Whoopsy wrote:
Well if she was running to qualify she kind of blew it because she didn't.
The top 3 go to worlds.
She is qualified, just needs to get the A standard now.
Whoopsy wrote:
Well if she was running to qualify she kind of blew it because she didn't.
The top 3 go to worlds.
She is qualified, just needs to get the A standard now.
Good post. She's qualified, she just isn't eligible to go.No no, she's qualified, she just isn't completely qualified.Wait what about this: she's qualified, she's just not ratified? Not certified? Not...Or is it possible that she hasn't qualified yet because she has not met the minumum time required? Could that be it?
J.R. wrote:
She is qualified, just needs to get the A standard now.
Rupp regularly got crushed at Worlds, and my memory is that one year he got lapped. One has to start somewhere. Erdmann came in third at Nationals, beat two Olympians, one of whom is a World 10000 Bronze Medalist--that is a terrific accomplishment in itself, even if she fails to run the standard. Indeed, no one looking at Erdmann three years ago at Loyola Marymount would have predicted that. As for Hasay, I can certainly see her running sub 31 next year, at which point she'll start creeping into the World level.
dkny64 wrote:
SCIN823bhu wrote:At Worlds, a rested Hastings is more of a threat than a tired/injured Erdmann.
At Worlds, neither Hasay nor Erdmann is any kind of threat at all. Both likely to get lapped if the pace is fast, neither fast enough at 400m/800m to scare anyone if the race is tactical.
Haysay will do it. She has the resources, determination, and ability. She needs to make every minute of her racing more efficient. It's a weak area. If she does this, she will take it to another level.
Montesquieu wrote:
Rupp regularly got crushed at Worlds, and my memory is that one year he got lapped. One has to start somewhere. Erdmann came in third at Nationals, beat two Olympians, one of whom is a World 10000 Bronze Medalist--that is a terrific accomplishment in itself, even if she fails to run the standard. Indeed, no one looking at Erdmann three years ago at Loyola Marymount would have predicted that. As for Hasay, I can certainly see her running sub 31 next year, at which point she'll start creeping into the World level.
Beating two Olympians at nationals this year is not an accomplishment. Definitely not a terrific one. Those "Onlympians" were greatly out of shape. Don't be delusional.
Tara is a fantastic runner so give her credit where credit is due. Congratulating her on beating out of shape people is not where credit is due.
Hastings had run 15:09 just before Nationals, and Kara had run 31:46 at Payton Jordan, and both are seasoned championship competitors. Great of of shape--really?
jrkrk wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:Rupp regularly got crushed at Worlds, and my memory is that one year he got lapped. One has to start somewhere. Erdmann came in third at Nationals, beat two Olympians, one of whom is a World 10000 Bronze Medalist--that is a terrific accomplishment in itself, even if she fails to run the standard. Indeed, no one looking at Erdmann three years ago at Loyola Marymount would have predicted that. As for Hasay, I can certainly see her running sub 31 next year, at which point she'll start creeping into the World level.
Beating two Olympians at nationals this year is not an accomplishment. Definitely not a terrific one. Those "Onlympians" were greatly out of shape. Don't be delusional.
Tara is a fantastic runner so give her credit where credit is due. Congratulating her on beating out of shape people is not where credit is due.
"Greatly" not "great".
"out of shape" not "of of shape"--I didn't get much sleep last night!
Montesquieu wrote:
Hastings had run 15:09 just before Nationals, and Kara had run 31:46 at Payton Jordan, and both are seasoned championship competitors. Great of of shape--really?
Uhh yes really. Clearly, they weren't in that shape at nationals. Because as we can see, Hasay (who beat Erdmann) could only manage 31:46 this past weekend in perfect conditions. Why else would they have lost?
I don't think 70 degrees is perfect conditions for a 10000, but keep in mind it was her fifth 10000 in a bit more than three months, after never having run one previously. Also, I know Salazar thought she was in 31:20s shape, but thought he worked her too hard. But none of that really matters. Hastings had just run 15:09--that's her PR. How could you say she wasn't in shape? Was True not in shape at Nationals? Was Bumby not in shape at Nationals? Was Mead not in shape at Nationals?
jrkrk wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:Hastings had run 15:09 just before Nationals, and Kara had run 31:46 at Payton Jordan, and both are seasoned championship competitors. Great of of shape--really?
Uhh yes really. Clearly, they weren't in that shape at nationals. Because as we can see, Hasay (who beat Erdmann) could only manage 31:46 this past weekend in perfect conditions. Why else would they have lost?
Montesquieu wrote:
I don't think 70 degrees is perfect conditions for a 10000, but keep in mind it was her fifth 10000 in a bit more than three months, after never having run one previously. Also, I know Salazar thought she was in 31:20s shape, but thought he worked her too hard. But none of that really matters. Hastings had just run 15:09--that's her PR. How could you say she wasn't in shape? Was True not in shape at Nationals? Was Bumby not in shape at Nationals? Was Mead not in shape at Nationals?[quote]jrkrk wrote:
A fifth 10000 in 3 months is not a big deal. It doesn't take that long to recover from. And none of those were max efforts.
If Hastings was in such great shape, then why did she lose? Did she run a 15:09 equivalent 10000 in Does Moines (no)? And what about Goucher? If they were in such good shape, then why did they lose by so much?
Last try. Coming in third in Nationals where the top three are chosen (if they meet the standard) to go to a World Championship, is a great achievement. Period. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the sport. Being beaten, and losing by a good distance, doesn't mean one is not in shape. It might mean lots of things, but after one has set a PR in the 5 two weeks earlier, and not being injured, and having talked about her great her condition is, we can say Hastings was in great shape. Again, if you don't realize there's a difference between one's condition and what one might do in a race, you don't understand the sport. Over and out.
Hastings has been inconsistent this yr. Goucher way over estimated her fitness and under estimated the competitions fitness. She though if she died worst case would be a third place.
3151
Confused Briton wrote:
Good post. She's qualified, she just isn't eligible to go.
No no, she's qualified, she just isn't completely qualified.
Wait what about this: she's qualified, she's just not ratified? Not certified? Not...
Or is it possible that she hasn't qualified yet because she has not met the minumum time required? Could that be it?
You sound like a very confused Briton.
prefan wrote:
I want to know what Sandy the Salamander thinks. Sandy nailed Hasay's time to the second. Of course, if Sandy nailed Erdmann's time to the second as well, she would be insufferable and her head just might expand to the point of explosion, so maybe it's best she doesn't weigh in.....
Sandy the lizard, HAHAHA! :)
Montesquieu wrote:
Last try. Coming in third in Nationals where the top three are chosen (if they meet the standard) to go to a World Championship, is a great achievement. Period. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the sport. Being beaten, and losing by a good distance, doesn't mean one is not in shape. It might mean lots of things, but after one has set a PR in the 5 two weeks earlier, and not being injured, and having talked about her great her condition is, we can say Hastings was in great shape. Again, if you don't realize there's a difference between one's condition and what one might do in a race, you don't understand the sport. Over and out.[quote]jrkrk wrote:
Are you retarded? I never said making the team was not an accomplishment. I said to stop exaggerating by saying that she beat some Olympic medalists. Hastings was obviously not in good shape that day if she didn't make the team. Unless you think Erdmann is in 15:00 5k shape (she's not). Being in shape is more than just fitness. It includes your state of being on the day. Injury, fatigue, etc. So, no, beating Goucher and Hastings was not that much of an accomplishment.
If Hastings could run 15 flat then why didn't she?
I'll be okay. You, on the other hand, rate people qualified before they've met minimun standards.
J.R. wrote:
[quote]Confused Briton wrote:
Good post. She's qualified, she just isn't eligible to go.
You sound like a very confused Briton.
Bleu wrote:Hastings has been inconsistent this yr. Goucher way over estimated her fitness and under estimated the competitions fitness. She though if she died worst case would be a third place.
I'm curious what Goucher's fitness really was, because I don't think that race necessarily gave us a good indication. Racing a 10k in brutal heat is a little bit like racing a marathon: In both cases there's a degree of uncertainty. You never really know how your body will react. Heck, we saw Jordan fall apart in much worse fashion running in the heat, despite having run several stellar 10ks this season.