Was this the best "Trials" ever?
For the men, the times were certainly at a new level this year. Before Saturday, only one American, Ryan Hall, had ever run under 2:10 in a Trials race. At Houston, four men did it in the same race, with 2008 Olympian Dathan Ritzenheim in the excruciating position of running a personal best of 2:09:55, becoming the fourth-fastest Trial performer in history, and not making the team.
To put those times in perspective, the previous fastest Trials race was in 1980 -- the so-called "race to nowhere" since the U.S. boycotted the 1980 Moscow Games -- where three runners, led by Tony Sandoval in 2:10:19, finished under 2:11. Other than Ryan Hall's Trials record from 2008 in NYC, no other American man had EVER run under 2:11 in a trials race.
By the way, while I don't begrudge Meb his heartfelt celebrations and grabbing and waving an American flag in the final 400 meters, I think there's little doubt that he was capable of taking Hall's record and running the first sub-2:09 Trials had he focused on running hard to the line. But never mind that; Meb has never been about time, but about competing, and he won the race just 69 days after hanging in with the world's best at New York. Meb can do whatever he wants, as far as I'm concerned.
The depth of the race extended deep into the pack, with 8 men running sub 2:12, and 22 running 2:15 or better.
As impressive as the finishing times were, what was more striking about the men's race were the splits. Thanks to Hall, the men ran hard from the beginning, splitting 29:53 (2:06:08 pace!) for 10K. That's basically unheard of for an All-America race, and yet, even at that pace there was still a pack of seven runners in the mix. Remarkable!
The women didn't start out fast, in fact, they dawdled through a 6:11 first mile (2:41:30 pace) before Desi Davila ratcheted the pace down to something more reasonable. Once they got going, however, the women were all business. The first half was run in 1:13:30, and the top three women all negative split the second half, with Shalane Flanagan running 1:12:08 to win in a Trials record 2:25:38.
Davila and Kara Goucher finished only 17 and 28 seconds back, respectively, and the top three were not seriously in doubt over the final five miles. Amy Hastings, Davila's college teammate at Arizona State, took the fourth spot in a PR 2:27:17, also under the old Trial record.
The performance of the day might have been that of Linda Somers Smith, who, at age 50, ran 2:37:36 to finish 28th. You are forgiven if you don't recall that Somers Smith finished second in the 1996 Trials race -- SIXTEEN YEARS AGO, and at age 42 finished 10th in 2004 in 2:37:28. So she slowed down one second per year over the last 8 years. Unbelievable. In case you're wondering, plugging Somers Smith's performance into an age-grading calculator yields an age-adjusted time of 2:22:21.
So it was a great day of racing. It's too bad that there was no live TV coverage of the race, and that the delayed broadcast by CBS was, as usual, mediocre. I'm not sure why the network thinks that Tom Hammond is the right person to host the coverage; he doesn't appear to have any insight into distance running, and never offered much in the way of background information about the athletes or the Trials race. The two experts, former USATF CEO Craig Masback and former Olympian Todd Williams, provided the occasional background story or insight into the race, but the whole team seemed to be hampered by not knowing (or not bothering to mention) the split times, the gaps, etc. It's a shame that the networks still struggle with basic stuff like this, and can't seem to cover long distance races with a passion that matches the excitement of the running community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Coverage was by NBC not CBS. It was mediocre but I was still glued to my couch for 2 hours.
agreed about the coverage, hammond pronounced abdi's name wrong the entire time. the experts were a bit better than usual but it still lacked simple things as you mentioned.
It was hard to watch ritz finish so close. He ran great and really looked like he left it all out there and its unfortunate he is not on the team
Scandalous that one couldn't even watch the race live online. I would have payed money to do so, though there are numerous marathons around the world streamed live for free.
Nevertheless, it was an exciting couple of races. Ought to be great teams on both sides going to London. One has to feel sorry for Ritz: sub-13:00 in the 5K, and he's still near twenty seconds slower in the marathon than Bill Rodgers was.
Re: Ritz' sub 13:00 5K and still slower than Rodgers begs the question, why is Ritz running marathons anyway? Several years ago, we lacked a strong contingent of American marathoners and it almost seemed like if you were a top notch U.S. distance runner that just couldn't put it together on the track, the marathon just might be your event. However, we now face a situation where it seems many of our best move more quickly into the marathon before doing their proper time on the track.
If Ritz has the ability to run 12:55, he certainly has the ability to make the U.S. Olympic team in that event or the 10K and if the concern is medaling on the track where championship events are routinely closed out in 53-55 point, then work on finishing speed.
Ritz is still working with Salazar and Rupp, he's got the coaching, the training partner and the facilities. Everything is in place for success on the track.
How about this impressive result:
16 Sean Quigley 26 unattached 2:14:12 +5:04
I think ritz has been led to believe that the marathon is his event. If you look at his progression as a runner it led most of us to believe that he would be an elite marathoner. Early in his marathon career he had ups and downs and he has had injury problems as well that have held up his success. He found success on the track occasionally (his 12:55) but throughout that he still saw the marathon as the event he will leave his mark on. And why not? before ryan hall there was a void in american marathoning and ritz certainly believed he could fill that and be what ryan hall has become maybe even better.
I think he realizes he has limitations on the track (his speed or lack thereof) and he didnt see that in the marathon. But maybe now he is realizing that the track might be his best option in spite of those limitations.
Ritz is still a world class marathoner. He's a top 4 american, top 15 non african.
Overall maybe he's barely top 50 (or 100), which is why I name him "world class" not "world's best".
The name of the game is the marathon nowadays, and American is the best credential you can have to get into the best races in the world.
Rupp finished 40 seconds ahead of Hall in Beijing.
Rupp was 50 seconds behind Hall in Houston.
This was a fast pace first 13.1miles, and not rabbited (okay, some people call Hall running in any race an impromptu rabbit).
World Marathon Majors will want to add another blanco american to the hype of races, build some rivalry, and as far as I can tell he's at that level (if still a minute behind hall).
No reason I see not to continue marathoning. He's got the name recognition too from being stellar in HS/college. And there's a history with racing hall that people can play up in future competitions.
He can certainly command solid fees for entering marathons there is no question about that but as far as competing on the world stage (olympics, world championships) track may be his best bet at a medal.
I think Ritz has to race the marathon (for the US team) because he's not close to a slam dunk in the 5K/10K. If it's his primary event, I would argue that's a mistake, but he doesn't have the luxury of taking a spot on any team for granted. He is much closer to a medal in the 10,000 than the Marathon, but so is the US in general. America's best on his best day is almost 2 minutes away from the Best Kenyans.
Post a Comment