Symmonds lost this race the only way he could...

look, I know I have my detractors, and I agree with an occasional comment that "A Duck" makes, but.........

Does ANYone like this guy on this board?

What a absurdly dumb thread full of dumb posts by Duck. Symmonds ran great and got beaten by the better runner. At MOST on can say: if he ran the perfect race (and it wasn't far off for him), he might have stolen the gold with a little more luck, which he already had a good deal of: for instance- not only having several stars injured, and having Solomon blow up after pacing him, but also if Amman had gotten badly boxed. So he got some breaks and ran a very good race, and he grabbed a silver. Awesome for him. Everything Duck wrote is just plain ridiculous.

___________________________________________________________

Yes, this is a good analysis. The first 400m in an 800m are often run too unevenly. The first 150 - 175m too fast is what often hurts an 800m runner's chances. I've always liked Nick's first 200m, but often thought he didn't move hard enough in the next 400m to put himself in position for the last 120m.

In this 800m, his splits were more efficient than Aman's. However, Aman was just better.

800 Coach wrote:

The first 400m in an 800m are often run too unevenly. The first 150 - 175m too fast is what often hurts an 800m runner's chances. I've always liked Nick's first 200m, but often thought he didn't move hard enough in the next 400m to put himself in position for the last 120m.

First, this is not at all what Renato was arguing.

Second, if Symmonds runs just a little bit faster between 150 and 200, like .2 faster, he's in a much better position - ahead of the mess. Then he can run slower for for the second 200 and hit roughly the same, but without the surges. He could save a ton of energy with the same 400 time.

Third, that fast opening 150-175 is primarily a different energy system. It's supposed to be faster. Sure, you can overdo it. But you can also underdo it just as easily.

considering how hard he went from 300 to 400, he did great.

To me Symmonds ran the race he did out of respect of Solomon. He didn't want to let Solomon go and have the USA championships result happen again. He knew Solomon would go out there and front run so he could form a strategy and stick to it, but Solomon just didn't have it in the final and faded. If Solomon had the race he had at USAs then he is neck and neck with Aman at the finish and Symmonds couldn't afford to let Solomon out of his sight because he was running for gold and knew what Solomon is capable of.

Aman was just the better runner but I give Symmonds tons of props for for having the guts to go for gold the way he did.

Top 5 worst threads of all time

fartbox wrote:

If he won, you chodes would be calling him out for "doping" or something, but since he didn't you're all saying how he "blew it". Maybe you should go blow something. He's still a stud and did something no one else has been able to for the last 41 years, which is impressive to me

Remember, A Duck is basically alone in this thread with his opinion, most here agree that Symmonds ran a great great race.

Renato Canova wrote:

It's very funny you say the "original plan" was to run 50.0 + 52.0 = 1:42.0, but running the first lap in 50.38 was "too fast".

May be you don't understand the difference between a "plan", that is the strategy for the competition, and the "goal", that is a hope.

Every athlete can "hope" to win WCh, having a "plan" for his training in order to reach to proper shape, and a "strategy" in the competition in order to "try" to achieve his goal.

For example, I explained my athletes Edwin Soi and Thomas Longosiwa how to beat Mo Farah in 5000m : to run every km at the pace of 2:31.0, for finishing with the WR in 12:35.0.

I think if they follow my plan, they are able to beat Mo Farah... but I doubt they are able to do !

You're leaving out the a few facts from Symmonds himself.

1. Symmonds said last year that going out in 24 was suicide for him; that only guys like Rudihsa could do it.

2. You're leaving out Symmonds own post race quotes that he went out with the "hot pace" and paid for it in the last 30meters (which is what I contended BEFORE his post race comments were available.)

3. You're leaving out the fact that these are TWO different athletes, with TWO different ABILITIES to handle a hot pace. --One may feel comfortable, and one may struggle more at the end of the race and "pay for it."

4. You trivialize Symmonds own comments, that he was more fit than last year, that he was ready to run 1:42, that his training indicated that, that he was ready to do that -- that he then got carried away with the hot pace and abandon the race plan because he didn't want to get stuck in the back -- so he abandon a plan that he and his coach trained for, and thought he was capable of -- he then says he paid the price and lost the gold because of it, but it is okay because he is happy with the silver.

My statement is correct, his only shot at beating Aman was to run under 1:43, or to run a PR, I say this here in post race analysis, and then SYMMONDS SAYS IT HIMSELF LATER, and some how you think I'm wrong.

And don't be disingenuous, I did not say that he had to run a world record to win. I said he had to run under 1:43, or close to his pr, 1:42.9, Symmonds himself stepped them up in his revealing post race comments stating the plan was to run 1:42. As for the issues on time and mix up of closes, they thought they went out in 22/23, 48/49.

I'm just reporting what Symmonds said. DID YOU EVEN WATCH HIS INTERVIEW?

Both things can be true at the same time, he went out too fast and died in the last 30 AS HE SAID HIMSELF, and he is still happy to get silver.

lol "Getting history right," is "A Duck" aka Steve Bence aka loser

- Symmonds have improved since last year, both in aerobic strenght and has focused more on speed.

- He didn't say he went out with the hot pace

- He did not say "I was carried away with the hot pace and abandoned the race plan", again you are putting words in his mouth. You are basically lying to back up your claims, A Duck/Bench(?).

WRONG. He did NOT have to run sub 1.43 nor run a PB to beat Aman. He simply had to beat Aman with 1/100 of a second, that would not be a PB/sub1.43 time.

No you're not, you are actually making up sentences. You obviously did not listen to the interview very well.

Wrong, he did not say he went out too fast.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

look, I know I have my detractors, and I agree with an occasional comment that "A Duck" makes, but.........

Does ANYone like this guy on this board?

What a absurdly dumb thread full of dumb posts by Duck. Symmonds ran great and got beaten by the better runner. At MOST on can say: if he ran the perfect race (and it wasn't far off for him), he might have stolen the gold with a little more luck, which he already had a good deal of: for instance- not only having several stars injured, and having Solomon blow up after pacing him, but also if Amman had gotten badly boxed. So he got some breaks and ran a very good race, and he grabbed a silver. Awesome for him. Everything Duck wrote is just plain ridiculous.

Well, since there are no takers and you are going out of your way to essentially ostracize someone, I don't mind "A Duck," though I believe he is wrong and you are correct in your assertion here.

""I do wonder if I had run a little bit more conservative if I could have run slightly faster," Nick Symmonds.

I do remember thinking that he just looked that fraction too aggressive with his surges, regardless of any splits. Like he says, he paid in the last 30m.

A Duck wrote:

""I do wonder if I had run a little bit more conservative if I could have run slightly faster," Nick Symmonds.

I'm sure he wonders about every little small thing he remembers as not perfect, that if any of those small things changed he could have won the gold.

Very very unlikely. And btw, that does not support your claim. He did not say he went out too fast. You are too proud to admit wrongs. A bad trait in a person.

Though, finished with the lying about what he said in the interview?

Playing Monday morning quarterback Symmonds probably ran more distance in that race than Aman did. Probably more so than the distance he lost by. Aman ran smarter and was luckier in how the race played out. He forced Symmonds do go outside at the 400 meter mark and then tucked himself in to draft and was able to run near the rail without getting boxed. He stayed on the rail drafting virtually the entire time until the final 100 when it opened up and he had a clear path. Symmonds spent extra energy passing at the 300 mark, ran outside with no draft, but also was clear of potential mishaps and getting boxed in. Symmonds could have won that race but did not. But he ran a great race anyway. The best big race I have ever seen from him. He believed he could win that race and ran like it. Congrats to him for a great accomplishment.

2 POSSIBLE mistakes.

1. moved to quickly with 450 to go. maybe if he left a bit of a gap between himself and soloman, someone else would have moved into the sitting duck position(soloman was already considered a dead duck rabbit at that point)

2. waiting until around 70-80 meters to kick. This could have kept Aman boxed in coming off the turn, and force a wild move around nick, and nick might have had a little more gas for the final 25 meters.

Hayduke wrote:

2 POSSIBLE mistakes.

1. moved to quickly with 450 to go. maybe if he left a bit of a gap between himself and soloman, someone else would have moved into the sitting duck position(soloman was already considered a dead duck rabbit at that point)

2. waiting until around 70-80 meters to kick. This could have kept Aman boxed in coming off the turn, and force a wild move around nick, and nick might have had a little more gas for the final 25 meters.

#2 was what I thought as well. Otherwise, I thought his race was as good as it could be.

Just wait it out wrote:

THERE IS NO WINNING WITH YOU GUYS

Complains when Nick Symmonds goes out to slow.

Complains when Nick Symmonds goes for it in the first 400.

Everyone just accept and be happy that an American got a medal in a "distance" event (I know it's technically a mid-distance) because I don't think anyone else will in Moscow after Rupps flop.

He ran a great race. He could not win unless he ran the perfect race and even then, only if the Ethiopian didn't run as well.

Los Soles wrote:

Third, that fast opening 150-175 is primarily a different energy system. It's supposed to be faster. Sure, you can overdo it. But you can also underdo it just as easily.

the "different energy system" concept and therefore the belief that one can, no SHOULD, slam the first 150-175 of an 800 I think it is a bit of an exaggerated belief. yes, I understand the PC system, and yes I understand that you qualified this with "sure, one can overdo it." But I don't buy the concept that to run your best 800 you should really run that first 150 significantly faster than the rest of your race. Borzakovskiy and others have run fantastically with very even splits. I remember Borza running close to 26, 26, 26, 26 when he was 19. Was 30 meters behind at 200. Ran everyone down like they were walking. The bigger risk is that you go out "slow" (even pace) AND everyone else is conservative too. Then you need to go by everyone while everyone is changing lanes and making moves and kicking. THAT is where the even split strategy hurt Borza and others sometimes. But when it goes out fast and is strung out, I don't buy the physiological argument for a significantly faster 150. (maybe slightly faster).