mako wrote:
I was "nearby" in Seoul in Korea at that time. Went for a run. It was absolutely not hot and humid for the standards of that area. There was some typhoon passing around which brought a substantially cooler weather. It was around 24 degrees C.
It was not comparable to conditions like in Monaco for instance where there is much hotter (although not very humid usually).
Is that the same Seoul that is 1000km away?
Not usually posting anymore wrote:
Metric Miler wrote:Just to reiterate, 3rd fastest 10k in WC history (so the Kenyans did try and make it fast), average temperature for August 22nd in Beijing is 31°C and average humidity is 94%. I don't know the exact temperature and humidity that night, but it was hot, and humid, as has been reported by pretty much every news source.
You do not really know what you are talking about. 31C is 88 F, and 94% RH would imply that the dew point was 86 degrees. I will guarantee you that those are not the right statistics for Beijing weather. You are probably making the mistake that many people make which is to get a humidity reading at one time of day and assume that it holds for the whole day. However, the RH (relative humidity) reading is varies inversely with temperature. If it is 80 degree with 100% humidity the dew point is 80 degrees. When the temperature rises to 83 degrees and the dew point stays the same, the relative humidity falls to 90% because that 80 deg dew point means that the air is only 90% saturated with that slightly higher temperature.
You may have heard, very often in fact, that it was "95 degrees and 95% humidity". This would imply that the dew point was 94 degrees - and that is about the record dew point ever recorded and is about as rare as actual air temperatures of 131 degrees.
I probably wasn't clear in my post, but I am not mistaken. Of course it would not be 31°C and 95% humidity at the same time during the day. I know that the highest humidity and highest temperature occur at different times.
I also don't think it was 31°c or 94% humidity at 9pm in Beijing.
The point I was making was simply that the highest temperature and humidity were likely around those figures that day, and so that helps describe the climate in Beijing in August, which the other poster was refuting. Sorry if I was unclear.
Jdididhdbdbdnd wrote:
Eldrick,
No one calls it Peking anymore, you nut.
Love,
E.G.H.
Ever heard of Peking duck?
These are the important questions.
farah will crush everyone in the rio 10k.......on the last lap.
wejo wrote:
Does this change things for the track?
The one big thing I think it changes is Kamworor's confidence and make him realize to beat Farah he needs to drop him mid race.
This result in itself was not that surprising to me. In our preview and pre-race podcast we noted that Farah got dropped midrace in the Lisbon half and versus guys like Kamworor there might not be any coming back.
No one would expect Farah to win a marathon vs these guys and now I think they realize they shouldn't expect him to win a half marathon vs them.
At 10k Farah is still the favorite in my opinion, but this makes Rio even more interesting.
Kamworor is no doubt going to give Farah a run for his money. Sure, he edged out Farah for a win, but the half marathon is far from being in Farah's wheelhouse. He's too meticulous in his buildup and too strong over 10K to let Kamworor beat him on the track. Farah's beat him multiple times on the track before, and he knows what he needs to do to do it again.
There really is a huge difference between a track 10k and a road 21.1k. So I'm not sure it says a lot about Rio, other than there are a few guys in great shape and there isn't a lot separating them. What decides it will probably be their next few months of training, whoever can train the smartest, hardest, and most injury-free.
But it was a wonderful race, and it does get me thinking - why the heck isn't the half-marathon an Olympic event? It's way more interesting to watch than the 10k, guys going round and round a track for nearly half an hour, usually with very little interesting happening until the last couple of laps. It's not uncomfortably long - as much as I love watching and running marathons, I can see why 2+ hours may be a little much for the general viewing public to handle. But an hour, on the road, with some actual scenery, that would seem to be a real viewing sweet-spot. Plus it's a race a ton of people have run, and can identify with. Check the registration for most mixed events, and it's usually in the area of 10:1 entrants for the half vs full marathons.
I want to see a sub 26:30 pace. Who can hang with that?
Who kicks best off that pace?
I don't know that the Olympics will be that fast, because who wants to gun from the start with medals on the line.
El Flaco Pelon Rojo wrote:
I want to see a sub 26:30 pace. Who can hang with that?
Who kicks best off that pace?
I don't know that the Olympics will be that fast, because who wants to gun from the start with medals on the line.
Most likely nobody ever. The records in major championships just aren't that fast, despite people acting like Bekele etc. ran 26:30s in competition. When athletes are doubling up, and are thinking about medals, it is a whole different game to running a time trial. Who wants to sacrifice themselves to be pacemaker in an Olympic 10k?
Agree with everything you said except him being the favorite. Not the favorite anymore unless they jog 9600m and race with 400m to go.
wejo wrote:
Does this change things for the track?
The one big thing I think it changes is Kamworor's confidence and make him realize to beat Farah he needs to drop him mid race..
He already realised that in the WC but tried and failed to do it.
1/2 marathon at more that twice the distance allows someone with less speed to get away. Can't see it happening at 10km but it is the only way they can beat him
I think Mo will still be king in Rio and this race did nothing to dethrone him
I thought your broken English was the result of it not being your native tongue, but in reality you're just an idiot if you think that the 10000M WR is soft. Give me a break! Take your ridiculous predictions and pseudoscience somewhere else for the love of God.
ventolin^3 wrote:
Devil Dog wrote:How fast would they have to go out before they think they're definitely going to drop Mo in a 10k. 26:20? And how many can do that, particularly as a team? Zero. Therefore, the tactic doesn't exist.you do realise 26'17 is a p!ss-weak wr ?
Kamwo was probably in 26'10 shape in peking & karoke maybe 26'15/'26'20 & the 3rd kenyan not much behind
mo probably was 26'25
unfortunately for Kamwo, the other 2 kenyans weren't willing to sacrifice themselves to run mo into the ground & let Kamwo use his far, far better endurance in last 2 - 3 km for the win & instead made Kamwo do the leading
Seyta wrote:
Trust me, I hate watching sit-and-kicks. I cringe every time I see a US Championship or International Championship 10K finishing in high-27s - 28+.
Not sure what you're talking about for world championships. I don't know how far back you'd have to go for a 10K in the 28's. For the World Championships, you have to go back to 2001 in Edmonton got a high 27's. For the Olympics, you have to go back to 1992 in Barcelona for even a 27:40's winning time. And the WR was 27:08 at the time.
lrclowend wrote:
glob wrote:Stop reiterating it. It's wrong. Running the 3rd fastest 10k wc time doesn't mean they tried to make it fast. You're looking at a statistic instead of looking at the actual time. 27:00 is not fast.
That's cute. 27:00 not fast! Only on Letsrun, folks.
Over time there have been much faster championship 10ks.
- 1970 Euro Champs 27:53 (when the WR was 27:39) - 14 secs
- 1972 Olympics 27:38 WR (the precious WR was 27:39) +1 secs
- 1976 Olympics 27:40 (when the WR was 27:30) -10 secs
- 1978 Euro Champs 27:30 (when the WR was 27:22) -8 secs
- 1980 Olympics 27:42 (when the WR was 27:22) -20 secs
- 1982 Euro Champs 27:41 (when WR was 27:22) -19 secs
- 1983 WC 28:01 (when WR was 27:22) -39 secs
- 1984 Olympics 27:47 (when WR was 27:13) - 34 secs
- 1986 Euro Champs 27:56 (when the WR was 27:13) -43 secs
- 1987 WC 27:38 (when the WR was 27:13) -25 secs
- 1988 Olympics 27:21 (when the WR was 27:13) - 8 secs
- 1990 Euro Champs 27:41 (when the WR was 27:08) -33 secs
- 1991 WC 27:38 (when the WR was 27:08) -30 secs
- 1992 Olympics 27:46 (when the WR was 27:08) - 38 secs
- 1993 WC 27:46 (when the WR was 26:58) - 48 secs NOT
- 1995 WC 27:12 (when the WR was 26:43) - 29 secs
- 1996 Olympics 27:07 (when the WR was 26:43) - 36 secs
- 1997 WC 27:24 (when the WR was 26:31) - 53 secs NOT
- 1999 WC 27:18 (when the WR was 26:22) - 56 secs NOT
- 2003 WC 26:49 (when the WR was 26:22) - 27 secs
- 2004 Olympics 27:05 (when the WR was 26:20) - 45 secs NOT
- 2005 WC 27:08 (when the WR was 26:20) - 48 secs NOT
27:01 is 44 secs off the WR. Notice that I put NOT in BOLD on the races that were slower than this 27:01 performance. But most were only marginally slower 48, 53, 56, 45, 48 seconds.
Most of the Champs 10ks have been just 10-20 secs off the current WR. Which is of course the relative comparison that must be made. In most cases the current WR holder won or competed in all of these races.
Really SLOW 5k and 10k Championship races are a recent phenomenon. When they ran 28:01 at the '83 WC it was considered dawdling, yet very few Championship races the last 10 years have been this fast relative to the WR.
Highly Bekelaselassie wrote:
Ayana had "no chance" against Dibaba's kick in Beijing...right?
A sub-13 last 5K is in the offing.
This is a bad analogy.
Ayana has a faster PB than Dibaba, and this was done early season in shanghai solo after a few laps.
Kamwo's PB is a good few seconds slower than Mo, and his 5k is much much slower.
Of course the "he could have run ____" crowd will yell at me, but I don't deal in hypotheticals. Fact is, Mo is faster than Kamwo at every distance under half marathon, and there I don't think mo loses in Rio barring disaster.
Your analogy of
Kamwo=Ayana
Mo=Dibaba
only works if Kamwo was faster than Dibaba, which is false.
The Overexplainer wrote:
lrclowend wrote:That's cute. 27:00 not fast! Only on Letsrun, folks.
Over time there have been much faster championship 10ks.
- 1970 Euro Champs 27:53 (when the WR was 27:39) - 14 secs
- 1972 Olympics 27:38 WR (the precious WR was 27:39) +1 secs
- 1976 Olympics 27:40 (when the WR was 27:30) -10 secs
- 1978 Euro Champs 27:30 (when the WR was 27:22) -8 secs
- 1980 Olympics 27:42 (when the WR was 27:22) -20 secs
- 1982 Euro Champs 27:41 (when WR was 27:22) -19 secs
- 1983 WC 28:01 (when WR was 27:22) -39 secs
- 1984 Olympics 27:47 (when WR was 27:13) - 34 secs
- 1986 Euro Champs 27:56 (when the WR was 27:13) -43 secs
- 1987 WC 27:38 (when the WR was 27:13) -25 secs
- 1988 Olympics 27:21 (when the WR was 27:13) - 8 secs
- 1990 Euro Champs 27:41 (when the WR was 27:08) -33 secs
- 1991 WC 27:38 (when the WR was 27:08) -30 secs
- 1992 Olympics 27:46 (when the WR was 27:08) - 38 secs
- 1993 WC 27:46 (when the WR was 26:58) - 48 secs NOT
- 1995 WC 27:12 (when the WR was 26:43) - 29 secs
- 1996 Olympics 27:07 (when the WR was 26:43) - 36 secs
- 1997 WC 27:24 (when the WR was 26:31) - 53 secs NOT
- 1999 WC 27:18 (when the WR was 26:22) - 56 secs NOT
- 2003 WC 26:49 (when the WR was 26:22) - 27 secs
- 2004 Olympics 27:05 (when the WR was 26:20) - 45 secs NOT
- 2005 WC 27:08 (when the WR was 26:20) - 48 secs NOT
27:01 is 44 secs off the WR. Notice that I put NOT in BOLD on the races that were slower than this 27:01 performance. But most were only marginally slower 48, 53, 56, 45, 48 seconds.
Most of the Champs 10ks have been just 10-20 secs off the current WR. Which is of course the relative comparison that must be made. In most cases the current WR holder won or competed in all of these races.
Really SLOW 5k and 10k Championship races are a recent phenomenon. When they ran 28:01 at the '83 WC it was considered dawdling, yet very few Championship races the last 10 years have been this fast relative to the WR.
I think you just mis-explained.
Poster said 27:00 is fast. You said there have been many faster championships, then proceeded to list a whole load of races significantly slower than 27:00.
Relativity isn't really that relevant, there is an assumption you have made here that the WR has been equally strong since 1970, which is false.
27:01 is the third fastest WC 10k, and that is a fact. Anything else that is said on the matter is opinion. I like your ideas here but they are just your opinion, there is no point presenting them as facts.
Kamworor ran the first mile of the 13.1 in 4:15 dodging a ton of slower runners. The lead group hit the 5k in 14:10 - which means Kam ran much faster.
watch for yourself:
Karoki and Kam are going to employ the same tactics at Rio. Hammer all the way. Mo will crack if this is tactic. He will not be in 26:3x shape this year.
And despite that 4:15 first mile he was able to run a 13:4x 5k split much later in the race. Dude is strong. Very strong.
mind blowing thoughts wrote:
heres an idea, why doesnt mo farah do the 10k/marathon double at olympics?
He likes winning medals?
26:50 or faster - Kamworor
27:10 or slower - Farah
In between, I don't know.
i cant see anyone even going near 27 minutes in rio.the heat and humidity will put an end to any super quick times.if its a sit and kick race mo might still be in with a chance,assuming hes in top form,but i cant see him being king in rio.not at age 33,with an army of kenyans waiting in the wings itching to beat him.
