Ritz says he's back in 12:56 shape

I feel like if Ritz was really in 12:56 shape, he could have stayed with Rupp a bit longer, and perhaps not lost to Teg. And he certainly wouldn't have dropped a 68 second last lap, even though he didn't need a fast lap to make the team.

Exactly... Either this or he's a 5k specialist (although his 60 for the half suggests otherwise). He would be in ~27 flat shape.

First of all, Ritz never said he was in 12:56 shape. What he said is that his "fitness"--by which he has always meant aerobic conditioning--is what is was when he ran 12:56. In fact, he went on to say that he hopes to approach world class times by the end of the summer, and not that he can run them now. More importantly, it is hard to overestimate how emotionally and thus physically draining the Olympic Trials can be, especially when one has to hit the standard, and in not the best conditions. Moreover, we have to remember that Ritz missed most of two years of training, he was running 14:00 for 5K in October, he was limited to three weeks on the Alter-G in late April and early May. These aren't excuses for him--after all, he made the Olympic team--but these things suggest that if he stays healthy, he can run much faster in London in five weeks, but given the Olympics is really early in the season (the 10000 is August 4), he'll have at least another month after that to get even fitter and run something in the 12:56/27:00 range.

orbitboy wrote:

I feel like if Ritz was really in 12:56 shape, he could have stayed with Rupp a bit longer, and perhaps not lost to Teg. And he certainly wouldn't have dropped a 68 second last lap, even though he didn't need a fast lap to make the team.

Perspectivation wrote:

[quote]clown response bro wrote:

What does "no particular order" mean to you?[/

Sorry that went past you, it's called joking.

I hate people who joke. They assume that I am intelligent enough to "get it". And if I'm not? Just seems like intelligencism rearing its ugly head.

Montesquieu wrote:

First of all, Ritz never said he was in 12:56 shape. What he said is that his "fitness"--by which he has always meant aerobic conditioning--is what is was when he ran 12:56.

I see what you mean. Perhaps he could have worded it more like,

"I have already laid the groundwork to run 12:56 later this summer, just like I did back in '09."

Instead of

"The last time this happened [months of uninterrupted training] I ran 12:56 and I believe that I am at that level of fitness again."

Indeed, he could have put it better.

orbitboy wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

First of all, Ritz never said he was in 12:56 shape. What he said is that his "fitness"--by which he has always meant aerobic conditioning--is what is was when he ran 12:56.

I see what you mean. Perhaps he could have worded it more like,

"I have already laid the groundwork to run 12:56 later this summer, just like I did back in '09."

Instead of

"The last time this happened [months of uninterrupted training] I ran 12:56 and I believe that I am at that level of fitness again."