Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

¶2012OT w10,000—Amy Hastings 31:58.36

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #61
    Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

    Originally posted by no one
    when was the term "peleton" introduced into the terminology used by the track world? Inquiring minds
    Yesterday, I believe. And it is peloton.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

      spilling notwithstanding 8-) , that was a serious question

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

        I think someone is so used to the term from watching cycling they decided to take it to the runners in a track meet. I don't think there are any official definitions outside of its use in cycling, but we know what the user is referring to, even if it should NOT relate to track events.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

          Originally posted by no one
          spilling notwithstanding 8-) , that was a serious question
          I figured it was. And yes, it is a cycling term, but I think useful, since it implies the main pack of runners. Not a leader or 2, or stragglers off the back.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

            Originally posted by Conor Dary

            Rupp and Ritz did not do the same thing. They set a fast pace that benefited everyone who could stay along. And then there is Flanagan, a long time veteran, which can be an intimidating presence to young runners without much experience--I have had something similar happen to me--deliberating running a pace that was well below the A standard, and sabotaging the race for everyone except 3. And yes, you can say they could have passed her, but frankly, watching the race I don't think the gals realized they were running so slow, until they passed 5k in 16:15.
            If that's the case, how would they ever known if they were on pace or not

            Multiplying by 2, which seemed to be the best of their math skills, showed they were screwed. They then took off, but it was too late.
            Hastings took off. Not those chasing the standard.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

              Originally posted by Conor Dary
              Originally posted by preston
              Nearly every one of these women probably has a watch on their wrist and a coach in the stands or on a fence screaming pace. This is not about intimidation, this is the ingrained cowardly running tactics (I won't call them "race" tactics) that too many distance runners are taught throughout their careers; this is about chickens coming home to roost. Serve them right, they don't deserve to go to the Olympics. They have themselves and their coaches and the distance community to thank for it.
              You can count on 7-sided to bring his nastiness to a thread.
              :lol:

              Thanks for clearing something up which I was wondering.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

                Originally posted by no one
                spilling notwithstanding 8-) , that was a serious question
                It is...for lack of a better term....a Rawsonism.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

                  thanks for clarifying. I had heard it used (frequently) in cycling but only recently in running and recognized the utility - just never heard it used in track/running until awhile ago (awhile = ???)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

                    My thoughts here are that Rogers was going with Maier when she got tripped. Part of the reason she was tripped was that the pack had been squashed by the 7 second reduction in pace that was visited on the field. She got up caught back up with the pack, but didn't have the confidence to get to where she would have been if she had not been tripped. I wish I could tell you how the story would have ended if Lisa had tied her shoes better. But Rogers could have run the A standard if she had made it around Flanagan and out of the pack with Maier.

                    Great to hear Masback tell the story just now. :evil:

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

                      Originally posted by Marquis
                      My thoughts here are that Rogers was going with Maier when she got tripped. Part of the reason she was tripped was that the pack had been squashed by the 7 second reduction in pace that was visited on the field. She got up caught back up with the pack, but didn't have the confidence to get to where she would have been if she had not been tripped. I wish I could tell you how the story would have ended if Lisa had tied her shoes better. But Rogers could have run the A standard if she had made it around Flanagan and out of the pack with Maier.
                      I'm watching the race replay and it didn't happen this way at all. Flanagan was in the lead with Thomas right behind her and Hastings on her right shoulder. Maier was behind Thomas on the rail in 4th with Rogers next to her in 5th on the outside of lane 1 and Cherobon-Bawcom coming up behind her in lane 2. Rogers got tripped because Maier cut her off as she jumped out to lane 2. If anything Maier should have been DQed...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: 2012OT w10,000—Flanagan favored

                        Originally posted by Marquis
                        My thoughts here are that Rogers was going with Maier when she got tripped. Part of the reason she was tripped was that the pack had been squashed by the 7 second reduction in pace that was visited on the field.
                        I just reviewed the splits; there is no point where there was a 7-second reduction in pace. Uhl's split for lap four was 1:27.91, and she went from 6th to 23rd (tying her shoe), but Flanagan's 4th lap was 1:19.05 after a 1:17.69, less than two seconds difference. Rogers fell on the 4th lap; at 1200m, Katie Matthews was 23rd, 3.78 seconds behind the leader; at 1600, she was 2.83 seconds behind Shalane (21st, ahead of Rogers and Uhl), so there was a bit of "compacting", but not much. By the end of lap 5, Maier was in the lead.

                        Cheers,
                        Alan Shank
                        Woodland, CA, USA

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X