Murphy should understand that when the pace is that slow, you ease up through the pack to get close to the front without wasting effort. Instead, he hung back until the pace change was too much for him. Good for him to make the finals, but a real shame that Hoppel in his fantastic form from last August and again in the late Winter and early Spring, or a healthy Brazier couldn't mix it up today.
Congratulations. You lot are a laughing stock on Twitter.
slowbro wrote:
lrc loves to complain wrote:
Going by your username, I'll guess that you're a sprinter .. where championships tactics are completely different than in the 800m and up. In sprints, you usually need to run a PR/NR/WR to medal or win ... however mid distance is different. The fatigue of the rounds is more important, and the disadvantages of frontrunning almost always outweigh the advantages (unless you're rudisha, the greatest 800 runner ever) Look at Arop (Doha finalist) in the semis for example, frontran his heat hard, faded at 750 and didn't even qualify. Tactics matter, and I can guarantee you that every single professional athlete will lay it all on the line and give their best on that day in the olympic final ... but you need to distinguish between running a smart tactical race (at full effort) vs. stupidly hammering it and not medalling (Prefontaine in 72 for example ...)
The goal of the olympics is to win medals. I guess this is where we disagree, but running a tactical race is definitely not against the spirit of the sport. Athletics is a competition. You want to win, with whatever tactic is appropriate. I don't think tactical races kill viewership at all ... I think LRC is just upset with this race because Murphy ran like garbage and Kenya went 1-2 to be honest. The race itself was interesting and it is nice to see upsets happen.
I agree with most of what you said, but the premise of a “tactical” 800 is dumb. The race is less than two minutes long. For a race to be tactical means there’s a degree of patience and negotiation to be had. 90% of tactics come from where you find yourself in the first 200. I can see why some people might find that interesting, but like I’ve said before, it’s counterintuitive to the structure of “fair” racing. Imagine being a traditional front runner and having to blow your wad just to get the pole. A 23 second first 200 will hurt any decent runner’s chances of finishing well. I have no problem with a slow race, but a dumb race isn’t good for anyone.
Feel free to ask Korir and Dobek if they think they ran "dumb" races.
The medalists weren't a surprise the time regardless. The only big shock was Murphy's DFL. I was not expecting that.
sprinter guy wrote:
Harold #1 wrote:
It was a well run race by the two Kenyans who controlled things and negative split. Mission accomplished for the Kenyans - Goid and Silver. The times are unimportant as they were racing to win medals.
I would never accept a medal for 1:45. That’s pathetic. That’s not an Olympic performance in this day and age. No one deserves a medal. I’d be all for having minimum standards to get medals or an eye test where no medals are awarded if people aren’t trying and are just out there for a hobby jog.
Good thing you’ll never be in a position to accept or turn down any type of medal, let alone an Olympic one. Jesus fucxing christ
Look, I'm just saying that when an 800m Olympics final reminds me of Spain-Russia from the 2018 WC, that's not good.
back to reality wrote:
a regular guy wrote:
What a joke. Winning time 1:45 after a pedestrian first lap. It seems like nobody wanted to win.
WHAT DOES EVERYONE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT CENTRO'S 2016 "GOLD MEDAL" LOLOLOLOLOL.
If you think today's 800 opening lap was a joke, you're right. But at least the time 1:45 is a men's time. The Rio 1500 was much, much, much more of a joke with a women's time for the win.
100%. As an American I say with confidence that had it been Murphy winning this race in the exact same splits this race would not be getting bashed the way it is. 2016 Olympic final was by far the biggest joke in Olympic history.
ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
2016 Olympic final was by far the biggest joke in Olympic history.
Congrats - you're just as dumb as sprinterguy.
El Keniano wrote:
Congratulations. You lot are a laughing stock on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/Zay_800/status/1422914625482395653?s=20
Funny thing is that guy in the picture kind of looks like me these days. Minus the dirty room. Lol. Context matters. Obviously 1:45 is fast but it's pathetic for these guys and it was a pathetic effort. I just don't see how anyone can debate that.
surveysays wrote:
ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
2016 Olympic final was by far the biggest joke in Olympic history.
Congrats - you're just as dumb as sprinterguy.
I think it's just a difference in perspective. Some people just care about the result and don't care about what they have to do to get it. They're fine taking shortcuts and not pushing themselves. It's not even about running to these kinds of people at least I don't think. It's about getting that medal. And that's fine. It's just a perspective that I profoundly disagree with. I care about the sport. I loved the training aspect of it - getting up early in the morning, taking care of the little things, always striving to do better, always putting forth the best effort possible. I think a large part of what makes competitive running great is constantly improving yourself. I think that paradigm falls apart when there's not a common understanding that people will do their best.
That's just not the perspective of a lot of the guys that ran today. And we can agree to disagree.
sprinter guy2 wrote:
surveysays wrote:
Congrats - you're just as dumb as sprinterguy.
I think it's just a difference in perspective. Some people just care about the result and don't care about what they have to do to get it. They're fine taking shortcuts and not pushing themselves. It's not even about running to these kinds of people at least I don't think. It's about getting that medal. And that's fine. It's just a perspective that I profoundly disagree with. I care about the sport. I loved the training aspect of it - getting up early in the morning, taking care of the little things, always striving to do better, always putting forth the best effort possible. I think a large part of what makes competitive running great is constantly improving yourself. I think that paradigm falls apart when there's not a common understanding that people will do their best.
That's just not the perspective of a lot of the guys that ran today. And we can agree to disagree.
No shortcuts.
They did push themselves.
It is about getting that medal.
surveysays wrote:
sprinter guy2 wrote:
I think it's just a difference in perspective. Some people just care about the result and don't care about what they have to do to get it. They're fine taking shortcuts and not pushing themselves. It's not even about running to these kinds of people at least I don't think. It's about getting that medal. And that's fine. It's just a perspective that I profoundly disagree with. I care about the sport. I loved the training aspect of it - getting up early in the morning, taking care of the little things, always striving to do better, always putting forth the best effort possible. I think a large part of what makes competitive running great is constantly improving yourself. I think that paradigm falls apart when there's not a common understanding that people will do their best.
That's just not the perspective of a lot of the guys that ran today. And we can agree to disagree.
No shortcuts.
They did push themselves.
It is about getting that medal.
Yeah, it's on video. Rewatch the first lap. Comparing to the average runner will always be a bad argument. These guys simply did not try and then decided they wanted to run the 200 meter dash today. That's not good.
a regular guy wrote:
What a joke. Winning time 1:45 after a pedestrian first lap. It seems like nobody wanted to win.
Murphy and Amos - both very disappointing.
Yeah it wasn't a great final - it reminded me very much of Sydney (even down to the finishing time) - not much to discuss really, the disappointment and surprise for me was Clayton Murphy who by his standards ran very poorly. This was not 50.0 at the bell - you can not give the Olympic final field 8 meters and run in lane 2 the entire second lap when the field is running 51 seconds in that final lap. If Murphy runs the way Dobek does (huge kudos to him because he did this perfectly AND he's a relative novice in the event), then Murphy gives himself a chance.
Amos - no surprise. He has never been able to run slower races effectively. I can't understand why people back him based off the "well he's a 1.41 runner so in a slow pace..." logic - it doesn't work that way.
Yeah so not a vintage final - especially with Korir bobbing his head up and down a-la Paula Radcliffe in the final 30m - just lacked something but hey, maybe we were just spoilt by all those years of Rudisha making races kind of epic.
John Macardle wrote:
There's nothing more noble in winning the Olympics in 1:43 vs winning the Olympics in 1:48.
QFE
surveysays wrote:
John Macardle wrote:
There's nothing more noble in winning the Olympics in 1:43 vs winning the Olympics in 1:48.
QFE
This is the crux of the thing I think. I could not possibly disagree with this statement more. Everything about it is wrong. Numbers are just numbers but sometimes they tell a story when placed in context. In this instance they tell the story of how people can get medals only giving 90% effort instead of 100% effort. And I think that's fundamentally bad for our sport.
sprinter guy2 wrote:
surveysays wrote:
QFE
This is the crux of the thing I think. I could not possibly disagree with this statement more. Everything about it is wrong. Numbers are just numbers but sometimes they tell a story when placed in context. In this instance they tell the story of how people can get medals only giving 90% effort instead of 100% effort. And I think that's fundamentally bad for our sport.
That you disagree with it doesn’t make it wrong. Next you’ll tell me Webb had a better career than Centro because of some mile race against nobodies in bumf*ck Belgium.
El Keniano wrote:
Congratulations. You lot are a laughing stock on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/Zay_800/status/1422914625482395653?s=20
Hilarious
Coevett wrote:
Neta wrote:
Worst since Ovett's win in Moscow back '80.
Ovett would have finished 20m clear in this race.
Ovett would GET HIS ASS CLOWNED by the Kenyan 800 guys of today, just like all your boys had happen in the rounds. But at least you can always take comfort in one thing:
Plucky Brits don’t dope!
surveysays wrote:
sprinter guy2 wrote:
This is the crux of the thing I think. I could not possibly disagree with this statement more. Everything about it is wrong. Numbers are just numbers but sometimes they tell a story when placed in context. In this instance they tell the story of how people can get medals only giving 90% effort instead of 100% effort. And I think that's fundamentally bad for our sport.
That you disagree with it doesn’t make it wrong. Next you’ll tell me Webb had a better career than Centro because of some mile race against nobodies in bumf*ck Belgium.
Out of curiosity, let's test your argument. How far are you willing to go with this? Obviously 1:45 is still acceptable for you in this circumstance. How bad do the times have to be and how low does the effort have to be before you second guess what's going on? Or, are there absolutely no limits? What if we turn the 800 into a literal speed walk?
I can only imagine how much you guys would hate this race. They ran 400 easy before getting to it, but in this World Final, I would argue everyone was chilling (remarkably) until the 600m mark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lClq994-cgY&ab_channel=jbcoachathl%C3%A9tisme