No announcement yet.

2007 Athletissima (Lausanne) M-800m


Unconfigured Ad Widget

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2007 Athletissima (Lausanne) M-800m

    Race out at 50,85 and 1.18,69 at 600m... Borzakovskiy is back to idiot land, can:t win a 1.45,82 race with his run-em-down-the-homestretch tactics.

  • #2
    Rudisha only runner sub 1,46! Disappointing!


    • #3
      Originally posted by IFK_Vaxjo
      Rudisha only runner sub 1,46! Disappointing!
      All the marks I have seen so far are pretty mediocre for this level of competition (Devonish's time was pretty good). I suppose those conditions are as poor as feared.


      • #4
        rang athlète nat résultat

        1 RUDISHA, David KEN

        2 BORZAKOVSKIY, Yuriy RUS

        3 KAMEL, Youssef Saad BRN

        4 CHEPKIRWOK, Abraham UGA

        5 MULAUDZI, Mbulaeni RSA

        6 AL-SALHI, Mohammed KSA

        7 ROBINSON, Khadevis USA

        8 LAALOU, Amine MAR

        9 CHEHIBI, Mohcine MAR


        • #5
          Problem here is that pacer went out (50,85) more than a second slower than ordered.


          • #6
            How can 1:41.7 pace for 800 be a problem? The Lausanne 800 field was not of a quality to go any faster than that.


            • #7
              "Problem" was that the 1.43 field barely broke 1.46 due to ineffecient pacing the first lap.


              • #8
                Nobody's in 1:43 shape so far this season. Why would you expect it to happen tonight in cold Lausanne? (and 50-high is the perfect lap split for a 1:43 anyway). The current world top 5:

                1:44.14 Wilfred Bungei KEN 24 07 1980 1 Doha 11 05 2007
                1:44.37 Khadevis Robinson USA 19 07 1976 1 Indianapolis, IN 24 06 2007
                1:44.38 Yuriy Borzakovskiy RUS 12 04 1981 1 Athína (Olympic Stadium) 02 07 2007
                1:44.54 Nick Symmonds USA 30 12 1983 1 Eugene, OR 10 06 2007
                1:44.55 Mohammad K Al-Azemi KUW 16 06 1982 2 Athína (Olympic Stadium) 02 07 2007


                • #9
                  Uh, you came up with the 1.43 and changed it to 1.41. Nobody had a time on this one that they:d expected, just an honest pace. Pacer dummied up.


                  • #10
                    Of course I changed it - 50.85 = 1:41.7 pace. 50.85 was perfect for this field on paper. They're simply not ready to run 1:43 yet - should change soon.


                    • #11
                      Hold the horses... nobody claimed that the field should have run this, that or any other time... simply disappointed one man broke 1.46. Thanks.


                      • #12
                        So explain "pacer dummied up." In my opinion, it was perfect execution for this race on this night.


                        • #13
                          Pacer paid to run 49,5. Pacer ran 50,85. Pacer paid for a race which he, himself, took out more than a second slower than he was requested. That:s a pacer dummying up. His first lap had zero to do with the quality of the field - whether they were in 1.41, 1.43 or 1.44 shape. His job was not executed out front.


                          • #14
                            So, in conclusion, pacer was asked to run a pace (sub-50) that was not appropriate for this field tonight. Instead, he ran 50.85, ideal pacing for where they're at right now (mid-1:44's), but the field disappointed with across the board sub-par performances... I agree completely with you, EPelle.


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by EPelle
                              Problem here is that pacer went out (50,85) more than a second slower than ordered.
                              So is the pacer responsible for the 55 second last lap? Richard is manifesting the more logical analysis here. The pacer is not responsible for either the conditions or the caliber of the field. The pacer did not make or break this race, and logic dictates that if he'd taken them out much faster the repercussions are more likely to have been detrimental than advantageous in terms of final results. Epelle, you must not confuse the pacer having not, according to you, executed his assignment perfectly, vvith the field simply not running up to your expectations. This is not a cause and effect relationship here, and any of your attempts to connect them are simply nonsense.