Kawauchi went out in 4:37 for the first mile. They were on 2:07 pace at 10k. The race was won in 2:15:54.
Here is what JK said before the race.
"So I’m thinking it might be a 2:14-15 race and that’s assuming someone wants to run a pretty honest pace," said Kellogg.
While I didn't ask him about the women's race, he basically nailed that as well as he said the possibility of an absurdly slow time was possible in the men's race. "Hell it could be 2:19 if no one wants to lead it.”
So what your saying is John Kellogg predicted a really slow time because of slow conditions? Conditions that everyone else knows are slow. But they just don't feel the need to write an article about it. From his quote, it sounds like he was shooting for 2:14-2:19.
But he's a genius.
so he missed the prediction by 4-5 minutes for a race that was about to have historically bad weather slowing times by 7-8 minutes over a typical finishing time.
This seems like an abundantly wide range of error to claim "nailed it" over
Honestly, it’s sad the way you fawn over him
He said it would be 2:14-15 if they ran hard from the gun and that's exactly what it was. You think that's not impressive? The commentators on TV had no idea and didn't even give out splits for most of the race as they thought their splits were off as in their mind they made no sense.
yes, forgive me for being unimpressed that the race was expected to be slower than normal, and the guy who supposedly "nailed it" had a 4-5 minute error.
How do we know the race wasnt run 'hard from the gun', does anyone have their strava suffer scores available? I'm sure Kawauichi's was like 612 but thats normal for him.
So he missed it by 4-5 minutes, but then gave himself a 5 minute range by saying "could be as slow as 2:19" with a 'laugh', which to me implies he doesnt actually believe it would be that slow.
Therefore he missed by 4-5 minutes, and I'm not sure we have the data to suggest the race wasnt actually run 'hard from the gun' with the conditions. Clearly mile 1 was a bit hot no? Is that not from the gun?
So what does Kellogg DO other than talk to the Brosjo foe a few minutes before major races?
Maybe he should take up residence at Delphi.
No, I agree with Robert - its actually pretty impressive that Kellogg estimated the winning time to the minute. He said 2:14-2:15 if they went out hard - they did, and the winner was 2:15. How is that not impressive? The winning time of this race has been as low as 2:03 - but Kellogg analyzed the conditions and came up with a pretty spot on estimate.
And as far as the "it could be slower" part - that doesn't make his prediction any less valid. You could say that about every race, obviously it depends on tactics. Saying "London will be won in 2:02 if people go out hard, or as slow as 2:05 if it is tactical!" just acknowledges that races can play out differently.
So since JK appears to be all-knowing, can you ask him to message me the numbers for the next PowerBall lottery drawing?
I've never used the word snarky in my life.....until now. You guys, with a few rare exceptions are laughably pathetic. Give the guy his due. He nailed it, period.
rojo wrote:
He said it would be 2:14-15 if they ran hard from the gun and that's exactly what it was. You think that's not impressive? The commentators on TV had no idea and didn't even give out splits for most of the race as they thought their splits were off as in their mind they made no sense.
I wouldn't use those clowns as a checkpoint on your scale of genius.
Besides the prediction is off by too far.
SomeThings wrote:
No, I agree with Robert - its actually pretty impressive that Kellogg estimated the winning time to the minute. He said 2:14-2:15 if they went out hard - they did, and the winner was 2:15. How is that not impressive? The winning time of this race has been as low as 2:03 - but Kellogg analyzed the conditions and came up with a pretty spot on estimate.
And as far as the "it could be slower" part - that doesn't make his prediction any less valid. You could say that about every race, obviously it depends on tactics. Saying "London will be won in 2:02 if people go out hard, or as slow as 2:05 if it is tactical!" just acknowledges that races can play out differently.
+1, good prediction.
oh my bad, he did completely nail it lol
I thought for a minute Kawauichi came in around where Pennel did /just inside the B-standard /2:19
apologies to OP
rojo wrote:
He said it would be 2:14-15 if they ran hard from the gun and that's exactly what it was. You think that's not impressive? The commentators on TV had no idea and didn't even give out splits for most of the race as they thought their splits were off as in their mind they made no sense.
Nobody has ever accused NBC of genius.
Damn it.
Why are you criticizing so much? Would you be able to predict anything close to JK prediction?
I think it was impressive, like Boston 2011 was. Of course a slow time was on the cards today, but when I saw the honest pace I thought that they could get under 2:10, which only show how brutal the conditions were.
You will not believe it, but there are people that know a lot more than you.
I thought the winning time would be just under 2:16.