Downtown 5K results???

Some of you are nicely adepy at sarcasm and others wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it stepped up and smacked you on the proboscis. Each of you knows who you are.

Yes 14.05 on that course is good and so is Eddy's new US record 14.12 .It has ups ans downs,lots of turns and a 75 degree temparature.Eddy now holds the 5k,10k,15k,10mile records and the aded 1/2 and marathon .

I've run the course 4 times (starting back when it was the Harvard Pilgrim 5k, slight changes over the years, hasn't really amounted to any noteworthy change) and wouldn't rate the course as tough; but, certainly not fast, either. The start is down a little hill, the finish is up the same little hill, and there really aren't any other hills (little speedbump from South Water St. to South Main St, that's all); but, the turns, many of them quite sharp, don't really help you to go fast. There are plenty of faster courses in the area that don't draw a single guy who can run a mile 4:30 flat out, and thus aren't billed as fast races.

National Record holder wrote:

Yes 14.05 on that course is good and so is Eddy's new US record 14.12 .It has ups ans downs,lots of turns and a 75 degree temparature.Eddy now holds the 5k,10k,15k,10mile records and the aded 1/2 and marathon .

So I guess then it's OK that he (and every other American) got heir butts handed to them by the Kenyans yet again. 14:05 on any course sucks when you are 35 seconds behind the winnner.

What is it you want the guy to do? Quit? He put forth his best effort which was 14:05 on that day on that course & I for one support and applaude his effort. It was good enough to win whether it meets your standards or not. Henry, nor any other runner can control anyone but themselves. I'm sure Henry and anyone else in their right mind would have liked to run sub 13 and win overall, but you can only accomplish what you are capable of on a given day. Give the constant bashing a rest and give some credit to talented individuals working their butts' off trying to be the best runners and racers that they can be. Congratulations to everyone, especially Henry & the awesome performance by Eddy. Way to go guys.

PS-- To Fact Pointer Outer: Isn't it amazing that people cannot see sarcasm or a joke like Cincinnati at altitude. It truly hurts to have to explain such things. Keep up the funny posts, there are some of us that actually get it, but usually lurk & chuckle.

[quote]arthur wrote:

What is it you want the guy to do? Quit? He put forth his best effort which was 14:05 on that day on that course & I for one support and applaude his effort. It was good enough to win whether it meets your standards or not. Henry, nor any other runner can control anyone but themselves. I'm sure Henry and anyone else in their right mind would have liked to run sub 13 and win overall, but you can only accomplish what you are capable of on a given day. Give the constant bashing a rest and give some credit to talented individuals working their butts' off trying to be the best runners and racers that they can be. Congratulations to everyone, especially Henry & the awesome performance by Eddy. Way to go guys.quote]

I never said he didn't put forth his best effort or that it is somehow his fault that no other American ran faster than him. My point was simply that when a time over 14:00 wins any sort of championship, and that individual is 36 seconds behind the winner, we should hardly go around applauding him. It's like the "pity clap" for the kid in high school who gets lapped in the 3200 but doesn't quit. I'm not saying there isn't somehting to admire in someone who gives their best effort, but effort is not the standard. Time is and 14:05 is not something to write home about. Mediocaraty should not be accepted. The guy won, nothing wrong with that. But the undeniable truth is he ran slow.

Championships are for winning, not for time trialing imho. The fact that it was within another race can make things look bad. I was not there, so I can't tell you whether 14:05 was good effort on this course and day or not. Sorry if you thought I was knocking your opinion, I was not. Like you, it seems to me that it would take faster than 14:05 to win, but is that the winners fault? I have won a lot of money at races with poor times and received a pat on the back for very fast times. Should I have given the $ back for running too slow. If 14:05 is the best a guy can do and he wins, should he apologize? Some races are for winning, not time. Actually, I think we agree, but are looking at things differently. You are looking at the big picture of the race as a championship expecting better times for winning while I am looking at the individuals doing the best that they could regardless of place. In my eyes, we should hope for a race with a fast winning time, but not at the expense of cracking on the guys who showed, did the best they could, and won. I would rather see someone run to their potential and win than a guy underachieve (and maybe run faster) and win. As I said before, congrats to the winners!