Solinsky: There has never been an American in history to run three races in a row at this level

Better Analysis wrote:

fsdfa wrote:

I guess 12:58 is slower than 13:08...

he meant slower than the best 3 race series kennedy ever put together genius

Who the heck compares three consecutive races anyway? Any sane person looks at the whole season (or career) not these laser focused evaluation metrics that Malmo is concocting to overblow a 13:08. What next? Best race by a former Wisconsin harrier in Eugene? Or best 3 out of 5 races? And I thought #2 5000m on American soil by an American was pushing it.

Solinsky is on fire, everyone agrees, but there is no reason to go around puffing things up more than she should be.

Better Analysis wrote:

fsdfa wrote:

I guess 12:58 is slower than 13:08...

he meant slower than the best 3 race series kennedy ever put together genius

Well that certainly is not entirely clear now is it?

A lawyer or something wrote:

Well that certainly is not entirely clear now is it?

if you paid attention to the thread title and the entire coversation it is...

and if not, congratulations on calling malmo out on one error in phrasing in the 45 posts hes made on this thread

stgm wrote:

malmo wrote:

He's already strung together three consecutive races faster than Kennedy ever did in his entire career. Time has already told.

10k PR advantage Solinsky

5k PR advantage Solinsky

5k on home turf: advantage Solinsky

Game over player 2.

Not so fast, player 1.

Kennedy:

August 8, Atlanta, 5K, 13:12.35 (6th, Oly final)

August 10, Monte Carlo, 3K, 7:33.96*

August 14, Zurich, 5K, 12:58.21*

August 23, Brussels, 3K, 7:31.69*

3k PR advantage Kennedy

5k AR advantage Kennedy

5k placing, olympic final: advantage Kennedy

agreed, solinsky _is_ the man. so need to be the total fanboy, malmo

Not necessarily on the same level, but Ritz's 27:22, 12:56 AR, and 1:00:00 bronze medal in a world championship also comes to mind from last year, in case it hasn't been mentioned. Also, these are two completely different eras. Not sure how you compare Kennedy and Solinsky, in keeping with the whole "you can't go back to the future" line of reasoning (though that's exactly what runners are doing by revisiting high mileage and minimalism with shoes). I'd give the edge to Kennedy, as he ushered in a sub-13:00 on two occasions when no other American was close and made the race in that Olympic 5000 with his penultimate lap before fading from medal contention. Ritz had already ushered in the 12:56, and probably had a sub-27:00 in him when he ran that.

malmo wrote:

I can't believe that you would have deliberately omitted the post to which I was responding? Surely it was an oversight?

Better Analysis wrote:

what difference would that make...all that post (which i made) said was it was far more important for him to win a medal than to string together a bunch of times around his pr

theres not that big a difference between a 12:56 guy and a 12:53 guy, there is a big difference between a 12:56 guy with hardware and anyone without it...regardless of PR

our sport revolves around medals...id much rather see him run 13:10s all year then bust out at the world championships for a top 3 finish than have him run 10 races at 12:56 and end up 7th when it matters...

What you said was:

"what matters at this point is can solinsky show up on one day over the next 4-8 years and bring home a medal, which is something kennedy was never able to do"

To which I responded with

"Why does a medal matter? Very few individuals will ever medal in a major athletic event. Those that don't get medals aren't any less outstanding (except to the pimple-popping crowd)"

I'd love to see Solinsky get a medal too, but medals are a rarefied level that few will ever attain.

If you believe that an athlete's career doesn't matter if he doesn't get a medal then I feel pity for you. If that's what you really believe? How can you possibly get enjoyment from the sport, if no one will ever live up to your expectations?

Tegenkamps career isn't anything less because he came up a pubic hair short of a bronze in a WC. Neither is anyone elses. The fact that Kennedy didn't ever get a medal didn't make him any less great. He was 6th in an Olympic Games! Some of you throw around 6th place at that level like you're comparing it to 6th in a your Turkey Trots.

I'm perfectly content with appreciating excellence for what it is. If an athlete gets somehow gets to that ratified air of medals, I'll be even more appreciative.

some stats wrote:

The area records are cool little statistical sidenotes and well that's pretty much it. So important for curiosity's sake but that's it. But since area records don't come up on athlete contracts or in prize money or in end of year rankings by either the IAAF or TFN or letsrun, it is NOT important. I think Malmo put it up there since he needed a cool little stat near the 13:08. He won't be able to give a reason why it's important I am afraid.

Geez, I put it there because it was the last race he ran, and contrary to the conventional idiocy of the day, it was a great run, about exactly what any rational handicapper would have put him.

The notion that Solinsky could go anywhere near his recent PR on a sunny day at 2pm was ridiculous from the beginning. Did you see his face after the race? Sunburned. Did anyone else have a sunburn? No. A big white guy running a 5k in the Sun is going to feel it much more than the tiny little waifs he was racing.

Had the race been at 8-9 pm Solinsky would have been in it with a lap to go. Would he have won the race? Most likely not, but top four and sub 13:00 would have been there for the taking.

Finally, for your edification, Area Records and All-Comers Records are not the same thing. Area Records are the IAAF designation for "Continental Records"

I'm so sorry that you cannot fathom the importance of an US All-Comers record (or #2 US all-comer), nor the significance of Solinsky's run, regardless of expectations. That's your loss, not mine.

I never said an athletes career didnt matter without a medal...Solinsky's career would matter if his leg gets amputated tomorrow, hes run 12:56 and 26:59...accumulating by far the best combination of 5k and 10k prs in american history, no matter what happens that's f***ing impressive

and because teg and kennedy and webb and everyone else came up short of obtaining a medal does not mean that their careers didnt matter...its does however mean their careers are diminished in comparison to those that edged them out

6th in the olympic games is great and another bright spot on kennedy's resume, but thats all it is...another solid race to add to a list or similar solid races that doesnt really advance his career or legacy the way a medal would have...the way our sport is structured 6th place could be a tenth of a second behind 3rd and 3rd is still a hell of a lot better...why? the medal

tegs career isnt anything less because he was 4th, hes a 12:58 guy who was 4th at worlds, but a 12:58 guy who was 3rd at worlds is a hell of a lot more impressive...just the way it is

teg, webb, ritz, solinsky, kennedy have great PRs and have run some great races and will continue to run world class times (minus kennedy of course), the thing is that theyve already run world class times...the only thing they havent really accomplished in this sport is bring home a medal and thats really the only way left for them to bring their careers up another level (not that their not already great)

how rare medals are is what separates those who earn them

Better Analysis wrote:

I never said an athletes career didnt matter without a medal...Solinsky's career would matter if his leg gets amputated tomorrow, hes run 12:56 and 26:59...accumulating by far the best combination of 5k and 10k prs in american history, no matter what happens that's f***ing impressive

That's why I asked "if that's what you really mean?"

We're getting baseball-like in these over-analytical stats. A runner may be two minutes off World Record time, but he ran the fastest time on that track that year by an American-born American when a former Word Record holder was in attendance, and we'll consider that an accomplishment.

Please drop the phrase "on American soil." It sounds reaching.

malmo wrote:

That's why I asked "if that's what you really mean?"

fair enough

NJ Possible wrote:

We're getting baseball-like in these over-analytical stats. A runner may be two minutes off World Record time, but he ran the fastest time on that track that year by an American-born American when a former Word Record holder was in attendance, and we'll consider that an accomplishment.

Please drop the phrase "on American soil." It sounds reaching.

statistics can get over specific

however, fastest time run by an american on american soil is a worthy achievement the people are bound to care about...might as well learn to live with it

NJ Possible wrote:

Please drop the phrase "on American soil." It sounds reaching.

It's not "reaching". Out of all of the 5000m races that have ever been contested in the USA, outside of a mercenary citizen, Solinsky's 13:08 is the fastest.

The fastest 5000 on home turf would be significant in any country.

NJ Possible wrote:

We're getting baseball-like in these over-analytical stats. A runner may be two minutes off World Record time, but he ran the fastest time on that track that year by an American-born American when a former Word Record holder was in attendance, and we'll consider that an accomplishment.

.

Your strawman argument aside, there is no over-analysis.

Whether it be barriers like 4:00, 13:00, 28:00, 27:00, etc, we all understand the significance of each. So too with school records, stadium records, all-comers records, national records, etc.

Why bother appreciating any great performance? After all, Wheating's 3:51 is only the equivalent of 3:34.7 1500. Heck, Manzano ran 3:33.9 last month in New York. Wheating must suck, right? Well, wrong, we all understand the significance of Wheatings 3:51.7.

Care to take a guess at what Manzano's 3:33.9 and Solinsky's 13:08.11 are worth for a mile?

malmo wrote:

NJ Possible wrote:

Please drop the phrase "on American soil." It sounds reaching.

It's not "reaching". Out of all of the 5000m races that have ever been contested in the USA, outside of a mercenary citizen, Solinsky's 13:08 is the fastest.

The fastest 5000 on home turf would be significant in any country.

I had never really thought about it until this post, but to those of you who say "on American Soil" doesn't matter, think about if you were in the position to say "I ran the fastest 5000 meters by an American in America". I know I would be really proud to be able to say that.

One of the reasons Track fails to catch on huge here is some of the same shit that is spewed here

No one cares that it was too warm or the porridge too cold, they watch a race billed to be a big deal and come away empty, it is IMPOSSIBLE to explain the "this and that" of every NON PR.

The simple fact is people expect guys to run their best , not every third or other one.

If you play football and drop two TD passes or fumble? Did you have a good game or bad?

Pretty simple. Get burned twice for TDs, miss 4 big tackles?

Same thing.

Baseball, whiff three times and leave 7 guys on base? Get lit up for 7 in 2 2/3?

Same thing.

Only in track , is it...the weather was too windy, the pace was not right, the sun was too bright, have to admit that was a new one, but it does make sense.

Shit, we should deduct 10 seconds from every HS Nats 2 mile or 5 from every mile, because it is alwasy friggin hot

NO ONE cares.

And I love track, but it goes on and on.

It is pretty simple, run fast or get to the line first or both, it is one of the simpler sports out there, but the constant excuse making turns off the general sports fan.

I think Solinsky ran fine, my father in law who I got to watch this race as it was billed as a big deal? He said so what, he was beaten by 10+ secs.? And this guy ran 11+ seconds faster, weeks ago? he looked like he got killed?

What am I going to say, hey Pops, it was too bright out? Come on now.

That might be the post of the year! Well said trailswatcher.....

These are really crappy analogies.

Should Peyton Manning throw for 400 yards and 4 TD every game? Does he "suck" if he doesn't? Will his stats be different if he plays the Jets D? Or Detroit? On grass? In a dome? In the rain? In the snow?

Conditions matter in track and football.

Running 13:08 was a great sign for Solinsky. It serves to 'legitimize' his earlier performances. I'm not mad at him because he failed to run 12:53. I expect that will happen someday. I'm psyched for him, Wheating, Acosta, Ritz and all the other Americans who are running superbly.

trialswatcher wrote:

What am I going to say, hey Pops, it was too bright out? Come on now.

I suppose that you could tell your father this.

"hey, pops, how many baseball players hit four home runs every game? How many pitchers throw three no hitters in a row? When it rains in baseball do they play or do they go home? How come they don't charge an error to an outfielder when a little sun gets in their eyes and they drop the ball?"

If you don't understand why a Sunny day changes things in a 5000m race, there's no way your father will understand either.

malmo wrote:

NJ Possible wrote:

Please drop the phrase "on American soil." It sounds reaching.

It's not "reaching". Out of all of the 5000m races that have ever been contested in the USA, outside of a mercenary citizen, Solinsky's 13:08 is the fastest.

The fastest 5000 on home turf would be significant in any country.

Oh good, another (weird) reason to exclude people who are faster than Chris.