So using the logic many on this board have used, Fermin Cacho should feel embarrassed about his 92 Oly 1500m gold medal, beacuse they went out slower than the women's 1500m in the same Oly Games?
I just remember him winning.
So using the logic many on this board have used, Fermin Cacho should feel embarrassed about his 92 Oly 1500m gold medal, beacuse they went out slower than the women's 1500m in the same Oly Games?
I just remember him winning.
Well said me...
And anyone who thinks 4:22 isn't exciting obviously was not at the meet. I was there. The atmosphere was unreal. Every race was very exciting and the fans were really into it. We need more meets such as this in track and field.
you got it right wrote:
Well said me...
And anyone who thinks 4:22 isn't exciting obviously was not at the meet. I was there. The atmosphere was unreal. Every race was very exciting and the fans were really into it. We need more meets such as this in track and field.
You are exactly right, the 1500, the 3000, and the 5000 were very exciting (and satisfying, to most of the crowd) races. I had the privilege of witnessing the races from a few feet away and other events (field) often had to pause because it was a bit much to ask a competitor to make an attempt with the noise level what it was and with the way that it could sudden explode.
Still, the biggest explosion was the last 200m+ of the 5000 where Bethke was running so fast that in the video on the Big Ten Network it looks like the sped up the film (some incredible turnover) which reminded me of some of Bekele's finishes (well, he is not on that level but...). And th crowd really went wild. Hassan Mead had a pretty darn impressive finish as well, although he lost 3 seconds in that 200m+.
You've obviously not followed the Big 10 very closely in the last 10 years or so. Tactical races are all the rage, and rarely does the winner put up a good time in any of the distance races. Wisco/Mich studs are usually doubling (or tripling) and prepping for nationals, which means sandbagging for the win is the tactic of the day.
Until another 1-3 Big 10 teams develop talent comparable to Wisconsin (fat chance, right?) the stud athletes will continue to be able to determine how the races are run (and won).
It's a fact of life when you get to conference championships. Sure, they're great to win. Most of the guys who win enjoy the medal and the podium. But they're usually focused on nationals far more so than they are on Big 10s.
I think it is safe to say that See is a stud inside the conference. Lex Williams and the rest of the Michigan guys were completely MIA. Michigan was favorited on the rankings going into conference.
Yeah I understand tactical racing, but eventually it just becomes absurd. Like imagine if they ran 8 minute pace for 1500 meters and then sprinted the last 109?
i'm with you cmurph, and yes, I've been keeping track of the Big 10 for awhile. I remember when Spiker was running and the final of the 15 was in well over 4 minutes. I also remember when solinsky and tegenkamp ran 3:44's to go 1-2 outdoors, so a decently fast time can be done. I can also appreciate a good tactical race, but come on, this wouldn't win a high school state meet.
midwesta wrote:I can also appreciate a good tactical race, but come on, this wouldn't win a high school state meet.
This kind of statement is simply idiotic. A high school kid would have had zero chance in that race--if he leads he gets crushed; if he sits, he can't kick with the big boys. Or if you dropped any of the Big Ten finalists into a high school mile final you'd see the schooboys' heads spin when the college guy opens up the last 300.
Whose responsibility do you think it was to make that race "honest"? See was not going to be dropped by anyone. So whose job was it to lead 62s? Someone from the second half of the field? Maybe they should have drawn lots?
Solinski used to lead miles probably because he felt he was the strongest miler but not the fastest over 200. See probably (and rightly) felt he was both strongest and fastest so he didn't lead.
Seriously, if baffles me that people even see this as a problem.
midwesta wrote:
i'm with you cmurph, and yes, I've been keeping track of the Big 10 for awhile. I remember when Spiker was running and the final of the 15 was in well over 4 minutes. I also remember when solinsky and tegenkamp ran 3:44's to go 1-2 outdoors, so a decently fast time can be done. I can also appreciate a good tactical race, but come on, this wouldn't win a high school state meet.
You must be a high school kid who wants to tell his friends that he could win the Big Ten.
What high schooler can run 1:21 for his last 600 of a 4:22 mile?
Answer: You're a dumb shit!
fanofracing wrote:
What high schooler can run 1:21 for his last 600 of a 4:22 mile?
probably only
alan webb circa 2001
And he couldn't do it circa 2002 when he had the chance.
irun wrote:
fanofracing wrote:What high schooler can run 1:21 for his last 600 of a 4:22 mile?
probably only
alan webb circa 2001
OK, you guys have been at this for so long, so here is the real reason.
The meet was run at UW. The have completely redone the track surface, with all sorts of markings to use for doing repeats from different lanes. In the process, of course, they have used Badger Miles.
4:22 for a Badger Mile is a pretty good time, and 14:23 and 8:10 are absolutely fabulous.
Wow finally some people making sense. I'm sick of all the stupid shits crying about not seeing a fast race. Here is a quick tip for someone who was balling after seeing such a "slow" and "disappointing" Big Ten mile.
1. Go jack off
2. Enter
in the URL on your favorite web browser
b. In the search bar type in "UBER FAST RUNNING RACES!!!!@12"
3. Jack off again.
Good Lord, did I say that a high-schooler could walk in and win this meet? No, I said this time wouldn't win a high school state meet. For guys who can run 3:57-4:02, that's a little embarrassing. Note Tegenkamp and Solinsky didn't wait til the last 600 to try and go for the win, or even Solinsky the next year didn't wait until the last 600 to go for the win. Am I expecting a sub 4 minute mile? Of course not. Should these guys be able to run sub 4:10 in their sleep? I would think so, which makes going out in 2:28 a bit absurd. As much as you guys bash DIII runners, their national championships, which also should be "tactical", have all been under 4:20, and these are guys who aren't nearly as talented as the top Big Ten guys. In any case, here's a post from the other thread, which I agree wholeheartedly with:
You can never criticize the winner. Goal number 1 is to win the race. The idiots in a slow race (not to be confused with tactical, which can be fast or mid race surges or.......)are everyone that didn't win.
The dumbest thing is stating what they ran for the last 400 or 800. There are already races of 400 or 800 being contested so what a miler runs for his last 400 or 800 is irrelevant.
This is still nonsense. A little embarrassing to whom? I guarantee none of the athletes who competed are the least bit embarrassed by the final time. Some might wish it had gone faster (and that SOMEONE ELSE had made it so) but "embarrassed" doesn't make any sense.
Also, you have absolutely no reason to assume that any athlete could have placed higher in that race by assuming the early pacing duties. Even the guy in last might have had a greater chance of finishing last by leading early--you don't know. Just because you didn't win, doesn't mean you didn't run the strategy that gave you the best chance to win, or if that wasn't possible, to place as high as possible. In the language of the idiot you quoted in your post, it's idiotic to say everyone who didn't win is an idiot.
I was in the field and I wanted to take the lead and see what happens. My coach told me that I should never lead. I wish that I had enough ballz to have kept it honest. I am embarrased with the results.
You completely missed the main point of my previous post, which is (still) that the big time studs don't focus primarily on the conference meet. For lots of these guys, this is a good polishing race for nationals (which can likely be just as tactical--think of the indoor NCAA meet where Christian Smith won the mile).
Lots of the guys who win Big 10s are happy to win, but don't give much of a shit in the grand scheme of things. Their focus is typically on winning (or placing very high) at nationals.
I'm waiting for the day when everyone walks the first 800 of a 1500 or mile and then just sprints for the second half, we'll see what you guys say then. "Oh, tactical, WHOA!" (Yes I have been in a tactical race)
everyone is talking about the mile being so slow, but what about the 800?? what happened there?? i is weak right now, but still! what did it go out in?