Bennie doesn't seem the type who loves media attention anyway so I think he's really indifferent in terms of CJ getting more coverage/credit or whatever you'll call it. Bottomline is he finished as the first American and in 7th, I think the results speak for themselves.
In regards to “CJ didn’t run his best race”: we know that PHYSIOLOGICALLY CJ did not run optimally, but that is only one piece of the puzzle.
CJ is a very strange human. He runs insane mileage and treadmill records. He runs near PRs in training runs and does crazy 30 milers. And in interviews he seems a little bonkers / out of touch with reality. For a man like this, I think his optimal race IS the one where he goes out in the lead and runs the way he wants to run. When he’s been conservative in the pack (Olympic Trials and others) he seems to place similarly or worse to his performance in Boston.
If he ran with the pack in Boston he would’ve got inside his own head and dropped earlier, and not made any headlines.
birdbeard wrote:
Better? Yes. More notable? No.
This is exactly it. You can’t write a story about the race without noting that CJ ran solo for 20 miles. You can absolutely not mention Bennie for a non-American recap that wouldn’t mention the top domestic racer. What CJ did was interesting and fun to watch. People like those things for obvious reasons more than running in the pack and executing a steady race. If you’re good enough to podium you don’t have to be a bold racer to get attention.
Was he Justin Knight's mentor or was that Martin Hehir?
I know Knight credited one teammate with doing a lot for him
You also have to remember that a runner who makes what might in retrospect seem like a bold or even foolish move isn't actively planning to pay the price for it later by having a diminishing effect on their performance (not saying CJA actually did diminish his performance). For example, nobody PLANS to run the first half in 1:07, and the second half in 1:14. But that's kind of the nature of being bold and daring in general; if the odds weren't against you, it wouldn't be daring. The thinking, in my opinion, is more along the lines of: I could play it safe and do something decent and probably not spectacular. Or, I could take a chance on doing something BIG. Maybe 1% of the time it will work to perfection, and another 25% of the time it at least generates some excitement, and the rest of the time it becomes a disaster and I look stupid.
Well, what do you prefer to watch? A bunch of racers who take no chances whatsoever and just run their pace...or a bunch of guys who run with the lead pack no matter what...or a bunch of loonies...or a mix of different strategies? For me, it's the latter. Colin Bennie delivered a strong performance, so I have absolutely no criticism of that. At the same time, CJ Albertson made a bold move, and it sorta coulda worked - cause let's face it, the guys behind him had no idea what they were dealing with, or if he'd come back, or in some cases, even that he was up there. I say bravo to CJA, and Bennie too.
Media should cover more than just the front pack, to be fair to the athletes and informative/entertaining to the viewers.
'Punished'?? Punished by whom?
For CJ Albertson, it wasn't about 10th or 7th or even a PB. It was about taking a risk in order to perhaps win. There is absolutely no way he would have won sitting in the lead pack...no way. At best maybe 5th
So , of course if he leads he gets the coverage. You don't tell the camera man, "don't follow that guy, he won't win...follow the next US guy instead".
You guys sound like hobby joggers who have never been in a serious race. You think running a good race is breaking 3hrs off even pace when your potential might be 2:50...or breakling 2:30 when you should be doing 2:25
There is no kudos for sitting in a pack and getting 7th, and why should there be?
No guts, no glory.
John Wesley Harding wrote:
Fat Slow Lurker wrote:
I'm not even convinced it is true that "CJ gave himself zero chance of his best finish." The next 3 finishers behind CJ were Felix Kandie, Jake Robertson, and Geoffrey Kirui. What do you figure CJ's odds would have been of finishing ahead of those three men had he just run with the pack?
It felt sort of like watching Stewy McSweyn blast the first 1300 meters of his 1500 before a bunch of guys start going by him - he can't close with those guys, and he knows that, so even though it doesn't look like it, he does what he does to give himself the best chance.
Do you realize the 3 guys you mentioned were ahead of him at 35k, and he closed faster than them? He would have been able to close even faster if he’d gotten to 35k more efficiently; he may have been smart and gutsy to lead from the gun, but his first 5-10k was still a bit too quick.[/quote]
Yes, I realize. Those guys ran the second half nearly 2 full minutes faster than he did. They caught up to him, he miraculously didn't completely crater, hung on, and managed to rally for a strong finish and get back by them. I am not convinced that he would have been able to run the entire second half with them if they had all been together at the half. I think there's a good chance they would have dropped him on the uphill segments and gapped him by a minute.
Bennie ran smarter if the goal was a higher finish place.
CJ ran smarter ran smarter if the goal was more media exposure.
OP too cookie-cutter in thinking.
John Wesley Harding wrote:
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
I wouldn't say he was punished. CJ was rewarded for taking the lead and basically being a visible part of the race for as long as he did. Finishing 7th is cool and all, but it is less notable than leading 20 miles. Bennie will be rewarded accordingly if he finishes 3rd in a Major or even top 5, but otherwise leading for 3/4+ of the race is more notable than executing and finishing off the podium (and not top 5) in a whatever time.
I disagree. 7th is better than 10th, and that’s all that really matters.
I’m guessing you don’t work in marketing.