* wrote:
Farah ran 27:21 not 27:30.
He closed in 54, not 59 or 60.
It was 80 degrees and humid.
Huma, Merga and Gebremeskel were the only ones under 27 last year and none of them got a medal. I don't see how they were going to lead and win.
Winning a slow race doesn't show you can't run fast.
Being beaten badly would show you may not be able to run fast.
Farah lost by one second in that half marathon, so you can't judge his fitness there either.
Dodging Bekele at Pre did suck but that race was slow enough that Bekele didn't make the 4 man Ethiopian team.
How is your reading comprehension that bad?
27:21 is about the same as 27:30. Especially for the purpose of my point.
Farah's final 400m in the half was definitely not 54. It was around 59. But if you're talking about the WC 10k then that 54 supports MY argument. If he was really in sub 26:45 shape then he would have run a 52 or so off of such a slow pace.
I never mentioned Huma or the Ethiopians in that post, so I have no idea why you are talking about them.
No, you're wrong. Winning a slow race CAN show that you can't run fast. It depends on how you win. In Farah's case, it's clear that he lost some endurance or he would have run faster for the final 400m. I don't recall exactly how the last lap went, but if he shut it down before the last straightaway then I take it back.
In the half, I can most certainly judge his fitness there. He lost by a second. But it was more than that. His final 400m was only a 59 like I said before. And the pace of the race was a tempo run pace for a sub 26:45 runner. And he was fading. He was completely spent. That clearly shows that he lost some endurance. His final 400m should have easily been around 52-54 if he was really in sub 26:45 shape.