I suggest VIPAM changes his name to KINGofLetrun since you guys are all over his every word. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of seeing you guys drooling over him with your negative remarks just hoping he responds to you.
I suggest VIPAM changes his name to KINGofLetrun since you guys are all over his every word. I'm sure I'm not the only one tired of seeing you guys drooling over him with your negative remarks just hoping he responds to you.
o.O wrote:
Why is there is big craze to claim runners will do some crazy feat?
Ever since Flagpole called out that Dathan was going to be the next sub 12 guy and stuck to it everyone thinks its trendy.
Yet Dathan is now hurt and not even a 13:30 guy
Some clarification and correction:
1) I never said Dathan would be a "sub 12 guy". I said sub 13, and the AR in the 5000.
2) Pretty sure no one thinks anything I do is trendy or starting a trend. I was just right about Ritz, and as Ritz himself said after he ran that then AR, he opened the floodgates.
3) As several US runners have now broken 13, and predictions come in about those same runners and ones with similar abilities, it's not unreasonable to predict more times under 13. It's just where the US is now in the 5000.
ThinkB4USpeak wrote:
In an effort to prove someone wrong you say things that make very little sense in regards to race at hand. Ritz indeed picked people off in his sub 13 minute race; however, it didn't go out at 12:45 for almost 1/2 of the race then slow to 13:20 the 2nd portion. Ritz race went out alittle slower than the leaders and caught up to group who was running pretty even spilts from start to finish until the kicking start in the last 300m-450m.
Today in this race even if Rupp would have layed off the way too fast pace for 2000m he would have had to pass the leaders around 2500m to 4000m and increase the pace himself. The leaders started off at 12:45 pace for 2000m, then from 2000m to 4000m they slowed down greatly to 13:19 pace, and then they kicked like crazy the last 600-700m.
So unless Galen was in 12:50 flat shape like the top 3 or very close to 12:54 shape like the top 5 then he didn't have a shot at running sub 13 with this type of pacing.
No. You do not understand the splits.
You are using the individual 1K splits to say he would need to lead. You have to add the splits as they go.
The cummulative splits were:
1K 2:32 = 12:41 pace
2K 5:05.9 = 12:44 pace
3K 7:43.8 = 12:53 pace
4K 10:22.9 = 12:58 pace
So they were sub 13 pace the entire way.
Rupp would never have had to lead.
If he ran 12:59 pace the whole way, he would have been way back at 1K and proceeded to close on the leaders all the way up to 4K where he would have been right behind the lead where the top finishers would have pulled away a bit over the last 1K as he hits 12:59.
You need to think before you speak. (nice ironical username by the way)
If the 4th 1K was 13:19 pace then the previous 3K would have to have also been 13:19 pace for them to be at 13:19 pace at 4K.
If they were at 13:19 pace after 4K they would need to run the last 1,000m in 2:15 to hit 12:55.
This isn't 1993 China.
TORO
What point of for the 1000m spilt from 2000 to 3000m and the spilt from 3000m to 4000m do you not understand was run at 13:08 and 13:16 pace? I'm not talking about cummulative spilts as you are but the individually spilts were not even!
2:32.19
2:33.71
2:37.89
2:39.16
it was way too fast then too slow. If you use the cummulative then they were on pace but not even pace which is the best way to run a really fast 5000m. The best way to run a fast 5000m is even spilts and sub 13 would be 2:36 and the way that race was run. The guys that broke 13 did so because they are in closer to 12:50-12:54 shape, while Rupp would need a better paced race to break 13 minutes as MANY OF US HAVE POINTED OUT! I spent enough time wasted on you.
ThinkB4USpeak wrote:
TORO
What point of for the 1000m spilt from 2000 to 3000m and the spilt from 3000m to 4000m do you not understand was run at 13:08 and 13:16 pace? I'm not talking about cummulative spilts as you are but the individually spilts were not even!
2:32.19
2:33.71
2:37.89
2:39.16
it was way too fast then too slow. If you use the cummulative then they were on pace but not even pace which is the best way to run a really fast 5000m. The best way to run a fast 5000m is even spilts and sub 13 would be 2:36 and the way that race was run. The guys that broke 13 did so because they are in closer to 12:50-12:54 shape, while Rupp would need a better paced race to break 13 minutes as MANY OF US HAVE POINTED OUT! I spent enough time wasted on you.
For the last time, simpletons, the lead rabbit split 5:05.9 at 2000. Did you see how spread out the leaders were and how Rupp was lagging behind? Rupp may have split 5:10 or so, which would be 12:55 pace. STOP making excuses for a great runner. Galen Rupp is a great runner who doesn't need your bullshit and lies. RUPP DID NOT HAVE THE LEAD, YOU IMBECILES. The race was set up perfectly for him, but he did not have the ability to hang yesterday. This had NOTHING to do with the pacing.
Actually, I've been relying on you morons for the reported splits. The lead rabbit actually split 5:06.9 at 2000, not 5:05.9, so Galen Rupp clearly was no faster than about 5:10, meaning he came through 2000 at roughly 12:55 pace, which is perfect for an assault on sub 13:00. Rupp simply was not able to get there yesterday, despite the excellent pacing. This was no surprise to the more intelligent among us. Rupp had done NOTHING to indicate sub 13. He is getting closer, however.
VIPAM wrote:
If Rupp stays healthy and gets into 2 more Diamond League/top tier 5000m races that was setup and paced like Stockholm and doesn't break 13- I'LL STOP POSTING FOREVER ON LETSRUN!!!!
Good riddance.
I rather see you fools go then VIPAM!
ExitStageLeft wrote:
I rather see you fools go then VIPAM!
"I (would) rather see you fools go, then VIPAM"
or
"I (would) rather see you fools go than VIPAM"
I'd rather. "I would rather" is just poorly composed English.
"I would rather" is not a well formatted sentence.
o.O wrote:
Why is there is big craze to claim runners will do some crazy feat?
Ever since Flagpole called out that Dathan was going to be the next sub 12 guy and stuck to it everyone thinks its trendy.
Flagpole wrote:
Some clarification and correction
1) I never said Dathan would be a "sub 12 guy". I said sub 13, and the AR in the 5000.
2) Pretty sure no one thinks anything I do is trendy or starting a trend. I was just right about Ritz....
Some clarification and correction of Flagpole's clarification and correction:
Flagpole guaranteed Ritz would run at least (if not under) 12:50 and 26:50 (NOT 12:56 and 27:20). And he said he would run 12:50/26:50 it by the end of 2007/2008. Of course that never happened, ie, Flagpole was WRONG. Of course Flagpole had several conditions or caveats to that prediction , such as: Ritz had to stay healthy, he had to focus on the track, etc., etc, etc. Now while I give credit to Flagpole for sticking by his man Ritz, and being CLOSER to getting one of his predictions correct than I thought he would ( I did not think Ritz would break 13:00), the bottom line is, he was wrong (Ritz has not run the times he said he would, and certainly not by the year he said he would do it).
If Flagpole thought Ritz would run 12:56 and 27:20 by 2010, than that is what he should have predicted, and I would have said: You were dead on flagpole. But that is not what he predicted. This is not horse-shoes or hand grenades.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
Some clarification and correction of Flagpole's clarification and correction:
Flagpole guaranteed Ritz would run at least (if not under) 12:50 and 26:50 (NOT 12:56 and 27:20). And he said he would run 12:50/26:50 it by the end of 2007/2008. Of course that never happened, ie, Flagpole was WRONG. Of course Flagpole had several conditions or caveats to that prediction , such as: Ritz had to stay healthy, he had to focus on the track, etc., etc, etc. Now while I give credit to Flagpole for sticking by his man Ritz, and being CLOSER to getting one of his predictions correct than I thought he would ( I did not think Ritz would break 13:00), the bottom line is, he was wrong (Ritz has not run the times he said he would, and certainly not by the year he said he would do it).
If Flagpole thought Ritz would run 12:56 and 27:20 by 2010, than that is what he should have predicted, and I would have said: You were dead on flagpole. But that is not what he predicted. This is not horse-shoes or hand grenades.
INCORRECT!
I said long ago that Ritz's ceiling was 12:50 and 26:50. I NEVER guaranteed a time when he would do it. Of course I put caveats on him. Can't run those times if you're injured or if you go to the marathon and never run them again.
To be even more specific though, when I started getting feedback about Ritz not even being able to run faster than about 13:10, I started the thread about why did people think Ritz couldn't break 13 minutes. I said it was coming and that Kennedy's then AR was on borrowed time. I was right.
Here's that thread -
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1443198&page=0You the man Flagpole!
I am going miss VIPAM.
Who cares if your gonna miss me or not because Galen only ran ONE more 5000m race (after the race where he dropped out at 4000m) when I specifically specified that if he ran AT LEAST 2 similiarily paced 5000m races. Can you read and comprehend or are you one of the trolls that just follow the masses?
VIPAM you're a liar. Stop posting. The welcome mat was pulled out from under you long ago.
Yes, by the rules you set up you can keep posting, which is good.
We like having all of the Letsrun characters post.
Maybe Rupp is avoiding any further 5000m races to keep you online.
But just look at your subject line.
You are looked at as a tabloid magazine now.
It's threads like this that make us disappointed in 13:07.
13:07 is still pretty damn good.
Bekele never did annihilate Geb's records, he chipped the down, but it made a good headline.
Flagpole wrote:
Sir Lance-alot wrote:Some clarification and correction of Flagpole's clarification and correction:
Flagpole guaranteed Ritz would run at least (if not under) 12:50 and 26:50 (NOT 12:56 and 27:20). And he said he would run 12:50/26:50 it by the end of 2007/2008. Of course that never happened, ie, Flagpole was WRONG. Of course Flagpole had several conditions or caveats to that prediction , such as: Ritz had to stay healthy, he had to focus on the track, etc., etc, etc. Now while I give credit to Flagpole for sticking by his man Ritz, and being CLOSER to getting one of his predictions correct than I thought he would ( I did not think Ritz would break 13:00), the bottom line is, he was wrong (Ritz has not run the times he said he would, and certainly not by the year he said he would do it).
If Flagpole thought Ritz would run 12:56 and 27:20 by 2010, than that is what he should have predicted, and I would have said: You were dead on flagpole. But that is not what he predicted. This is not horse-shoes or hand grenades.
INCORRECT!
I said long ago that Ritz's ceiling was 12:50 and 26:50. I NEVER guaranteed a time when he would do it. Of course I put caveats on him. Can't run those times if you're injured or if you go to the marathon and never run them again.
To be even more specific though, when I started getting feedback about Ritz not even being able to run faster than about 13:10, I started the thread about why did people think Ritz couldn't break 13 minutes. I said it was coming and that Kennedy's then AR was on borrowed time. I was right.
Here's that thread -
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1443198&page=0
Wrong thread link, FP. No surprise. Are you ever right?
Easy VIPAM, easy. I'm just expressing my sadness.
You will be missed man.
VIPAM....I mean BIG VAGINA!! GET A LIFE YOU BUM!!