worst 800m Olympic final in a long time

slow tactical races under 1500 meters is dumb imo. even 144 would have been slow, but at least acceptable. murphy made a mistake by not running to the front at the start, got boxed and impeded (his own fault) and then it was so slow that everyone had a good kick left so no real changes in position.

I feel like hocker, centro, ingebristin, cheriyot would have medalled in this 800m. What a shi* show

a regular guy wrote:

back to reality wrote:

And women could have won the 2016 Olympic 1500.

no. Not in the way it was run. It is like that argument of saying that a Paralympic 1500m champion ran faster than the Olympic 1500m champion. That actually happened. But no way the Paralympic runner would've beaten Centrowitz.

Only if you don't understand a clue about track and field you could make that argument as well as this one that a woman could've won that race.

You are making my point for me, you know that right?

Just because Paralympians and women HAVE run as fast as Centro 2016 doesn't mean they would have won that race.

And by the exact same token, Snell (who never broke 1:44) would not have won today's 800. Korir and Rotich would have done enough to comfortably beat him, just like they beat a raft of 1:42-1:43 guys and legendary kickers today.

Was it just more exciting because Centro is American ? This race had a great last 200m. In the Rio 1500 the favourites absolutely bombed (Kiprop, Iguider, Souleiman, Musagala, Kwemoi ... ) Only favourite who ran well was Makhloufi. And what does "no real challenge to win" even mean ?? clearly you've never run at a high level and just look at winning times to determine whether a race was competitive or not

Almost every single championship distance race is slow ... the steeple, 5k and 10k in tokyo haven't had great times either.

Personally I enjoyed this 800m ... Bol had the balls to push it after 400m and it was cool seeing Kenya go 1-2 ...

Questionable1 wrote:

Almost as bad as the Rio 1500m final. Dirt slow

Not even close.

1:45 can win NCAA meets and even USATF nationals on occasion.

Centro's 3:50 wouldn't even be at the top of most yearly high-school lists.

FFS the medalist closed in 50-51!

sprinter guy wrote:

Harold #1 wrote:

It was a well run race by the two Kenyans who controlled things and negative split. Mission accomplished for the Kenyans - Goid and Silver. The times are unimportant as they were racing to win medals.

I would never accept a medal for 1:45. That’s pathetic. That’s not an Olympic performance in this day and age. No one deserves a medal. I’d be all for having minimum standards to get medals or an eye test where no medals are awarded if people aren’t trying and are just out there for a hobby jog.

Good thing you'll never be close to getting one, and medals are awarded for finishing 1-2-3 in the race, not for satisfying some guy on LRC's definition of an "Olympic performance"

Seriously, does Frerichs not deserve a medal for only running 9:04 in the SC when the record is 8:44 ? Both the 800 final and her SC performance are 96% of the world record ...

lrc loves to complain wrote:

Was it just more exciting because Centro is American ? This race had a great last 200m. In the Rio 1500 the favourites absolutely bombed (Kiprop, Iguider, Souleiman, Musagala, Kwemoi ... ) Only favourite who ran well was Makhloufi. And what does "no real challenge to win" even mean ?? clearly you've never run at a high level and just look at winning times to determine whether a race was competitive or not

Personally I enjoyed this 800m ... Bol had the balls to push it after 400m and it was cool seeing Kenya go 1-2 ...

Great post.

When it takes an absolute top-ranked boss like Korir to win with an incredible ~54-~51 negative split, LRC posters say the race was boring.

But when it takes a poorly-ranked scrub like Centro to win in a women's time, "it was so slow it was exciting!"

SMH.

sprinter guy wrote:

It’s not just about winning.

It most certainly is. It’s a race. Great work by the medalists.

Neta wrote:

Worst since Ovett's win in Moscow back '80.

DON'T remind me.

lrc loves to complain wrote:

sprinter guy wrote:

I would never accept a medal for 1:45. That’s pathetic. That’s not an Olympic performance in this day and age. No one deserves a medal. I’d be all for having minimum standards to get medals or an eye test where no medals are awarded if people aren’t trying and are just out there for a hobby jog.

Good thing you'll never be close to getting one, and medals are awarded for finishing 1-2-3 in the race, not for satisfying some guy on LRC's definition of an "Olympic performance"

Seriously, does Frerichs not deserve a medal for only running 9:04 in the SC when the record is 8:44 ? Both the 800 final and her SC performance are 96% of the world record ...

I may not have been an Olympian, but I ran some good times in my day. Further, at least I can say I really left it all out on the track every time I competed, even moreso in championship-type races. Some days were better than others like anyone else, but I can't say I didn't try.

Most of the 800 meter field you saw today can't say that. And at the end of the day, they'll know that it's not really a legitimate performance, and there will come a day when they might wonder what could have been if they cared enough. Medals are superficial (even if obviously very prestigious) but the feeling of doing your best and laying it all on the line lasts forever.

People that are just in it for the medals and beating their competition as opposed to the spirit of the sport itself, and improving on yourself, rather than intentionally doing poorly, are just bad for Track and Field. While this shouldn't be the primary consideration, it also makes viewers lose interest. No one wants to see people just not try. It's what's killing viewership of certain other professional sports too. People phone it in and don't give an effort as long as they get that paycheck.

You sound like a 16 year old with a Pre poster on your wall, save us the masterbatorial rant about what you think the “spirit of the sport” is. Line up and beat your opponents.

IMO, it was fine. Don't love sit and kick races, but it happens. The winning time is slower than even the "slow" time I would have ever predicted - I would have thought 1:44 low (e.g., 1:44.30) as the slowest possible winning time. But here we are.

It does make me really wish Jewett made the final and tried to force the pace, even if he ended up blowing up.

Absolutely not. First I am not North American.

I am South American. Second, I am generally supporting underdogs who are master tacticians or bold front runners independently of their Nationality, leaning towards a biased support to runners of Nations with no tradition in Athletics. It helps the development of the Sport.

Korir win today doesn't fill any of these points. I am sorry. It is just a fact.

Well yes I have never run at that level, of course, I am not an Olympian, thanks for asking. I did run a 1:51 800m which is not much, I admit, but in my country it put me in National finals. I know it is not much.

When you run a 53 first lap in an Olympic final, I am assuming everyone will have an awesome kick and the final 100m will be very exciting. It was not the case. Murphy and Amos looked really bad, Rotich could maybe have won but seemed to be more concerned about securing a medal, and the others, was just hoping for a bronze at best.

Disko Eric wrote:

Rudisha went 52-50 in 2015. It’s not even close. He threw the afterburners down with 270 to go. Not even close to similar

Incorrect, Rudisha went 54.15, 51.69. Just stop making up stuff.

under a bridge wrote:

You sound like a 16 year old with a Pre poster on your wall, save us the masterbatorial rant about what you think the “spirit of the sport” is. Line up and beat your opponents.

There just comes a point where it's not reasonable anymore. What's next? 1:48 to win an Olympic medal? a 3:57 1500 for Olympic gold while a bunch of high schoolers sit and home and wish they could have been there to win? A sit and kick 48 second 400 meter dash for Gold? If you're going to be at the Olympic games, you need to try and put forth effort.

Should we just do olympic "B" and "C" races so long sprinters/distance runners get to do short sprints too? That's more or less what's happening. If you want to run the 800 in the olympics, run the 800 in the olympics. Don't hobbyjog 600 meters then sprint a 200. Come on man.

thanks for accepting that was a good point, usually that's very hard to find in LetsRun.

Well, Korir won the race so it is hard to make a claim he did not play perfectly for that goal. But think about it: if before the race you said to Korir, run a 53 first lap and 1:45 finish and you will win gold, would that argument be rational? I say no, I say chances are you will be destroyed at least by Amos, probably by Rotich. It was just a relatively bad race where a case can be made that some of the best runners were not even there, a clear front runner Vasquez was also not there, the heavy favourite must be suffering from an injury to have run that bad (Amos), and Korir had a solid race that should've been good enough maybe for a bronze but it turns out it was gold because the level was relatively low.

Jewett not being in there was a tragedy not only for him, but for the event.

The rounds before were all more exciting.

How you do ?

DFL