USA men’s 5k- hardest team to make for Tokyo?

brahmamama wrote:

NJ fan wrote:

In my opinion the 5k is actually the weakest it's been in a while. First time without both Rupp and Lagat since 2004

Rupp wasn’t as good as some of the current guys at 5000m.

Banahahaha false. Rupp better than all of those guys. Lagat isn’t walking on the track

Rupp was in plenty of elite 5000m races where he had great pacing and competition to improve on his 12:58 and he never did. I don’t buy that Lomong’s singular post nationals/pre Worlds 5000m team trial is a better setup than the myriad of chances Rupp had.

2019 is the only year I would’ve put peak Lomong above peak Rupp at 5000m and his coach bungled getting a 5000m qualifier in time. Whether he will have that same form this year and next or whether he will lose a step because he is getting old, I don’t know.

Can't really be easy to make if there are three guys sitting at 13 flat or better on BTC alone, plus Chelimo, a sub-13 guy and medalist.

brahmamama wrote:

you're delusional wrote:

Rupp was better than all of the current guys not named Paul Chelimo.

If Lomong beats his PR this week will you still feel the same?

Absolutely. Rupp ran 13:01 indoors and 12:58 in a real race. He would have crushed all of the BTC guys in that time trial last year.

Even if we assume Rupp was incapable of faster than 12:58 (a stupid assumption), this argument is still moronic. If you think Lomong running faster than Rupp would make him better, then you must think Kincaid is already better than both of them, which is lunacy.

Lomong needs to place higher in an Olympic final than Rupp did to change my mind. Just making the final in Tokyo would be a start.

Why is it a stupid assumption that someone who had a bunch of chances to improve on 12:58 and never did may have just not been capable of beating it? I don’t agree that he would’ve crushed everyone in the time trial last year.

But we agree that there is a lot more nuance that a into it than just the clock.

you're delusional wrote:

brahmamama wrote:

If Lomong beats his PR this week will you still feel the same?

Absolutely. Rupp ran 13:01 indoors and 12:58 in a real race. He would have crushed all of the BTC guys in that time trial last year.

Even if we assume Rupp was incapable of faster than 12:58 (a stupid assumption), this argument is still moronic. If you think Lomong running faster than Rupp would make him better, then you must think Kincaid is already better than both of them, which is lunacy.

Lomong needs to place higher in an Olympic final than Rupp did to change my mind. Just making the final in Tokyo would be a start.

Gonna have to agree with this. If we are going off times, Rupp has run 2 seconds faster. If we are going on “hypothetical times” then Rupp could have ran probably closer to 12:51 or so. Hypothetically Lomong might be able to crack 13, but he was in a perfected paced race set up to run as fast as possible and ran 13 flat. Just doesn’t add up

brahmamama wrote:

Why is it a stupid assumption that someone who had a bunch of chances to improve on 12:58 and never did may have just not been capable of beating it? I don’t agree that he would’ve crushed everyone in the time trial last year.

But we agree that there is a lot more nuance that a into it than just the clock.

Someone running 7:30i and 26:44 is clearly capable of faster than 12:58. Just because he never put it together doesn't mean he was at his limit.

Are you disputing that Rupp would have won that race or that he would have won by a big margin?

Of course time is not everything. On that we can agree.

you're delusional wrote:

brahmamama wrote:

Why is it a stupid assumption that someone who had a bunch of chances to improve on 12:58 and never did may have just not been capable of beating it? I don’t agree that he would’ve crushed everyone in the time trial last year.

But we agree that there is a lot more nuance that a into it than just the clock.

Someone running 7:30i and 26:44 is clearly capable of faster than 12:58. Just because he never put it together doesn't mean he was at his limit.

Are you disputing that Rupp would have won that race or that he would have won by a big margin?

Of course time is not everything. On that we can agree.

I’m positive that he wouldn’t have won by a big margin and I don’t know that he would have won period.

Rupp had a lot of chances to beat 12:58. Many with competition and many with great pacing. And it never happened.

You are all foolishly arguing about everyone who could potentially run the 5k when the reality a bunch will focus exclusively on the 10k.

Lomong was the USA 10k champ last year and is a lock in the 10k. The odds he'd double back and go for the 5k are slim to none. Mead and Kipchirchir will stick to the 10k as well. Ben True would be smart to focus on the 10k.

What you are left with is a pretty weak and inexperienced group remaining, with the exception of Chelimo.

To the question at hand, the men's 400m has to be the hardest overall right? Norman, Kerley, Montgomery, Stewart, Strother ran 5 of the top 8 times in the world and all under 44.3. There are some other good prospects as well (Bednarek, Justin Robinson).

Men's 5,000 is super-deep with 12:55-13:10 types.

brahmamama wrote:

you're delusional wrote:

Someone running 7:30i and 26:44 is clearly capable of faster than 12:58. Just because he never put it together doesn't mean he was at his limit.

Are you disputing that Rupp would have won that race or that he would have won by a big margin?

Of course time is not everything. On that we can agree.

I’m positive that he wouldn’t have won by a big margin and I don’t know that he would have won period.

Rupp had a lot of chances to beat 12:58. Many with competition and many with great pacing. And it never happened.

If you think Kincaid had any chance in hell of beating Rupp I don't know what to tell you. No disrespect to Kincaid but it's not even close.

Say what you want about his 5k. Running 13:01i is more than enough proof for me that a person is capable of faster than 12:58.9, especially when they have under- and over-distance marks that are clearly superior.

Is the 10k standard still like 27:30? because surpsingly only like 2 guys had that last year. Erassa and someone else

stand off wrote:

You are all foolishly arguing about everyone who could potentially run the 5k when the reality a bunch will focus exclusively on the 10k.

Lomong was the USA 10k champ last year and is a lock in the 10k. The odds he'd double back and go for the 5k are slim to none. Mead and Kipchirchir will stick to the 10k as well. Ben True would be smart to focus on the 10k.

What you are left with is a pretty weak and inexperienced group remaining, with the exception of Chelimo.

Lomong was also the 5k champ last year and is damn near a lock in that event as well. He may end up only running the 10k but I'm hesitant to count him out so quickly.

Chelimo is a shoo-in of course, and I'd probably pick Centro for the last spot. In a tactical race I don't see how anyone we haven't already mentioned is going to beat him, but maybe I'm underestimating the younger BTC guys.

brahmamama wrote:

you're delusional wrote:

Someone running 7:30i and 26:44 is clearly capable of faster than 12:58. Just because he never put it together doesn't mean he was at his limit.

Are you disputing that Rupp would have won that race or that he would have won by a big margin?

Of course time is not everything. On that we can agree.

I’m positive that he wouldn’t have won by a big margin and I don’t know that he would have won period.

Rupp had a lot of chances to beat 12:58. Many with competition and many with great pacing. And it never happened.

Rupp isn’t a PR guy. Same with most of the guys that were in NOP. Hes had some American record attempts and succeeded at most of them, but rarely did that group constantly try to improve their PRs. His 26:44 concerts to a 12:49. I think it would be pretty reasonable to say he would’ve ran under 12:55 considering he’s more of a strength guy than speed guy.

Isn't Woody Kincaid's PR better than Rupp's?

brahmamama wrote:

you're delusional wrote:

Someone running 7:30i and 26:44 is clearly capable of faster than 12:58. Just because he never put it together doesn't mean he was at his limit.

Are you disputing that Rupp would have won that race or that he would have won by a big margin?

Of course time is not everything. On that we can agree.

I’m positive that he wouldn’t have won by a big margin and I don’t know that he would have won period.

Rupp had a lot of chances to beat 12:58. Many with competition and many with great pacing. And it never happened.

You keep saying that but it’s BS, never mind the fact you’re repeatedly holding Rupp & Lomong to 2 different standards.

Watch, please:

That’s Rupp’s 12:58.9 PB—the race slows in the 4th k, Rupp appears to be champing at the bit, and he runs the last 800 in ~1:58 beating K. Bekele + 3 guys who ran sub-12:50 that summer. It was not a time trial and he could clearly have run faster. He did not get “dragged along by Bekele or Gebremeskel” like another poster claimed. (In general, posters here need to take 20 seconds to Google things and get the facts rather than spewing misinformation).

That year he outkicked Lagat (& Lomong) at the Trials with a 52.x last 400:

But I’m sure Woody Kincaid would have dropped him ?

In 2014, after running 26:44 with a 1:56 last 800, Rupp focused on the 5k on the DL circuit. Problem was, only one race in the world that season went faster than 12:59.8, and admittedly that wasn’t Rupp’s day as he finished a well-beaten 4th in 13:05. That season he ran 4 DL 5ks and placed 3-4-4-3–Lomong’s highest career finish in a DL 5k was 12th in Oslo in 2014 in 13:25 (Rupp was 3rd in that race in 13:03).

You really don’t have a leg to stand on.

Exactly. People like to forget just how good Rupp was/is. He was a BEAST in both the 5k and 10k.

If he did cheesy time trials like the Lomong/Kincaid race, he was fit enough to run sub 12:50 and likely 26:30 in his peak.

In his current 5k and 10k personal bests, he had to deal with a lot of traffic, making moves, passing people, the pace slowed towards the end when he was feeling fine before kicking. He ran much of his 5k PR in lane 2/3. He finished them both with MASSIVE kicks. If you can close a 12:58 race in a 1:57, you are fit enough to run around 12:50 in a time trial setting.

NJ fan wrote:

Exactly. People like to forget just how good Rupp was/is. He was a BEAST in both the 5k and 10k.

If he did cheesy time trials like the Lomong/Kincaid race, he was fit enough to run sub 12:50 and likely 26:30 in his peak.

In his current 5k and 10k personal bests, he had to deal with a lot of traffic, making moves, passing people, the pace slowed towards the end when he was feeling fine before kicking. He ran much of his 5k PR in lane 2/3. He finished them both with MASSIVE kicks. If you can close a 12:58 race in a 1:57, you are fit enough to run around 12:50 in a time trial setting.

No.

People are being WAY too generous with Rupp.

He never won anything nor medal at 5k and was never a factor. He ran ONCE a 12:58 in the best day of his life and suddenly that make him a potential 12:50 guy?

Please no.

Rupp is a 12:58 guy.