Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who thought 4:03.74 would win?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CookyMonzta
    replied
    Re: Who thought 4:03.74 would win?

    Originally posted by Frans Rutten
    Originally posted by CookyMonzta
    Originally posted by lovetorun
    Aside from the debaucle of a top runner being pushed and falling to the track in the stretch run, I thought the women's 1500m in Berlin was a bit surprising and frankly disappointing.

    Admittedly there is a USA bias in my feeling as I thought our ladies would run faster and even place higher...although if someone would have ask me a few months ago if I would be pleased with 3rd, 5th and 6th for three ladies in the final I would have said yes!

    I guess I thought Anna Willard with her excellent speed in those two sub 2:00 800m, and steeple strength would have been able to at least medal if not win that race. But I don't criticize her at all...I think I understand that her season was too long. Too long to go through 3 rounds and still have any zip in the third.And that is a subject for a whole new thread (again).
    Not the first time the winner needed only a 4:03 to win a World Championship. In the 2000 Olympics it took a 4:05 to win. In 1997 a 4:04 was enough to win. At the 1995 indoor championships a 4:12 won.
    This was obviously a negative split race. The 2nd half was about 10s faster disregarding the fly start.

    The 2nd half was in essence a 800m race with a first lap of 62,24s and a second lap pace of 61,32s, although of cause the "800m race" wasn't concluded. All in all back-to-back 800m races if you want of 2:15 and 2:04.

    The time might be disappointing for some viewers, but I reckon that not only did these 1500m Final female runners look bright, but they are also clean. Ohne Gewähr, heisst auf Deutsch. . Or would you rather see someone winning with "800m splits" of 2:15 and 1:58 ?
    In the U.S., Alan Webb won a regional (or was it state?) HS mile race in 4:07 in 2001, running 2:14+ for the first half and 1:52+ for the second half.

    Leave a comment:


  • Frans Rutten
    replied
    Re: Who thought 4:03.74 would win?

    Originally posted by CookyMonzta
    Originally posted by lovetorun
    Aside from the debaucle of a top runner being pushed and falling to the track in the stretch run, I thought the women's 1500m in Berlin was a bit surprising and frankly disappointing.

    Admittedly there is a USA bias in my feeling as I thought our ladies would run faster and even place higher...although if someone would have ask me a few months ago if I would be pleased with 3rd, 5th and 6th for three ladies in the final I would have said yes!

    I guess I thought Anna Willard with her excellent speed in those two sub 2:00 800m, and steeple strength would have been able to at least medal if not win that race. But I don't criticize her at all...I think I understand that her season was too long. Too long to go through 3 rounds and still have any zip in the third.And that is a subject for a whole new thread (again).
    Not the first time the winner needed only a 4:03 to win a World Championship. In the 2000 Olympics it took a 4:05 to win. In 1997 a 4:04 was enough to win. At the 1995 indoor championships a 4:12 won.
    This was obviously a negative split race. The 2nd half was about 10s faster disregarding the fly start.

    The 2nd half was in essence a 800m race with a first lap of 62,24s and a second lap pace of 61,32s, although of cause the "800m race" wasn't concluded. All in all back-to-back 800m races if you want of 2:15 and 2:04.

    The time might be disappointing for some viewers, but I reckon that not only did these 1500m Final female runners look bright, but they are also clean. Ohne Gewähr, heisst auf Deutsch. . Or would you rather see someone winning with "800m splits" of 2:15 and 1:58 ?

    Leave a comment:


  • CookyMonzta
    replied
    Re: Who thought 4:03.74 would win?

    Originally posted by lovetorun
    Aside from the debaucle of a top runner being pushed and falling to the track in the stretch run, I thought the women's 1500m in Berlin was a bit surprising and frankly disappointing.

    Admittedly there is a USA bias in my feeling as I thought our ladies would run faster and even place higher...although if someone would have ask me a few months ago if I would be pleased with 3rd, 5th and 6th for three ladies in the final I would have said yes!

    I guess I thought Anna Willard with her excellent speed in those two sub 2:00 800m, and steeple strength would have been able to at least medal if not win that race. But I don't criticize her at all...I think I understand that her season was too long. Too long to go through 3 rounds and still have any zip in the third.And that is a subject for a whole new thread (again).
    Not the first time the winner needed only a 4:03 to win a World Championship. In the 2000 Olympics it took a 4:05 to win. In 1997 a 4:04 was enough to win. At the 1995 indoor championships a 4:12 won.

    Leave a comment:


  • lovetorun
    started a topic Who thought 4:03.74 would win?

    Who thought 4:03.74 would win?

    Aside from the debaucle of a top runner being pushed and falling to the track in the stretch run, I thought the women's 1500m in Berlin was a bit surprising and frankly disappointing.

    Admittedly there is a USA bias in my feeling as I thought our ladies would run faster and even place higher...although if someone would have ask me a few months ago if I would be pleased with 3rd, 5th and 6th for three ladies in the final I would have said yes!

    I guess I thought Anna Willard with her excellent speed in those two sub 2:00 800m, and steeple strength would have been able to at least medal if not win that race. But I don't criticize her at all...I think I understand that her season was too long. Too long to go through 3 rounds and still have any zip in the third.And that is a subject for a whole new thread (again).
Working...
X