That was the worst 5000m final in an Olympics ever

jaxduke wrote:

largest disparity between olympic winning time and existing world record

1:04 ,other than Mexico city in 1968, in 5,000 m olympic history.

Same issue with 10,000 1:13 . Neither race would classify as one for the ages

Mexico City was wr + 49

your right on 68 Kuts ran faster in 56 (13;39).

Good grief !! You still don't get it ! The medals weren't allotted to the quickest times. If any of the runners didn't either have the confidence to go out and make the pace hard or thought it was in their better interests not to --that's part of racing ! It's stupid to say what might have happened had the pace been a lot quicker. It wasnt and guy who prepared for either eventuality won.

"This was The Stupid Olympics.

Stupid distance races mostly.

Stupid NBC coverage.

Stupid London presentations (logo, mascot, opening ceremonies, dumb tower sculpture, lame flame, lame flame inside the stadium, not above...

I am sure many have their pet peeves. "

NBC have nothing to do with the Olympics, that is because of stupid Americans.

The presentation was fine, what would you have preferred little girl? More of your fav colours? An opening ceremony NOT with British culture?

Lame flame? Jeezes. You obviously just dooms the entire championship because of your dissapointment in the distance races.

"I did however like the use of purple more than blue."

Oh wow, very relevant. Good for you fashionista.

"I couldn't get excited for Mo winning, or Rupp and Lagat and Lamong falling short -- all I came away with was "that was a SFR, and the Brits in the stands are too stupid to realize that they've seen a very weak outing, there guy winning, whatever."

First off, there woull never bee an audience in a Olympic championship who is knowledgeable of the sport. Secondly, you expect the Brits not to cheer and be happy that their man won? Americans, French, Kenyans, Ethiopans would all have reacted the same way if they were in the stands and their man won.

Damn you are stupid.

"So, Good for Mo....he just earned himself about 50m pounds over the course of his life in endorsements etc."

Good for Mo, because he won the god damn Olympics, enderosements. Jeez.

Dennis Reynolds wrote:

2000s race in Sydney was FAR superior to this pile of sh*t.

I'm sorry the race wasn't to your liking. the athletes should be more concerned with your feelings than with trying to win.

Kenyanna wrote:

And the 10000m was so great? Both were horrible. Tired of this jogs with sprints in the final laps. Whatever happened to good old endurance? Battle to see who could hang with big boys? I miss John Ngugi and Yobes Ondieki.

In fact, the last 8K of the 10,000 was at sub-27 pace.

What so many of you don't understand is that these 12:4x guys you keep spouting off about are NOT front runners. They never have been and don't have the mental make-up/mental strength to do it. When they ran their 12:4x they were pulled to it on someone's shoulder or back... they probably came in 2nd - 4th in that race that also had a rabbit pulling the winner. They do not have the strength of body or mind to do what Rudisha accomplished. If these guys took a race out themselves at that pace they would probably DNF.

I also just don't get the "excitement" of a strung out race where 1st - 3rd are already set with a lap to go... now that is boring.

Bottom line is this - right now, at this point in time, do you think Mo Farah gives a FLYING F%$K what you morons think about his race last night?

And when he fronts in Zurich next week (and at least the next 4 seasons in Europe) collecting appearance fees that (one off) are about half a years salary for you twits, again, do you think he gives a s^%t if you were "appalled" by the race?!

If you all hated it so much, that makes it even more ironic and for me anyway, hilarious.

Agreed! I much prefer this kind of race to the old days when El Guerrouj or Bekele would get a countryman to throw away his own race and serve as a rabbit. Now that was boring.

You know nothing wrote:

Good grief !! You still don't get it ! The medals weren't allotted to the quickest times. If any of the runners didn't either have the confidence to go out and make the pace hard or thought it was in their better interests not to --that's part of racing ! It's stupid to say what might have happened had the pace been a lot quicker. It wasnt and guy who prepared for either eventuality won.

nice to see you still so worked up. I'm not even reading your posts anymore, but it amuses me that you're still trying to argue with me. Keep the replies coming!

Davy Davy wrote:

Kenyanna wrote:

And the 10000m was so great? Both were horrible. Tired of this jogs with sprints in the final laps. Whatever happened to good old endurance? Battle to see who could hang with big boys? I miss John Ngugi and Yobes Ondieki.

In fact, the last 8K of the 10,000 was at sub-27 pace.

Then they can run college cross country. The 10000 is for runners who run all 10000 meters.

That's the whole point, numbnuts. They have to decide whether to let a few people who aren't favorites go or whether to keep them in sight. Either way it makes the race far more interesting and keep the pace far more honest. To be so sure the same person wins regardless of race strategy is quite naive.

So you don't read my posts but are able to reply to them ! That explains a lot about you. I am amused rather than worked up by people who are annoyed that the race doesn't pan out in the way that they would have liked it.

Americans Suck wrote:

Haha, the Yanky Doodles did sh1t and so the race sucked. What a nation of morons.

No - you don't understand them. They don't care care about place - to these posters it is all about time. They would have preferred to see an American break the American record and come in 10th place rather than win a medal on a slow pace. They don't understand racing - just times and PRs - that is all their own racing careers amounted to so they don't understand tactical racing.

In a way it is kind of sad that they cannot enjoy a race that comes around once every four years but what can you do?

But lets just face it, if an american had won the race, regardless of the time, it would be regarded on these forums as a fantastic race by the vast majority. In this hypothetically slow race they would be saying how their runner ran a good tactical race so that he could win on the kick, instead of saying that he "had no guts".

In the end they are too ignorant about the sport to realise that unless you are the best in the world by miles, you cant take the field on in an olympic final (like rudisha). And, as stated above, they only seem to regard a good race as a fast or extremely close race.

As advice to anybody reading this thread and getting annoyed about some of the comments, ignore them. They clearly know very little about distance running on an elite level and, as seen in many of the "jamaican sprinters are on drugs" threads, are too arrogant and blindly patriotic to have a valid opinion.

jaxduke wrote:

your right on 68 Kuts ran faster in 56 (13;39).

Vladimir Kuts was perhaps the inspirational runner of all time.

He would have made the race yesterday, no question of that.

With the faster track maybe he would have won both events.

NJ Possible wrote:

keep the pace far more honest.

Since no one answered the first time, what is 'honest' about running a tactic (pushing the pace in the lead) that is virtually guaranteed to leave you with a lower placing than if you just tucked in the pack with the slow pace?

When someone's career is summarized, they say "he finished 5th (or 7th or 8th or whatever) at the XXXX Olympics."

They do not say "he finished 5th (or 7th or 8th or whatever) at the XXXX Olympics but he kept the pace 'honest' by leading the first 10 laps."

Nor do they say "he finished 5th (or 7th or 8th or whatever) at the XXXX Olympics but ran an embarrassingly slow time."

I haven't read the whole thread, but has someone pointed out the last 2000m was in 5 flat - that's moving pretty good.

I thought it was a great 2000m race with a 3 km warm up jog tacked on the front

Whatevs27040 wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, but has someone pointed out the last 2000m was in 5 flat - that's moving pretty good.

I thought it was a great 2000m race with a 3 km warm up jog tacked on the front

After finally watching the tape delay in full, I thought it was a very exciting race. Disappointed that Rupp didn't have his stuff there in the last lap, but otherwise the race results were about what I expected.

Anyone who thinks a race has to be fast from the get go to be exciting doesn't have a clue.