rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
anonomie me wrote:If you have plantar fascia this close to the Games, odds are it is not going to be fixed by then, nor your training what it needs to be...
Hall 2:04
Ritz 2:09
Is there anything else I need to tell you.
Hall could do nothing but take his dog for a walk every day this month and still beat Ritz in London.
You forgot a question mark.
Remember that time in 2004 when Ritz went to the Games, injured and didn't even finish the 10k? He never gave his spot up.
Imagine if LRC was around in 1972: "Dave Wottle hobbled by knee injury - should he give up his spot on Olympic 800 team?"
As much as I root against Tim Tebow... I mean Ryan Hall... and would love to see Ritz compete, Hall earned that spot in January. Ritz needs to focus on the 10k now, period. Not to mention, Plantar Fascitis isn't a broken leg or something devastating. Hall can still race on it and probably run a good time, because in the end he's a world class athlete and that's what world class athletes do.
I am so sick of all these God jokes, it is so freaking predictable. First, don't you think there is a chance that his plantar fascia was giving him problems before the trials? Those guys all run with aches that won't be going away. Second, you talk about Hall like he is the only runner in the world who believes in God. Many of the Kenyan runners have the same faith as Hall, and they don't seem to be doing too bad.
quote]rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
If you have plantar fascia this close to the Games, odds are it is not going to be fixed by then, nor your training what it needs to be...[/quote]
Hall 2:04
Ritz 2:09
Is there anything else I need to tell you.
Hall could do nothing but take his dog for a walk every day this month and still beat Ritz in London.[/quote]
I have a question for all you hall fans out there.... WWJD
what would jesus do?
I think jesus would give his spot up
Second wrote:
I don't believe this is a case of a typo, but rather that the op doesn't know the difference between a plantar fascia and a case of plantar fasciitis.
The OP very well might know the difference between what the plantar fascia is and a case of plantar fasciitis is. However, using the simple body part name to describe an injury has become commonplace, especially among NFL/ESPN announcers. "so-and-so is out with a shoulder...so-and-so is out with a knee" etc. I hate it, because it does not describe the injury at all.
I heard that Jesus can't hit a curveball either. not everyone is jock I guess.
Joe Mama wrote:
I have a question for all you hall fans out there.... WWJD
what would jesus do?
I think jesus would give his spot up
jesus would move a huge boulder off his foot and rise up in the sky, waving all all the other marathoners and his fans.
Hall won the spot, he should be able to do whatever he wants with it without you chumps complaining.
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:
anonomie me wrote:If you have plantar fascia this close to the Games, odds are it is not going to be fixed by then, nor your training what it needs to be...
Hall 2:04
Ritz 2:09
Is there anything else I need to tell you.
Hall could do nothing but take his dog for a walk every day this month and still beat Ritz in London.
That 2:04 doesnt count in most peoples minds. Hall's second best time is 2:08
I might be wrong about this, but I think what happened in 2004 in the Trials is that the only four guys who had the "A" standard and who finished the race were Meb, Abdi, Dan Browne, and Ritz. Meb gave up his spot to run the marathon, which was a very good decision. Ritz thus got his spot in that fashion. However, even if Ritz were so inclined, there was no one to give it up to. In any case, I think Ritz is best served by sticking to the track. In 2009 he ran 27:22 in warm weather in Berlin, followed by 12:56, followed by 60 flat. In retrospect, it seems clear he should have stuck to the shorter distances, and I'd say that even if Hall gives up his spot, Ritz should focus on the track, unless Ritz does not make the team in the 10 or 5. Also, if Ritz did make the team in the 10 and Hall gave up his spot, I think Ritz should run both. Frank Shorter managed to finish fifth in the 10 (with an American record, and after running the heats three days earlier) in Munich and then seven days later won the marathon
Time to remember wrote:
Remember that time in 2004 when Ritz went to the Games, injured and didn't even finish the 10k? He never gave his spot up.
LETS MF RUN wrote:
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:Hall 2:04
Ritz 2:09
Is there anything else I need to tell you.
Hall could do nothing but take his dog for a walk every day this month and still beat Ritz in London.
You forgot a question mark.
Ritz 12:58
Hall 13:16(slow)
ritz has more potential, send him!
although, Ritz's coach is only human, so maybe Hall will be better peaked
gbkvgv wrote:
rupp-certified saladbar wrote:Hall 2:04
Ritz 2:09
Is there anything else I need to tell you.
Hall could do nothing but take his dog for a walk every day this month and still beat Ritz in London.
That 2:04 doesnt count in most peoples minds. Hall's second best time is 2:08
He ran 2:06 in London and has the AR in the Half.
Agree totally. However, this assumes Ritz would be ready to run a marathon. His focus should be solely on the 10,000. Anything else is a default option. As for those comparing times, Hall essentially ran a hair under 2:05 with a cyclone pushing him the entire way. In the "what have you done for me lately category," we have a fully-trained Hall running 2:09:30 at the trials versus a training-curtailed Ritz running 2:09:55. Pretty close.
Montesquieu wrote:
I might be wrong about this, but I think what happened in 2004 in the Trials is that the only four guys who had the "A" standard and who finished the race were Meb, Abdi, Dan Browne, and Ritz. Meb gave up his spot to run the marathon, which was a very good decision. Ritz thus got his spot in that fashion. However, even if Ritz were so inclined, there was no one to give it up to. In any case, I think Ritz is best served by sticking to the track. In 2009 he ran 27:22 in warm weather in Berlin, followed by 12:56, followed by 60 flat. In retrospect, it seems clear he should have stuck to the shorter distances, and I'd say that even if Hall gives up his spot, Ritz should focus on the track, unless Ritz does not make the team in the 10 or 5. Also, if Ritz did make the team in the 10 and Hall gave up his spot, I think Ritz should run both. Frank Shorter managed to finish fifth in the 10 (with an American record, and after running the heats three days earlier) in Munich and then seven days later won the marathon
Time to remember wrote:Remember that time in 2004 when Ritz went to the Games, injured and didn't even finish the 10k? He never gave his spot up.
Also, for perhaps the first time ever, I believe Ritz closed his last 5k faster than any of the three ahead of him at the marathon trials. Kid should've gone out slower. But I'd much rather see a peaked Ritz and Rupp in the 10,000 in London. Would be an interesting dynamic.
No. Hall was having PF problems in Houston and still beat Ritz. It's his spot to do with what he wants.
Also, I don't think Ritz's optimum distance is the marathon anyway, while it clearly is Hall's.
Purely from optimizing the US chances for a medal, I would rather see Hall in the marathon and take a chance on his PF causing problems, and see Ritz in the 10000 or 5000. I wouldn't put a lot of money on either of them medaling but at least they would each be competing in their optimum events.
I agree on competing in their optimum events. But Hall has had a long base from which to compete off of, including his Boston performance last year, even with his plantar acting up on him. Ritz has been on the alter-G and in the ice bucket more than probably any other elite, and the same was essentially true coming into the trials. Hall has been a consistent 2:08-2:09 runner on certified, flat courses in the past few years. He is not the 2:06 runner he once was. I can't see either of them medaling. Ritz could sure make the 10,000 interesting for Rupp though.
Sagarin wrote:
Hall is not a 2:04 or even 2:06 runner anymore. He's a consistent 2:08-2:09 guy on a certified course, who has many miles on the legs. Not much difference between he and Ritz, and Ritz beat him in Beijing.
Since 2007 Hall has run 2:08:24 (London), 2:09:02 (2008 Olympic Marathon Trials), 2:06:17 (London), 2:12:33 (Beijing Olympics), 2:09:40 (Boston), 2:10:36 (NYC), 2:08:41 (Boston), 2:04:58 (Boston), 2:08:04 (Chicago), 2:09:30 (2012 Olympic Marathon Trials)
Ritz since 2006 has run 2:14:01 (NYC), 2:11:07 (2008 OT Trials), 2:11:59 (Beijing Olympics), 2:10:00 (London), 2:09:55 (2012 Olympic Marathon Trials)
Is Hall a 2:08-2:09 runner? One could argue yes, but Ritz is a 2:10-2:11 runner with a shallow body of work and nothing faster than 2:09:55 whereas even if we throw out for the sake of argument Hall's 2:04:58 Boston time, Hall still has 7 marathon faster than Ritz's PR.
Hall shows a lot more promise of breaking 2:08 in the future based on his past than Ritz does and there is a huge difference between Hall and Ritz. Hall has mixed it up with the top marathoners in the world and while he may lose he has been pulled to sub-2:05, as well as some superb placings (his 2:09:40 at Boston in 2009 was just over a minute behind the winner and placed him third overall). Ritz is better on the track than Hall, no argument there, and that is where his strength lies, so he should stay focused there.
None of us truly knows how bad Hall's PF is. We can guess by his 65:32 at RNR San Diego it is bad, but if he can run that fast on the hilly RNR course with a bad foot, I'm not too worried about how he will do on the pancake flat 3-loop course of London. The calls for him to give up his spot are misplaced. He earned the right to represent the US in London. Ritz didn't.
It's hard not to conclude that Ritz was ready to run sub 27 in 2009. He then missed most of two years, but is now apparently training very well. He got nicked up a bit for two to three weeks, but ran 120 per week on the Alter-G. I think if he makes the team in the 10, gets the standard, and stays healthy, he and Rupp could do something special at London.
Sagarin wrote:
I agree on competing in their optimum events. But Hall has had a long base from which to compete off of, including his Boston performance last year, even with his plantar acting up on him. Ritz has been on the alter-G and in the ice bucket more than probably any other elite, and the same was essentially true coming into the trials. Hall has been a consistent 2:08-2:09 runner on certified, flat courses in the past few years. He is not the 2:06 runner he once was. I can't see either of them medaling. Ritz could sure make the 10,000 interesting for Rupp though.