Ritz breaks US 10 mile record...in a workout.

they work said....."destroys Paula Radcliffe". Say what???????????????????

Ummmm, it was Paula's first race back after giving birth. You ever try doing that? You know, squeezing a football out of a hole the size of a lemon.

What did Paula do to Kara in New York? Drop her like a sack of dirt when the REAL race began (I don't care if it was her first marathon, AS said she was in 2:22 shape so what happened?). How many races has Kara finished in front of Paula since that one race? Case closed. I would bet on Paula versus Kara in any distance from 10 miles to the marathon, and I'd win.

Sorry for deviating from the OP, Kara on, I mean carry on.

unclouded mind wrote:

Ritz, however, did spend the last five years in midiocrity and all of a sudden is in world elite level.

I'm as skeptical as anyone but you're inventing things here. Five years ago Ritzenhein had just turned pro and was less than five months removed from the AmCR over 10km. What the hell are you talking about?

I wouldn't call the last several years mediocre either. If you want to bring up a suspicious time frame, try going from a 13:10-:12 type athlete to 12:56 eight weeks after signing on with one of the shadiest cats in the business.

not quite there big guy wrote:

they work said....."destroys Paula Radcliffe". Say what???????????????????

Ummmm, it was Paula's first race back after giving birth. You ever try doing that? You know, squeezing a football out of a hole the size of a lemon.

Yeah, but so unlike with her running, she had drugs to help.

I for one haven't called anyone anything, yet that hasn't prevented you from calling me a "dumbed ass," by which I assume you mean "dumb ass." About Hall, you are quite wrong. When he ran 59:43 scores of people were very skeptical, believing the course must have been short. And although he ran 57:54 for 20 K several months earlier, he came by 20 K in Houston, unofficially, in 57:06, a marked improvement. Now as to Ritz, he came in third in the Junior World Cross as a high school student. He ran 13:27 as a freshman, and the next year in his first 10000 he ran 27:38. Great promise indeed, but promise sidetracked repeatedly by injuries. And if one asks any world class distance runner what the single most important thing to success is--granted natural ability--the answer would be consistent training over several years. Ritz has not had any broken bones in awhile and he has been logging an impressive catalog of aerobic miles in preparing for several marathons. Hudson intentionally kept Ritz away from fast running, partly to see if Ritz could stay healthy for a good length of time. Salazar on the other hand has had Ritz running 400s in 56 and repeat 1600s in 4:21, which should be compared to the workout Hudson had Ritz (cf. earlier in this thread) do of repeat 1000s in the middle 2:40s (slower pace than the 1600s, albeit with less recovery. When Salazar said that Hudson made the cake and that he only put on the frosting he meant it. Add intense running, injury free, to a huge aerobic base and one can improve a great deal--in fact, cash in on previous promissory notes. But to conclude, I'll ask my prior question once again. If Salazar's athletes are on PEDs, ehy haven't they had world-class breakthroughs, as Ritz has clearly had?

that just happened wrote:

He was in HS when he came in 3rd at junior world xc. Stick to geometry, chief.

Thanks for the backup, irun please educate yourself.

We ain't talkin' bout the game... We talkin' bout Practice!

well done

Ritz

Montesquieu wrote:

Now as to Ritz, he came in third in the Junior World Cross as a high school student. He ran 13:27 as a freshman, and the next year in his first 10000 he ran 27:38. Great promise indeed, but promise sidetracked repeatedly by injuries."

[/quote]

correction: Ritz ran 27:38 in 2004.

His sophomore year I believe he only ran two races because of a stress fracture in the femur, a stress fracture in the other femur, and another stress fracture somewhere else in his leg. He beat Torres his first cross race when Torres won NCAA's, but got a stress fracture in the femur. He got another stress reaction after taking some time off, and took his anger out on video games.

Then track came around that year and he ran 13:37 off of 6 weeks of running. Which he got another stress fracture in his other femur and didn't run a single mile from May to end of Aug. of 2003. (well he was trotting 10 minutes a day at the end of Aug.)

Finally he got up to full mileage of one 80 mile week and one workout before Pre-Nats which he won easily and he stated that he was surprised at the result. Then, he won conference, Mt. Regionals, and NCAA's off of basically 8 weeks of training for the last 13 months. (no base at all) Then, to top it off; Ritz beat Hall at NCAA's in a crazy 400 meter sprint. Those of you that remember this, Ritz was basically in a coma for like half an hour.

He is as tough as they come, and this is just one example of why he is the most talented runner our nation has ever seen. With this talent just imagine what he could do if he had 2 years of being injury free... Oh Yeah, he just did that and ran 12:56

Not a very good comparison.While people were surprised with Hall's 59:43, many people could also see his vast potential at longer distances. He didn't run 2:06 off running 2:10 for several years. Ritz, on the other hand, has performed well in US standard for several years but suddenly ran that world class 12:56 that nobody could see it coming. Nothing in his past races could indicate a 12:56. Forget about the 3rd place finish at World Junior XC. We are talking about past performances and performance improvement curve here.Look at Teg, Mottram, Kennedy. And look at how they achieve 12:XX. They don't improve 10 seconds PR in a 5K all of a sudden. People EXPECT these folks to run 12:XX based on their past performances.Now, I won't be surprised that Ritz will pop a 59:XX or even 58:XX in the world half when he ran that fast in training (for his 10 miles). I think if you think 12:56 is natural for him, improving 2 mins over his half marathon PR would also be a norm.

not quite there big guy wrote:

I would bet on Paula versus Kara in any distance from 10 miles to the marathon, and I'd win.

*I would bet on Paula versus Kara in any distance from 5000m to the marathon and I'd win.

Montesquieu wrote:

If Salazar's athletes are on PEDs, ehy haven't they had world-class breakthroughs, as Ritz has clearly had?

How about K. Goucher and Begley making improbable improvements once they got on the Viagra/albuterol/etc. cocktail. Their improvements weren't as shocking as Ritzenhein's because they're not world-class talents. All of a sudden going from above-average domestic runners to being in the mix at the world level is pretty curious. Ritzenhein clearly has the genetic goods, he looks like a world-class athlete. Goucher and Begley are built like the Russians. [/quote]

rw sez wrote:

Heck I just reportedly ran 100 meters in 9.4!!

did you really just say "heck"?

Golly gee!

Ritz is insanely talented, and since watching him fall his freshman year at Mt Sac, get up, and chase down the pack, he's been one of my favorite runners.

I have said all along (since he was in HS) that I thought Ritz would be a 12:55 and sub 27:00 guy.

I also said all along that this kid has under appreciated wheels (he ran what, 4:05 in hs, with not a muscle on his frame?)

BUT, no one... NO ONE beats Webb in terms of talent. I think Webb's talent is at the level El G. If he had the mental makeup of Ritz, Webb could run 1:42, 3:27, 7:25, 12:45, 26:59 (very much like EL G could have or did. Webb may even have more top-end speed, though).

You show me another runner on the planet... possibly ever, with those PHYSICAL tools. I bet you can't.

Now, I could see Ritz go 1:49, 3:34, 7:30, 12:55, 26:50, 2:05:00.

Now you tell me who is more talented? I don't know. I would say, based on those predictions of physical ability, its Webb. Someone else may put more weight on the marathon and say Ritz, though.

and what does this viagra/albuterol/etc. cocktail do?

could someone please email me this full article? My school does not get this journal for some reason

sup235@yahoo.com

thanks

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19142075

Curr Sports Med Rep. 2009 Jan-Feb;8(1):16-9.

Thyroid disorders in athletes.Duhig TJ, McKeag D.

Toronto wrote:

Ritz, on the other hand, has performed well in US standard for several years but suddenly ran that world class 12:56 that nobody could see it coming. Nothing in his past races could indicate a 12:56.

What about his 8:11 2 mile? That's what convinced me at the time that he could break 13. The only thing that surprised me about the 12:56 was the timing of it. The potential was always there.

Montesquieu wrote:

Ryan Hall came through ten miles in 45:33 on his way to 59:43. No one has suggested Hall is taking PEDs...

Montesquieu wrote:

About Hall, you are quite wrong. When he ran 59:43 scores of people were very skeptical...

You just refuted your own statement, you dipped shit. Now do you see how emotional ties to an athlete makes for some desperate arguments?

Nathan Ditz wrote:

What about his 8:11 2 mile? That's what convinced me at the time that he could break 13. The only thing that surprised me about the 12:56 was the timing of it. The potential was always there.

If Ritz's 8:11 is indicative of 12:56,

then Mottram's 8:03 is worth 12:43

Tariku's 8:04.8 is worth 12:45.5

Shit, they should have run a 5000 that day and had like 5 people go under 13:00 on US soil!

Do you usually go around calling people you don't know vulgar names? Sad, really. In any case, and try to think this through very carefully, there are many reasons why someone might be skeptical about a fast time. In Hall's case, no one to the best of my recollection said anything about PEDs. Instead, many people said the course must be short or that Hall did not run the full course. Hence, they were skeptical about the time.

unclouded mind wrote:

Montesquieu wrote:

Ryan Hall came through ten miles in 45:33 on his way to 59:43. No one has suggested Hall is taking PEDs...

Montesquieu wrote:

About Hall, you are quite wrong. When he ran 59:43 scores of people were very skeptical...

You just refuted your own statement, you dipped shit. Now do you see how emotional ties to an athlete makes for some desperate arguments?