That was the worst 5000m final in an Olympics ever

Um, yeah wrote:

"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."

----------------------------------------------------------

Actually, that might be exactly what they'll say in the future, the information scarcity that lead newspapers and television to summarize careers in two sentences when someone died is basically already gone, twenty years from now there won't be any paperbased newspapers and no television as we know it today any longer. ;-)

I'll move up and run the 5000m in Rio 2016. I'll show you how to run with guts, all the field behind me will PB, SB or beat NRs.

These guys in the race above could run fast too, but they let this guy with ugly form get away with GOLD. I liked watching a race where I'm like:

1988 "Hoooooooly Craaaaap 59sec Duuuu-ROP with 10 laps to go... can he hold?! Is he stil goin?! WTF 60sec again?! This is more insane than the 1972 Munich PreF Near Sub4 Last Mile"

vs.

2012 "Yay, Farah shall join Bekele and Viren for 5/10k Double Gold... and I'm only 2 laps in watching this dis-RACE."

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.

That's not moving that well for 2000m. The 5000m world record pace is about 5 flat. Moving pretty well, to me, for 2000m would be under 3:58 or so.

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

that's 5 flat as in 4x62, 1x52. Not 5x60.

62 is 12:55 pace. 4 laps at a pace half the field can hold for 12 1/2 laps, not a big deal. Hence the butt-ugly last lap.

Um, yeah wrote:

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?

That is a very stupid mentality.

The RUNNER who leads and runs the fastest pace for the race ALWAYS WINS.

The runner who leads to the finish NEVER LOSES.

Instead of this, some stupid people think that holding back running slow means running faster always winning, which is bassackwards and totally wrong. Yesterday was a race of loses, competeting with each other of which loses the worse.

Mo only was the worst one in the losing competition, as he was in front the last few laps and was first across the finish. He was named the winner but was not really a winner, just the first loser in the 5k event. It was not a competition at all.

Um, yeah wrote:

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?

No racer cares about what's honest. People just want to medal, and I'm saying 10 of the 15 finalists can run 13:00 yet will only have a better than 5% chance of medaling if they run their race and not the big kickers' 13:45 sit-and-kick pace, which may leave the 10 also-rans fresh, but it also leaves them unable to place given they've played right into the kickers gameplan. Have a shot and go for it for pete's sakes.

jikugki wrote:

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.

That's not moving that well for 2000m. The 5000m world record pace is about 5 flat. Moving pretty well, to me, for 2000m would be under 3:58 or so.

I agree.

A roughly 3:00 mile followed by another lap at the same pace would be moving pretty good.

HI! I'm math! We've never met.

NJ Possible wrote:

No racer cares about what's honest. People just want to medal, and I'm saying 10 of the 15 finalists can run 13:00 yet will only have a better than 5% chance of medaling if they run their race and not the big kickers' 13:45 sit-and-kick pace, which may leave the 10 also-rans fresh, but it also leaves them unable to place given they've played right into the kickers gameplan. Have a shot and go for it for pete's sakes.

Yeah, Cam Levin's was almost a medal threat in this race. The only thing that kept him out was the series of 61 second laps right before the finish.

That's why you do NOT risk leaving it to a sit and kick race (unless you are a superb kicker).

I don't think anybody is taking into account how small the change in pace and effort is for a 3000m race compared to a 5000m race.

If you take the last six laps for the leaders, 62+62+62+61+60.5+53 just 600 more meters at that pace, 93 seconds, and you would have 7:33.5 3000m of which only the elite of the elite have, alone, held a faster pace over the 3000m to 5000m distance.

Here's some irony for this thread - the '72 5k is by consensus one of the greatest Olympic 5k's ever, yet it was quite similar to this London 5k.

Running on Empathy wrote:

Here's some irony for this thread - the '72 5k is by consensus one of the greatest Olympic 5k's ever, yet it was quite similar to this London 5k.

Not that similar.

In 1972, the winning time was 15 seconds faster than 2012 (13:26), which is fairly significant. But more importantly, in 1972, the world record was only 13:16. So, in relative terms, the 2012 race would have had to been run in well under 13:00 (actually close to 12:50) to have been a similar race. IN other words: in 1972, while they did indeed finish with a fast last mile, their early laps, relative to the fastest times of that era, were only conservative, but not super slow. In 2012, they started much slower than 1972 in absolute terms, and in relative terms, much, MUCH slower.

1972 was a fast finish off of fairly honest pace. 2012 was a jog for 3000, and fast final 2000 with a blitz of last 400. So quite a few differences.

I didn't think it was a bad race to watch, but it was an absolute joke of race tactically for so many. They let the best kicker get in front, slow the pace down to gather himself, and then let him get the jump on everyone else. Mo ran perfect tactics for him, and the rest ran horrible tactics. Every once in awhile, tactics do matter in distance running. often the fittest guy wins no matter how the race unfolds. But sometimes how you run the race does matter.

at least they picked up the pace quite a bit the last 2400m, but the way it is getting in the 10000m and for much of this 5000m, as in the cycling sprint race, where no one is willing to do much more than jog by their standards until the last lap, they ought to make these into individual time trials. That'd fix their wagon.

A terrible race. I was suprised that Lagat did not medal off such a slow pace. I know he got cutoff in the last turn but he should have been in better position earlier. I was suprised that someone did not break with 2K to go. It was a terrible race.

fast track wrote:

All the money is sucking all the young talent away from track into the marathon. Track will be as popular as field in a decade.

Lol. Great post. You made me laugh out loud at seven am on a Monday.

nope wrote:

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.

this

NJ Possible wrote:

Have a shot and go for it for pete's sakes.

But the point is that "going for it" almost guarantees you won't get it, whereas sticking in the pack in a slower pace at least gives you a better chance (even if it's not that great a chance).

Just look at the preliminary rounds of the 1500 and 5000 where the early leaders ended up placing, regardless of whether it was a fast or slow pace.

1500 H1 (3:35 winning time)

leader at 400: 7th

leader at 800: 11th

leader at 1200: 5th

H2 (3:39)

400: 11

800: 11

1200: 10

H3 (3:40)

400: 9

800: 9

1200: 1

Semi 1 (3:42)

400: 2

800: 2

1200: 2

Semi 2 (3:33)

400: 4

800: 4

1200: 4

5000 semi 1 (13:25)

1000: 2

2000: 13

3000: 5

4000: 5

Semi 2 (13:15)

1000: 16

2000: 6

3000: 16

4000: 7

Just the 5000 results alone are enough to tell even the marginally intelligent that pulling a Pre and making the pace "honest" will just make you an also ran.

But I'm sure you've got a big poster of the 16th place finisher from 5000 semi 2 who manned-up and led the race at 1000 and 3000m, ensuring the rest of field had a good shot at qualifying for the final (all five time qualifiers came from semi 2).

Exactly. Mo wanted that win very much. He knew that leading too soon would have lost him the race.

I suppose most posters on this thread expected a fast race, and anything less is boring?

yes wrote:

Exactly. Mo wanted that win very much. He knew that leading too soon would have lost him the race.

I suppose most posters on this thread expected a fast race, and anything less is boring?

No, slow races can be incredibly exciting. This one wasn't one of those at all. My point in starting this thread wasn't to call out "slow" or tactical races. It was simply to call out this race as not being exciting at all (unless you are British). They could have run 12:45 and it could have been equally as boring.