Official 2009 LRC 5000m USA Men's 5k Rankings Thread: Lagat 1, Ritz 2, Tegenkamp 3

Riley is with Saucony now? When did that happen, does this mean he isn't with Jerry anymore?

Lagat first, Ritz second.......thats fair. Lagat can go sub 12:55 in the right race. Just which he could close a little faster during his stretch runs.

I view it

Lagat

Teg

Ritz

Solinsky

Jager-Rupp

Ah yes, lets run logic, the fastest race ever by an American gets you second place in the American rankings.

Three Americans in the WC final, and a FOURTH is the one to run the AR. Not a bad year at all.

The article talks about how Lagat never finished worse than second and got a silver in the 1500 - didn't he get 3rd?

chucko wrote:

Ah yes, lets run logic, the fastest race ever by an American gets you second place in the American rankings.

Get a reality check...12:56 is a joke for Lagat if he ever really wanted to do it. He went 12:59 a few years ago, closing in 51.9 i believe it was!?

What bothers me is that German/Derricks record breaking performances count for so little. I love guys like Riley...but are you serious? Riley runs a 13:21 and is ranked above an 18 year old who in 48 states would have still be in highschool who went 13:25? That's just not right...that's a huge moment in American running that is being undervalued big time...he passed Derrick, Rupp, Sanchez, Pre, Lindgren, Ritz, etc....

Oh.

wejo wrote:

Here are the rankings:

http://www.letsrun.com/2009/09ranks5km1201.php

Feel free to discuss them here or email us.

Again, lets run logic, he didn't run a 12:56 this year because he didn't really want to.

Lets see who earned more medals at WCs as an American...Ritz or Lagat, I can't remember if ZERO is more than 1...refresh my memory so I can understand what your complaining about.

Mrr82 wrote:

Get a reality check...12:56 is a joke for Lagat if he ever really wanted to do it. He went 12:59 a few years ago, closing in 51.9 i believe it was!?

What bothers me is that German/Derricks record breaking performances count for so little. I love guys like Riley...but are you serious? Riley runs a 13:21 and is ranked above an 18 year old who in 48 states would have still be in highschool who went 13:25? That's just not right...that's a huge moment in American running that is being undervalued big time...he passed Derrick, Rupp, Sanchez, Pre, Lindgren, Ritz, etc....

These are rankings of the past year, not rankings for next year. They're not meant to be predictors. As such, the runners are being compared without care for the their respective ages.

Ah yes, a medal for a slower time still means you ran a...slower time. Go check the American records and let me know who is the fastest American 5k runner of all time, so I can understand what you are complaining about.

chucko wrote:

Ah yes, a medal for a slower time still means you ran a...slower time. Go check the American records and let me know who is the fastest American 5k runner of all time, so I can understand what you are complaining about.

And if the situation was reversed, you guys would be saying the medal counts more, screw fast times.

chucko wrote:

Ah yes, a medal for a slower time still means you ran a...slower time.

I was pleased to see that the guys at letsrun understood that the ranking of Lagat as the top American at 5,000 was an obvious decision unworthy of serious debate or comment. Ranking by fastest time is a mid-packer's method, useful primarily when you're trying to compare runners who aren't even competitive in major events.

Watching Ritz run such a fast time was exciting, especially as he passed runner after runner and actually closed the gap on Bekele toward the end, but that's not in the ballpark of being the only guy capable of pushing the best distance runner in the world to his limit at the end of a world championship.

I think they did a good job with the rankings. The only major change I would have made was putting Teg in 2nd. If I'm not mistaken, I think the only reason Ritz was put in 2nd was because of his 12:56, correct? Well, Teg still ran 12:58, not too far behind Ritz's 12:56. And if I recall (I may be incorrect), I remember looking at the splits of Teg's race and seeing a slower first 1600 around 4:12, which is 13:07 pace, and 4:08.5ish is 12:56 pace. In Teg's defense, the 3.5 second difference is very difficult to make up when you're moving that quickly. I think if the first 1600 would have been right on pace he could have run 12:56 also. He was fit enough to do it. Just my humble opinion.

What if you look at it this way:

Ritz's time was the best ever for an American in the 5k.

Lagat's 2nd place was NOT the best ever place for an American in an international 5k.

Best time has nothing to do with best performer. Ritz had one good race. He should have raced harder more often to be considered as number 1. Lagat did that. Ritz did not. This is completely with following your logic path. Can you see it? If not, why can't you?

...soooo, could you give us the real reason why you think Teg should be 2nd? Because I'm not sure I understand your stated reason.

Rankings wrote:

I think they did a good job with the rankings. The only major change I would have made was putting Teg in 2nd. If I'm not mistaken, I think the only reason Ritz was put in 2nd was because of his 12:56, correct? Well, Teg still ran 12:58, not too far behind Ritz's 12:56. And if I recall (I may be incorrect), I remember looking at the splits of Teg's race and seeing a slower first 1600 around 4:12, which is 13:07 pace, and 4:08.5ish is 12:56 pace. In Teg's defense, the 3.5 second difference is very difficult to make up when you're moving that quickly. I think if the first 1600 would have been right on pace he could have run 12:56 also. He was fit enough to do it. Just my humble opinion.

chucko wrote:

Again, lets run logic, he didn't run a 12:56 this year because he didn't really want to.

He did however really want a world champ medal and got two of them. Ritz apparently did not and got zero.