OK. Temp at 10am on June 8, 2008 was 52º, the dew point 45º. Incredible conditions. Any more questions?