Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #91
    Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

    basically a bunch of great 5000 meter runners decided to race a 400, and they are very mediocre at 400, yawn.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

      The first 2 miles made the 1972 race look like an all out effort from the start.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

        Yeah, I understand tactical races, but that should be 13:10 or something, not 13:40. A great last 2k, but they might as well have not even run the first 3k at all. All props to Farah, though. An awfully good men's distance meet for Team USA with one event to go.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

          I gave up and swapped to watching the women's high jump for the middle part of the race. They were competing.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

            These slow, slower, and slowest mid-and long distance "races" remind me of bicycle racing I've seen....indoors.

            Not familiar with bicycling terminology, but you know when the riders wiggle-wobble their bikes around the track, barely avoiding falling over or coming to a complete stop.....then all of a sudden, they GO??

            Same thing I felt here (and every other "race" 1500 and longer).

            But where were their bicycles?? :lol:

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

              I am going to add my dissapointment to several posters above...these ultra slow, sit and kick races are not what most fans come to see. I know, I know...some will argue that in the OG it's all about winning (or placing high) and not about time...but wouldn't it be nice to have both? Come on guys (and gals)...whatever happened to an honest effort over the entire distance?

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                lovetorun: I agree 100% but I know you are even more emphatic because you always ran as fast as you could from the first step of every race!!!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                  52.94, 1:54.04, 2:56.25, 3:57.46, 4:58.72
                  I can remember the first sub-5 2000, can you?
                  I got 26.6 last 200 for Mo.

                  Second kilo was over 3:00. Various guys would take the lead, but not do anything with it. Kilo leaders were Koech, Lomong, Alamirew and Gebremeskel, who was running really fast by then. It appears that Rupp was not quite up to the double this year. I thought he looked tired with around 4 to go, then he made a move at around 600 to go, and I thought he was OK, but he faded. Longosiwa was a bit of a surprise bronze, I thought.

                  Cheers,
                  Alan Shank

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                    Originally posted by lovetorun
                    I am going to add my dissapointment to several posters above...these ultra slow, sit and kick races are not what most fans come to see. I know, I know...some will argue that in the OG it's all about winning (or placing high) and not about time...but wouldn't it be nice to have both? Come on guys (and gals)...whatever happened to an honest effort over the entire distance?
                    I share these sentiments, BUT as I learned decades ago, this IS what championship running is about: strictly winning, not times. I personally have very little patience for most of this stuff, but do understand the arguments of those who "love" this sort of thing.

                    All that said, for me, what matters above all is NOT strictly winning--since, as we know, every race ever run has had a winner. What matters to me are the genuinely unusual or even transcendent performances--those performances that have nothing to do with "business as usual." These are always going to be rare, but that's exactly why they matter so much. The virtue of the Olympics is that they at least provides the potential for such performances.

                    Comment


                    • Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                      Originally posted by Alan Shank
                      52.94, 1:54.04, 2:56.25, 3:57.46, 4:58.72
                      I can remember the first sub-5 2000, can you?
                      I got 26.6 last 200 for Mo.

                      Second kilo was over 3:00. Various guys would take the lead, but not do anything with it. Kilo leaders were Koech, Lomong, Alamirew and Gebremeskel, who was running really fast by then. It appears that Rupp was not quite up to the double this year. I thought he looked tired with around 4 to go, then he made a move at around 600 to go, and I thought he was OK, but he faded. Longosiwa was a bit of a surprise bronze, I thought.

                      Cheers,
                      Alan Shank
                      Rupp didn't go with the break 400m out. He actually came back on some of the guys over the last 200m.

                      Comment


                      • Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                        Originally posted by doug5321
                        basically a bunch of great 5000 meter runners decided to race a 400, and they are very mediocre at 400, yawn.
                        I guess you don't understand what a sub-5:00 2000 means.
                        Cheers,
                        Alan Shank

                        Comment


                        • Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                          Originally posted by 1fastrunner
                          Don't know about anyone else but I have had it with these olympic distance "races"...why not just let them run 2 laps and sprint to the finish...13:41...OMG...I might be wrong but I think Bob Schul ran faster than that 52 years ago in Tokyo...these guys are not olympic champions if they continue to run races this way...other than the British homers, fans who paid big money can't be thrilled with this type of running...that is if you are being honest.
                          This appears to be the sentiment of a few posters on here. Some even questioning why bother watching the race. So, why bother? Don't watch! I have this question all of you who make such comments: Are you a fan of times, or of races? If you feel you have to have a fast time to tickle your fancy then you have plenty of rabbited Diamond League races to suit you. Honest effort? Are you kidding me? Could anyone of 50, 40 years ago finish the last 2000 in less than 5:00? They couldn't even sniff that kind of time in a standalone race over the distance. Olympic distances races are like a chess match now. It is about winning, not times. Why? Because there is too much talent to run away from people without ruining your own chances. No one wants to be the sacrificial lamb.

                          I think the top 9 all ran the last 2,000 in roughly 5:01 or 5:02 and better. That is unbelievable! Very few guys, if any at the moment, could go balls out from the beginning and have a sniff of a chance at the end, so they are willing to take their chances in this kind of race, because you never know who will red-line and bomb.

                          Yeah, it would be nice to see someone try it sometime. That would be enjoyable as well. But the likely result would be that we all give him props for effort and forget about him in the annuals of time as he finished in 9th place or thereabouts.

                          Whether the race is fast or slow you should be able to enjoy the show. That was a wild race. just like they have been for the last few years and you never know who is going to win until that last 100m and that makes for some pretty damn good drama!

                          Comment


                          • Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                            Originally posted by Alan Shank
                            52.94, 1:54.04, 2:56.25, 3:57.46, 4:58.72
                            I can remember the first sub-5 2000, can you?
                            I got 26.6 last 200 for Mo.
                            I think it was Bekele in Beijing, 4:56 or 4:57 [In a sub 13 race no less]. Could be wrong, please do tell.

                            Comment


                            • Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                              Originally posted by odelltrclan
                              Originally posted by Alan Shank
                              52.94, 1:54.04, 2:56.25, 3:57.46, 4:58.72
                              I can remember the first sub-5 2000, can you?
                              I got 26.6 last 200 for Mo.
                              I think it was Bekele in Beijing, 4:56 or 4:57 [In a sub 13 race no less]. Could be wrong, please do tell.
                              Wouldn't it be Harald Norpoth in 1966?

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Norpoth

                              Comment


                              • Re: ¶2012 OG: m5000–Mo Farah 13:41.66 wins 5/10 double

                                Originally posted by tgs3
                                Originally posted by odelltrclan
                                Originally posted by Alan Shank
                                52.94, 1:54.04, 2:56.25, 3:57.46, 4:58.72
                                I can remember the first sub-5 2000, can you?
                                I got 26.6 last 200 for Mo.
                                I think it was Bekele in Beijing, 4:56 or 4:57 [In a sub 13 race no less]. Could be wrong, please do tell.
                                Wouldn't it be Harald Norpoth in 1966?

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Norpoth
                                I think you are missing the point of the comment. It was the last 2k of a 5k competition in under 5:00. This one nearly had a final 2400 under 6:00.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X