Alekwallace wrote:
backtowhat wrote:
Back to where? Also ran status?
6th at the Olympics is "also ran"
I think it's great we got 5/6 of our runners (exception being Meb) to get top 10 at Rio, but when only 3 runners are allowed to run per country, you have to take that into account.
But also lets not forget that 2 of the women in front of ours got caught doping including the olympic champion.
Is 2:09 considered a good time any more? Maybe back in the 1990s . . . . .
callmecrazy wrote:
Is 2:09 considered a good time any more? Maybe back in the 1990s . . . . .
In Boston, yes. You think Kipchoge can run a 2:01 in Boston? He wouldn't be able to finish below 2:06 today.
2:09 isn't even under 3:XX/km
What does this mean for Rupp now, who with a couple of exceptions is also generally a 2:09 guy? Has he passed the mantle?
Our national nightmare is over!
Props to both of these fine men!
Consider: Both better than Bill Rodgers' PR (2:09:27) albeit on an aided course
Too bad the rest of the world is that much farther ahead of us though.
girl watcher wrote:
Props to both of these fine men!
Consider: Both better than Bill Rodgers' PR (2:09:27) albeit on an aided course
Too bad the rest of the world is that much farther ahead of us though.
We now have the 4th most sub 2:10.00 Marathoners of Any Country
4. USA-20
5. Morrocco-19
6. Spain and Great Britain 16 each
Yes there is a HUGE gap behind the top 3, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Japan.
callmecrazy wrote:
Is 2:09 considered a good time any more? Maybe back in the 1990s . . . . .
Yes, considering that they are clean.
douglas burke wrote:
girl watcher wrote:
Props to both of these fine men!
Consider: Both better than Bill Rodgers' PR (2:09:27) albeit on an aided course
Too bad the rest of the world is that much farther ahead of us though.
We now have the 4th most sub 2:10.00 Marathoners of Any Country
4. USA-20
5. Morrocco-19
6. Spain and Great Britain 16 each
Yes there is a HUGE gap behind the top 3, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Japan.
I like the half better. Personally and to watch. There isn't nearly as much disadvantage to guys that are 130+ lbs. Much more of pure talent is showcased, and its in the half that the US is pretty good putting several guys under the 60 minute mark, which is very respected. Sub 2:10 is not nearly as good a mark. Sub 2:06 would be comparable.
I wish we got to see Bekele in Boston.
Why? It’s logistically challenging for a runner to drop out of a marathon when it’s a point to point course.
What is the best mile marker to be near to have the best chance of watching Bekele drop?
AP5000 wrote:
What is the best mile marker to be near to have the best chance of watching Bekele drop?
4 miles before Stinson.
yes yes it is wrote:
callmecrazy wrote:
Is 2:09 considered a good time any more? Maybe back in the 1990s . . . . .
Yes, considering that they are clean.
+1.
2:09 is a fantastic clean time
This is ridiculous. People criticize our best athletes as if we've voted them in office and they're letting us down. They have earned their keep as our best, and are trying to compete with the world's best. They may or may not have faster PR's than athletes of other countries, but they've still become faster than the rest of their countrymen, and are not deserving of your criticism, at least not because you don't think their best is good enough. I get that we analyze our athletes of all sports, and are critical of their performances regularly. But I don't regularly see analysts criticizing athletes who have just had a best-in-their lifetime performance because it wasn't as good as someone else's.
You are rightfully being called out because you are critical of the wrong people. Don't hate on Ward and Fauble for running 2:09, hate on yourself for not even being close enough to contribute to the USA's quest to compete on the international level.
What's even more ridiculous is these guys just improved upon their marks, making them more competitive on the international level, but the criticism keeps coming regardless. Unbelievable.
Damn good job to Scott Fauble and Jared Ward[/quote]
Agree with this. Its a great start for the US getting ready to step up now that the IAAF has made it tougher. I liked how Kibet wasn't afraid to run for the win and if he keeps working, he'll join the sub 2:10 club. Nice to see Ritz finish a marathon again though he struggled in the second half. With the 2020 Olympic standard at 2:11:30, it would be great to see as many Americans as possible hit it.
areusure? wrote:
The US finally has 2 others not counting Rupp that given a 2 mile head start could likely win a marathon major! GO USA!!
LOL this is fantastic.
UkrainianHunk wrote:
This is ridiculous. People criticize our best athletes as if we've voted them in office and they're letting us down. They have earned their keep as our best, and are trying to compete with the world's best. They may or may not have faster PR's than athletes of other countries, but they've still become faster than the rest of their countrymen, and are not deserving of your criticism, at least not because you don't think their best is good enough. I get that we analyze our athletes of all sports, and are critical of their performances regularly. But I don't regularly see analysts criticizing athletes who have just had a best-in-their lifetime performance because it wasn't as good as someone else's.
You are rightfully being called out because you are critical of the wrong people. Don't hate on Ward and Fauble for running 2:09, hate on yourself for not even being close enough to contribute to the USA's quest to compete on the international level.
What's even more ridiculous is these guys just improved upon their marks, making them more competitive on the international level, but the criticism keeps coming regardless. Unbelievable.
Damn good job to Scott Fauble and Jared Ward
Agree with this. Its a great start for the US getting ready to step up now that the IAAF has made it tougher. I liked how Kibet wasn't afraid to run for the win and if he keeps working, he'll join the sub 2:10 club. Nice to see Ritz finish a marathon again though he struggled in the second half. With the 2020 Olympic standard at 2:11:30, it would be great to see as many Americans as possible hit it.[/quote]
Maybe Chris Derrick goes sub 2:10.00 in London, if not under 2:11.30
douglas burke wrote:
UkrainianHunk wrote:
This is ridiculous. People criticize our best athletes as if we've voted them in office and they're letting us down. They have earned their keep as our best, and are trying to compete with the world's best. They may or may not have faster PR's than athletes of other countries, but they've still become faster than the rest of their countrymen, and are not deserving of your criticism, at least not because you don't think their best is good enough. I get that we analyze our athletes of all sports, and are critical of their performances regularly. But I don't regularly see analysts criticizing athletes who have just had a best-in-their lifetime performance because it wasn't as good as someone else's.
You are rightfully being called out because you are critical of the wrong people. Don't hate on Ward and Fauble for running 2:09, hate on yourself for not even being close enough to contribute to the USA's quest to compete on the international level.
What's even more ridiculous is these guys just improved upon their marks, making them more competitive on the international level, but the criticism keeps coming regardless. Unbelievable.
Damn good job to Scott Fauble and Jared Ward
Agree with this. Its a great start for the US getting ready to step up now that the IAAF has made it tougher. I liked how Kibet wasn't afraid to run for the win and if he keeps working, he'll join the sub 2:10 club. Nice to see Ritz finish a marathon again though he struggled in the second half. With the 2020 Olympic standard at 2:11:30, it would be great to see as many Americans as possible hit it.
Maybe Chris Derrick goes sub 2:10.00 in London, if not under 2:11.30[/quote]
OOPS Derrick has withdrawn from London.
https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/news-media/latest-news/item/tirunesh-dibaba-withdraws-from-2019-virgin-money-london-marathon/yes yes it is wrote:
callmecrazy wrote:
Is 2:09 considered a good time any more? Maybe back in the 1990s . . . . .
Yes, considering that they are clean.
How do you just pick and choose who you deem to be clean?
