Facts, Not Fiction

 

Thread: Stanford meets.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35
  1. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,128
    The OG 800 was still a race; he had a big lead but the pack was big and it was fast and if he faded at all like he did last week (even a fraction of that), then he might be caught. Look at his next (?) race, where he was indeed caught and beaten. That race had best marks for place for 1-2-3-4-5-6-7; it was an historic race.

    One of the things that makes the prospect of a 2.45/2.46 so exciting is that it might be a competition at the top heights.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    740
    Going back to the thread topic - although the PJ races are for time, many of them are still great races, because they are deep, and the outcomes are therefore very much in doubt. Solinsky's 26:59 a few years back was a case in point. Definitely billed as an AR attempt by Rupp, but he still had company throughout, the pace was very even with no real tactical surges, but Solinsky provided a stunning surprise result. The atmosphere at PJ is electric, and a fan can stand by the rail for $10.
    I'm somewhat in the time camp with Marlow, but the element of doubt about the outcome is also compelling. Viren's Montreal 5k was, for me, the greatest distance race of all time. El Gerrouj's '99 WC win had a string of super fast times, but the outcome never seemed in doubt and the finish was really just a parade, exciting though the times were for a championship race.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Back on my 3-month hiatus!
    Posts
    21,729
    Quote Originally Posted by berkeley
    . . .
    YOU don't get a say in a thread about Stanford!
    :P
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Another perfect day in So Cal
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by gh
    Stanford 5K (and all the races) are run on a delightfully cool evening with minimal winds, perfect pacing for fast national-class times and nobody (well, "nobody") cares about winning; it's all about a time.

    Pre 5K was under a "hot" sun, with notably gusting winds and a pace meant for international-class times. They're not remotely comparable.
    Not trying to pick a fight, but...

    While I really enjoyed the PJ 5k, and the last lap/home stretch battle, I'm not sure the cover label of "classic" is the right word. To me this was just another good PJ 5k. Fast? Yes. Competitive? Yes. Strung out while everyone runs for time? Yes. Classic? Not so much.

    I think the PJ 5k should have gone sub-13:00 a while ago, but it's probably hard to find pacers to go through 3k in 7:50 that early in the year.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #25
    Quote Originally Posted by BCBaroo
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboElliott
    Endlessly chasing marks with no regard for racing is one of the reasons the sport is not popular anymore. Records are so much more exciting when they're achieved in the context of a race rather than a time trial. See the current 800m world record and the 2011 Boston Marathon for reference. Compare them with the officially recognized world record in the marathon and Rudisha's previous record.
    Are you saying that Rudisha's current WR was not a breathtaking race? One of the best in years?
    I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that pacemakers are a pox on the sport and his Olympic final is the greatest middle distance/distance world record set in a generation because it was set without a pacer.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #26
    Two races that stand out for me from the PJ's of the past 2 years are the 2013 women's "B" or "C" 1500 where Elise Cranny ran her 4:15.07, and this year's women's 10000 where Molly Huddle dogged Sally kipyego throughout, finally running 30:47, becoming the # 2 US performer.

    The former race was relatively slow (4:13 or so for the winner), but I was so excited seeing Cranny's fantastic sprint, and becoming # 3 American HS'er.
    So it was competitive, but had the added thrill of a time chase (even though Cranny wasn't shooting for a specific time, I don't think).

    The latter became competitive, although it was pretty improbable that Huddle could beat Kipyego, and was a time chase, as both of them wanted to go sub-31:00.....and did!!
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Back on my 3-month hiatus!
    Posts
    21,729
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboElliott
    I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that pacemakers are a pox on the sport and his Olympic final is the greatest middle distance/distance world record set in a generation because it was set without a pacer.
    On the other hand, HE was the pace-setter; HE rabbited the race. Did he not fulfill all the expectations of those labels? He went for a TIME, NOT just the win. He could have easily won off a slower pace. He acknowledged that after the race. Pre used to do the same.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #28
    I disagree. If the pace was slower, Aman could have beaten him. That's the way things have been when they race each other. The way Rudisha ran in that race, he destroyed anyone who thought they could beat him and only people who were satisfied with finishing a place other than first got good results.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    23,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Marlow
    Quote Originally Posted by JumboElliott
    I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that pacemakers are a pox on the sport and his Olympic final is the greatest middle distance/distance world record set in a generation because it was set without a pacer.
    On the other hand, HE was the pace-setter; HE rabbited the race. Did he not fulfill all the expectations of those labels? He went for a TIME, NOT just the win. He could have easily won off a slower pace. He acknowledged that after the race. Pre used to do the same.
    You seem to forget that he made big mistakes doing what you were saying he could do in this race. He was not a rabbit, he dictated a pace and got away from his competitors so that he was not rabbiting them; at that speed, if they had been on his heels the difference in the effort level would have put them in his time ballpark.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Re: Stanford meets.
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Back on my 3-month hiatus!
    Posts
    21,729
    Quote Originally Posted by 26mi235
    You seem to forget that he made big mistakes doing what you were saying he could do in this race. He was not a rabbit, he dictated a pace and got away from his competitors so that he was not rabbiting them; at that speed, if they had been on his heels the difference in the effort level would have put them in his time ballpark.
    Semantics. He "dictated a pace" that he knew would win him a gold and set the WR. He could have just gone for the win (a much safer bet). I saw it as one of those much despised 'time trials'! 8-)
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •