why isn't tegankamp mention along with webb, ritz and hall?

he graduated a year earlier

wow, that was a stupid question

Cause Matt isn't a head case & doesn't need people to tell him he's good.

"TegEnkamp"

"mentionED"

"have been said to be LED"

it's so incredibly obvious that this is because of racism

picking nits wrote:

"TegEnkamp"

"mentionED"

"have been said to be LED"

i think LEAD is still correct.

The class was lead by Bill.

The class was led by Bill.

means the same thing. It's just "led" is more common.

The cheap answer is that he is more consistent and steadily improving over the last several seasons after emerging from a repetitive injury cycle. However, he has had a few moments that he regrets, especially stepping off the track at 2200m (in 5:29.high) in the big European 3000. I even think that he would like to get back the move that he did not fully cover in the 2-mile at the Pre meet.

hahahahahaha

hold on...

hahahahahahaha

Are you serious with that?

he won't have to get that move back because he will probably be racing pre again this year at 2 miles. his confidence is on a whole different level than it was last year at this time and he will be ready to take down anyone with the likely exception of bekele. it will not surprise me at all if he gets webb's AR.

actually I was being serious. I don't know where to look that up, but I've heard it before. I'm still using "led" in the past tense in any papers because "lead" looks like a mistake even though it's gramatically correct.

Am i full of it? any english teachers on here?

Us hard core running fans know Matt is quality and definitely in the same league as the other three you mentioned. Two reasons might explain his not being perceived as one of the "chosen ones" yet like the other three:

1. Matt has improved gradually and largely post high school. He was not a nationally known "phenom" in high school.

2. He has yet to get a really big win. (13:04 is nothing to sneeze at) but on the other hand:

A. Ritz has taken some Kenyan scalps (winning)in cross and had that HUGE World Jr. Cross 3rd Place.

B. Webb (while being inconsistent win-wise) has beaten some huge names and won that grand prix race as well as two decisive USATF wins at 1500m.

C. A couple of months ago, Hall was not regarded as being of the same echelon at Teg, but damn - that 1/2 Marathon WIN was a huge coming out party, along with his London race - both arguably bigger than anything Teg has done.

I think he has been given that credit. People know he's the real deal- it's just that posters on letsrun don't have much to bash him or his coach for because he's put in so many solid performances and his coach is phenomenal, and a good portion of letsrun.com posters feed on negativity, so there you have it. And the posters that do feed on the good have posted their praises. The cool thing about Tegenkamp is he doesn't race a lot, but instead reserves that time for training, and races a few times here and there. I don't think he did any fall races, and in 2007, he's raced 3 times now: Tyson Indoor 3000m (2nd in 7:40), USA Indoors (1st place), and the KU relays 1500m (1st in 3:43).

Seems like that's Schumacher's thing.

people ignore red-hair racism all the time. they say 'ginga' under their breaths, making a j-less sounding slur of 'ginger'. it is sad. teg will always have an uphill battle because of your narrow mindedness.

ned plimpton wrote:

it's so incredibly obvious that this is because of racism

Teg has arguably the biggest honor, placing a close third in the World Cup 5000m behind a couple pretty good runners (e.g., KB). I was in the race the whole way but did not have an answer for KB's final surge (as if anyone this side of Lagat or El G has).

I think the big race to 'cleanup' is not the 2-mile, but the attempt at (sub-)7:30 3000, which is < 8:05.5 2-mile. That race was so hard that I probably had not been in 'that place' (4:59.1@2000m and the pain that goes with it) before. With another year I think that they are working on it (a little more 'hard stuff' and a little less distance than originally planned for this year, as per his comment on KIMbia).

my question is -

why is ritz always mentioned along the likes of hall, webb, and teg?

anEconomist wrote:

my question is -

why is ritz always mentioned along the likes of hall, webb, and teg?

Until recently he deserved to be. Right now, unless he straightens out his injury problems, he doesn't deserve to be. As good as Ritz has been over the last few years (American NCAA 10,000 record, 1:01 half marathon, 13:16, NCAA XC win when not fully trained, etc.), he's not performed to the level of those other three.

Short right leg wrote:

I'm still using "led" in the past tense in any papers because "lead" looks like a mistake even though it's gramatically correct.

Am i full of it? any english teachers on here?

Proofreader and (sort of) English teacher here. "Lead" is not *grammatically* correct if used as past or past participle.

The principal parts of the verb "to lead" are: lead, led, led. Any other spellings are nonstandard (= unacceptable).

Yes, I'm aware that the principal parts of "to read" are all spelled "read," and I know that they rhyme with the principal parts of "to lead." However, "read" and "lead" are different words.

In our sports, "lead" is a verb that comes up rather frequently. It would be nice to see it spelled correctly, e.g.:

"After he had LED the first 24 laps of the race, he was passed by most of the field in the final 400m."

Quick lesson.

When you want to talk about the metal used to make bullets and plumbing, you say lead (pronounced led)

When you want to about the past tense of the verb meaning to show the way, you say led (pronounced just like it looks)

When you want to use the present tense of the above verb, you say lead (pronounced leed)