Acosta 9:35 Steeple

no

"Alrighty then what di you guys run your first steeplechase in and what were your mile and 2 mile times when you did it?

Talk is cheap."

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

I just knew there would be one of those "He's faster than you so one can't make a judgment" responses...god, these guys that actually think that this is a valid argument just annoy me...

mwwwin wrote:

I just knew there would be one of those "He's faster than you so one can't make a judgment" responses...god, these guys that actually think that this is a valid argument just annoy me...

Yeah, life sucks when it's put up or shut up time. I'm glad that I annoy you little girls.

dafsdsaf wrote:

All you have to do is look at what Marie Lawrence ran her 3k steeple in, what 10:15ish, so 40 seconds, now you have to ask yourself is Marie Lawrence within 40 seconds of AJ Acosta in the 1600? Yeah not a good time, it's a good start, but that man should be able to run sub 9.

Actually, I know Marie Lawrence has run AT LEAST 4:47 for 1600 meters, so yeah, she's right around 40 seconds or so slower than AJ in the 1600/mile.

Having said that, with a longer race/distance, you'd think AJ would open up that time gap a little bit, but still, I think Marie is more experienced in the steeple than AJ.

It's ok, come run sometime and we'll see who the girl is.

Not so fun when someone actually calls you out, isn't it? Sorry, living vicariously through other fast runners isn't going to help you this time.

ok, seriously, a 9:35 is ass slow. i ran faster in the 11th grade without any real steeple training. id be willing to bet he wasnt taking it seriously at all, because my 1500 pr was closer to his mile PR than to his 1500 pr...haha

does anyone realize that he probably wasnt training for steeple recently? maybe for a week or two but not for months. it may not be a great time but he probably just said "hey i should run the steeple." and he did, only losing to the NATIONAL CHAMPION by 10 seconds. well done aj.

yes, the 'you aren't nearly as fast argument' IS valid. disagree? well allow me to retort.

what would you think of a bunch of single A ballplayers making fun of, say, a talented young baseball player X who screws up and has a big mouth but is still playing in the majors. it would be pretty pathetic for those single A ballplayers to make fun of talented player X for striking out, right? downright lame.

now, enter letsrun. a board full of runners, most of whom are in the running equivalent of the minor leagues. hell, the running equivalent of that team Canseco signed up to hit and pitch for recently, if that. now, it would be pretty pathetic for a bunch of single A runners to make fun of talented runner X for a bad race, right? beyond lame.

notice how not even MAYEROFF, who has a noted propensity for dysentery of the keyboard, puts down other runner's performances : )

Not quite exact. Steeple barriers are lower for girls. Not saying AJ's time is good, but your comparison sucks.

dafsdsaf wrote:

All you have to do is look at what Marie Lawrence ran her 3k steeple in, what 10:15ish, so 40 seconds, now you have to ask yourself is Marie Lawrence within 40 seconds of AJ Acosta in the 1600? Yeah not a good time, it's a good start, but that man should be able to run sub 9.

9:35 steeple is not noteworthy.

Ok well lets look at 3200 times then, even with lower barriers, AJ Acosta's 3200 is 8:45ish, his steeple 9:35, Marie Lawrence's 3200 is what 10:20, her steeple 10:15ish. So you are telling me having lower barriers gives her a +5 advantage and gives Acosta a -50. I don't think so, the guy can run sub 9 for sure. I used the comparison of the mile to illustrate how bad his steeple was compared to his other events, I think we can all agree that Acosta is a great runner and can run great times, but most people will agree 9:35 is not a great time considering the Regional Qualifier for NCAA's is 9:08, is he 17 seconds slower than a regional NCAA runner, I really don't think so. But hey suck his nuts and say he ran great when clearly he did not, what do I care. The kid is a great runner, with a bright future who just didn't run the greatest steeple ever, that's not to say he won't, I said he can break 9 minutes, so don't get all uppity about AJ Acosta's performance.

I get your point, but I disagree. Concerning your baseball analogy, that would be pretty weak if the A players were ridiculing the major league player. However, it wouldn't be out of line for them to say that the major league player had a bad game. Most folks on this board are just stating that AJ's time in the steeple wasn't a stellar performance - I bet even if you asked AJ himself what he thought he probably wouldn't be all pumped up about it.

Concerning track and field, I don't think one needs to be faster/better than another to critique another athlete. If that was the case, does that mean only the best in the world can pass judgment? When a Sportscaster bashes a football team for a poor game, I don't hear the fans saying, "They're a better team than you ever played for so shut your mouth." Many Sportscasters probably have never played a sport in their lives.

The analogies can go on and on - I can say that I think a house is ugly, but granted the Builder can build better than me. I may have a dislike for a piece of art, point that out, but the Artist can do better than I could do. Webb could DNF in a race, and I can say "poor race" - and yes, he's faster than me. Phil M chocked in his last Major - and guess what? - yes, he's a better golfer than me. A Politician can do something corrupt and I can disagree - but yes, they're a better Politician than me. Blah, blah, blah...

What meet was this?

Thanks

mwwwin wrote:

I just knew there would be one of those "He's faster than you so one can't make a judgment" responses...god, these guys that actually think that this is a valid argument just annoy me...

Perhaps you're right.

On the other hand, that response was drowned out by several other replies that were much more articulate and mature, such as the distinguished gentleman who said...

"I can shit a 9:35 steeple right now in the summer..."

Yes, that's much better than the response that annoyed YOU, right?

Looks like round 2 this weekend per

http://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/index.ssf/2010/04/oregon_track_field_aj_acosta_i.html

TFN already has him #10 on the form chart too

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/lists/display_list.php?list_id=12&sex_id=M&year=2010

will be interesting to see if he can compete here

9:35 is a good debut wrote:

Archangel-the 4th Horseman wrote:

No offense, but 9:35 is garbage(even for your first steeple) when you have run 4:04 and 8:46.

Alrighty then what di you guys run your first steeplechase in and what were your mile and 2 mile times when you did it?

Talk is cheap.

I ran my first (of 3 ever steeples) in 9:29. My 1500m PR at the time was 4:04, and my 3000m PR was 8:52.

9:35 sucks for a guy whose mile/2 mile times are faster than my 1500m/3000m PR's were.

9:35 is a good debut wrote:

Archangel-the 4th Horseman wrote:

No offense, but 9:35 is garbage(even for your first steeple) when you have run 4:04 and 8:46.

Alrighty then what di you guys run your first steeplechase in and what were your mile and 2 mile times when you did it?

Talk is cheap.

I ran a 9:48 with 1600 P.R. of 4:26 and 3200 P.R. of 9:19...and I fell in the water hazard. I ran a 9:32 on my second steeple (didn't fall that time).

My best steeple in High School was 9:37, and I ran that in a downpour. Other times from that season: 4:37 1600m, 9:53 3200m, 1:57.8 800m. I was a relatively undistinguished runner, and still managed to run almost as fast as a guy who would have lapped me in a flat 2 mile.

dont think he ever had any help from coaches and got stuck running the same times

http://www.umterps.com/sports/c-track/mtt/kelsey_greg00.html