Top American Gold Medal Hopes in Middle Distance and Steeple

Part 2 is Posted on B/R Here. Touching on Matt Centrowitz, Nick Symmonds, and somewhat randomly my favorite Track Showman Eliud Kipchoge.

Top American Gold Medal Hopes in the Sprints

Hey all, I finally broke a nearly year-long hiatus from writing! You can read the piece on the best gold medal hopes in the mile here at Bleacher Report. Feel free to let me know what you think. At the very least, all of the race video links should get everyone excited. Next thing I write will probably be the edition for the best US hopes in middle distance and the steeple (Kenyan boycott?). Sorry for the infrequent posting, and I'm happy to be writing about track and field once again.

Why Pistorius Shouldn't Be in the World Championships or Olympics

It feels wrong to root against Oscar Pistorius, and to hope that the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the IAAF bans him from competing.

Let’s start with the obvious: I have two legs, he does not.

What type of soulless person roots against a double-amputee?

Moving to the more profound: I, like many kids, had dreams of reaching the pinnacle of the sports I played. The Super Bowl, the World Series, the Olympics were all the resplendent stages of childhood fantasy. Maybe after a good race, game or match I even took a leap of faith and believed in it, if only for a fleeting moment.

Eventually, I abandoned those dreams as cold reality hit. I saw some of my peers who were superior in every area, and I slowly let my dream die. It was depressing, but I believed I just wasn’t gifted enough. Even if there was a one in a billion shot of getting there, which there might always be, I rationalized that away because it was not enough. I gave up.

Oscar Pistorius never gave up, and he was the one born without legs.

He has steadfastly chased his dream all the way to the brink of being on the starting line at the Olympics and World Championships. As I'm sure Bob Costas will inform us, it is a true victory of the human spirit.

And now I, a person who lamented about not being gifted enough, want the dreams of a man, who was denied the most basic of all gifts, to never be fulfilled.

So it feels wrong, but I know it is right.

You probably think it is because I believe Oscar Pistorius has an unfair advantage. It might be the paradox of all paradoxes, but the man without legs has something better- the best modern science and engineering can offer. You can read about it here, but the takeaway is that Pistorius’ carbon-fiber prosthetics operate more efficiently than legs.

But it’s really not even that. It’s a whole lot simpler. Why I don’t want Oscar Pistorius to compete is because it’s not just Oscar Pistorius competing. There’s technologically-advanced equipment, in the form of his prosthetics, competing. Sure Pistorius’ mid-section guides his prosthetics, but the prosthetics constitute an artificial addition to his body.

So, that might make me sound even worse. I don’t want him to compete because he doesn’t have legs.

Well, it’s more complex than that. I believe that track and field, swimming, and a few other Olympic sports should be competition between athletes and athletes alone in the purest sense.

For instance, I hated the bathing suits that enhanced performance during the Beijing Olympics’ swimming program. Nothing struck me as more distasteful than the notion that swapping suits might make a difference in the outcome when athletes raced. If I had my way, all of the athletes would just wear identical Speedos.

In track, spikes give me mixed feelings because of the same idea.

A race should be one athlete’s body and mind matched against another’s in an environment that is the same for all. That is the ideal. Bringing in difference-makers like equipment or technology into the competition tarnishes the picture for me. Athletes line up in equal standing, and the most gifted, savvy, and prepared one breaks the tape.

Pistorius, and his dependence on his prosthetic equipment, disturbs this vision. If he was born without legs 50 years ago with the same enviable drive, determination and athleticism, we can be sure that he would not be one of the best quarter milers in the world in the 1980s. Advances in prosthetic technology had not advanced to the point they have today.

On the other side of the token, if he was born tomorrow, he might be capable of running under 40 seconds for 400 in say 2035 when superior prosthetics are developed. The point is: Pistorius’ superiority or inferiority to two-legged athletes and his ability as an athlete is a product of his equipment to an inescapable degree. It's not him, it's something entirely external to him.

Today in 2011, it’s been convenient for the IAAF and IOC that Pistorius’ mesh of factors places him as a fantastic human-interest story and a viable athlete, but not necessarily a medal favorite. But what if he was born with the talent of a freak like Usain Bolt and was capable of running 41 seconds right now given the advantage of prosthetic technology? That's to say it's not just the fate of a specific athlete, namely Pistorius, that is at stake here, but the notion of a fair race between athletes.

When they line up in Daegu or London for the finals of the 400 meters, I want to see the eight absolutely best athletes in the world in the blocks. I don’t want to see the eight best when wearing a certain type of uniform, or sporting a cutting edge type of shoe, or, yes, using a specific type of prosthetics.

As much as I hate to say something so callous, from birth Oscar Pistorius was destined to never be one of those eight.

Today technology is what gets Pistorius into an elite 400 meter race. For me, in a true race, it would be the first thing that keeps him out.

Where Geoffrey Mutai's 2:03:01 Marathon Ranks

Well, it is not exactly breaking news at this point, but the Marathon World Best was completely obliterated by Kenyans Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop in what for me was a surreal moment. With the stock markets open and churning with regular frantic intensity, I dutifully spent the day at work trying to casually and not blatantly follow my favorite local holiday. Nearing the end of the race, I wandered in to see my coworkers gathering in a coworker's office to watch the marathon race unfold. In a brain fart of colossal proportions, I narrowly missed the women's finish including American Desiree Davila's spellbinding last mile. I did not, however, miss the last three minutes that I thought would surely be at least five.

After all, the announcers had to be wrong when they said there was only a minute or two away from the finish and something like 600 yards left. The clock had barely just passed 2 hours on the screen; surely they were a smudge under a half dozen minutes away at best. For this race course was the historic Boston layout. One that was defiantly slow in its own right with a quad-busting course that defied the new convention of super-fast drag races held in Rotterdam, Berlin, Chicago and London. As if to make it even more of a point of pride of the course's challenges and the literal uphill battle one would need to fight to run a fast time, the course organizers assigned no pacemakers and left the protagonists to take the pace on their own. Boston had always been 100% race and 0% time trial. Winning was the only order of business. Fittingly, the course was technically not eligible for a world record with its straight line trajectory and net downhill elevation change.

Until Monday, I thought that was a characteristic that was of complete irrelevance. It was about as pertinent as the Franklin Park Cross Country course not being eligible for a track 5,000 meter World Record. After all, Boston was typically won in 2 hours and 8 minutes, which was positively light years away from the world record. Of course, what followed on Monday was the perfect storm of factors. A decent early pace led by free-running American Ryan Hall, a two-man battle of men on par with the best credentialed men the race had ever seen pushing each other to the end, and of course a relentless tailwind urging the field along in a way that is only possible on a race like Boston's.

The results are stunning. A 2:03:02 clocking that shattered Haile Gebresalassie's world record mark by a staggering 57 seconds. The debut record and American record were broken with similar laughable ease. But, what does it mean? How do we account for the wind, the course, the pace, and the splits?

One of the earliest places to take a stab at this was the fine writers at -The Science of Sports Blog. I encourage you to read Ross Tucker's take on the performance. He takes scientific approaches using some calculations on the physical effect of the wind, as well as some statistical analyses of prior years. My own take is different, as I'd say I am more bullish on this performance than many, who have been somewhat dismissive because of the wind. Here's why:

1) The Pace and the the Course

The men hit the halfway mark in what on any other day would typically be considered a staggering 1:01:58. Staggering because the course has the bulk of its most iconic hills in the latter miles of the grueling course. History has shown that irrational exuberance on the early downhill section of the course has mostly led to disastrous results. Most first halves of the marathons have been characterized by the alpha dogs wisely conserving for a series of major moves on the hills. So, 1:01:58 sure seems fast. However, as Dr. Tucker so presciently noted, given the conditions this year it actually was relatively conservative. So, you'd probably assume this is indeed a negative for seriously considering this a super-fast performance, all things being equal.

However, I would disagree with you there. In fact, I think Boston's layout makes a conservative and smart first half desirable for an optimum time. A key case of this would be last year's previous course record effort of Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot as compared to the effort of the record prior to that by countryman (but not relative) Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot. See the table below charting their splits.

Kiprono (2010) Kipkoech (2006) Kiprono’s +/-
5 Kilometers 14:53 15:23 -0:30
5 Miles 24:16 24:20 -0:04
10 Kilometers 30:08 30:07 +0:01
15 Kilometers 44:58 44:51 +0:07
10 Miles 48:08 48:07 +0:01
20 Kilometers 1:00:12 59:43 +0:29
1/2 Marathon 1:03:27 1:02:55 +0:32
15 Miles 1:12:32 1:12:03 +0:29
25 Kilometers 1:14:58 1:14:36 +0:22
30 Kilometers 1:29:58 1:29:31 +0:27
20 Miles 1:36:27 1:36:17 +0:10
35 Kilometers 1:44:47 1:44:47 0:00
40 Kilometers 1:59:21 2:00:01 -0:40
25 Miles 2:00:06 2:00:49 -0:43
Finish 2:05:52 2:07:14 -1:22

As you can see from this table, Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot made up two minutes on the previous record in roughly 7 miles. An astounding amount of his margin was made in the finishing stages of the race. This has a lot to do with the way the two Cheruiyots marshaled their efforts. The 2006 record-holder ran out of gas when athletes can make time- the downhill section that follows the Heartbreak Hills. In this year's race, the reasonable, but not dawdling, pace set by Ryan Hall set up Mutai and Mosop to tear up the hills and still have lots left in the tank for an extremely fast finish. Instead of slowing and then feeling the after-effects of the hills, Mutai capitalized fully on the course's downhill finishing profile and the supporting tailwind. His 28:22 10,000 meter split from 30K to 40K is incredible and would not be possible without a reasonably guarded first half. It's a credit to Hall that he unabashedly ran what on a windless day would be suicidal splits.

One more thing is that extremely fast marathons in the 2:04 range need not have perfect splits any more. The athletes have gotten that good. Take Emmanuel Mutai's 2:04:40 run in London (again no relation). His effort included a similar negative split and seesaws in pace that included a sub 28:50 10,000 meter split, and two above 15 minute 5,000 meter splits. Even though Mutai had a striking 28:22 10,000 meter split amongst a sparkling negative second half split, that doesn't preclude me from extrapolating a blazing time on a windless course.

2) The Caliber of the Athletes Themselves

I believe Geoffrey Mutai is the best athlete to ever run Boston. Not only that, he is in the best form of his career. To whit, Mutai won Kenyan nationals over a slew of sub 27 minute 10,000 meter runners on the track/road and sub 1 hour half marathoners. How much did he win by? A mind-boggling 45 seconds. A coach and advisor of many Kenyans one Renato Canova, who I would trust to know these things, had this to say at the time: "At the moment, there is an athlete clearly stronger than any other in the World, and [that] is Geoffrey Mutai." Mutai also touts two sub hour victories in the half marathon, and a pair of stellar marathons last year- 2:04:55 and 2:05:10 efforts.

The runner up was Moses Mosop, a debutante but no stranger to either fast times or the roads. Mosop touts personal bests of 12:54 for 5,000, 26:49 for 10,000, as well as 59:20 on the roads for the half marathon. His honors include silver at the World Cross Country Championships and a bronze at the World Championships.

These exceptional credentials for two marathon athletes bring me to a broader point I've made in a post before. The best distance runners in the world are moving to the roads as the financial incentives have never been greater. Mutai is a competent enough track runner to finish second at Kenyan Nationals last year in a wild time of 27:25 at altitude, and he obviously excels in cross country, too. Yet, in the prime of his career he puts the most emphasis into his marathon racing. Mosop, meanwhile, has exceptional marks on the track and finishes in cross country, but has joined the fray early in his career. Simply put, the rewriting of the record books for the marathon and half marathon is ongoing and inexorable. We should expect records of all kinds from these athletes, as long as they eschew the track to chase times on the road.

3) The Battle between Two Men

One thing that I think is undoubtedly true in any race, is that having a competitor to push an athlete along at the end can make a mighty difference. Putting a time value on this is very difficult. Psychologically, a marathon is draining and demoralizing. Having that guy on the shoulder to extract every last bit of energy out of you has to be a plus. Ross estimated it at 20-30 seconds over 10 KM in our discussion in the comments section of his article. I'd say that's reasonable. Now, it's worth noting that this sort of situation is pretty uncommon in the marathon. Not to say all fast marathons are blowouts, but it does take something out-of-the-ordinary to have two very high-caliber athletes feeling and performing at their top performance level on the same day. The highest profile and fastest example of this in the past was the battle between Duncan Kibet and James Kwambai in the 2009 Rotterdam Marathon. The finish saw the two battling back and forth with Kibet prevailing in an astonishing time of 2:04:27 that was awarded to both men. The next best time either man has is Kwambai's 2:05:36 in Berlin.

Conclusion: Wind notwithstanding, I believe the 2011 Boston race had all the variables lined up for a sensational time and performance. I haven't even mentioned the temperature, which was near-perfect. Now, for the fun part which is making completely speculative guesses about what the performance is worth.
On Boston (windless, same otherwise): ~2:05:30 for Mutai, ~2:07:30 for Hall
On Rotterdam/Berlin: ~2:04:00 for Mutai, ~2:06:00 for Hall

This was my final comment in Ross's and my discussion as far as the big picture, and the possibilities for Berlin this year:

"As for Berlin, I could amazingly see a 2:03:30, but again Mutai had so many things in his favor at Boston that just don't happen at every marathon. The athlete will need a solid pace that doesn't lag, a companion to push through the latter stages, good weather conditions, and his best day to achieve it. I think this is what remarkably happened for Mutai at Boston, and the performance would have stood up in time without wind(a 2:05:30 at Boston with no wind would be mind boggling)."

Anyhow, I think that sums up my thoughts on a remarkable performance and a mind-blowing time. Feel free to chime in, and if you ran this year's marathon or know someone who did, even better.

NCAA Mid-Distance & Distance: Best of the Rest

Now for the non-Hasay portion of an exciting national meet for the 800 meters and up. Let's start with the athlete on the left, who prior to this year was a little-known runner from a school that was not exactly considered a middle-distance powerhouse. That school, BYU, remarkably left these championships with as many mid-distance titles (3) as everyone else combined.

Miles Batty Double Champion

Miles Batty came into this year's indoor season with a ho-hum 1500m PR of 3:44 and zero NCAA Track and Field nationals appearances. His was a fairly nondescript resume for someone who hoped to hit the NCAA provisional marks, let alone make noise at the national meet. Batty had had an extremely solid 2010 cross country season, however, with top finishes at the Roy Griak invitational (3'rd) and Pre-Nationals (5'th). His season culminated with a superb 15'th place finish at Nationals.

Jordan Hasay's Outstanding Weekend

High school phenoms on the women's side do not have a particularly glorious history in the NCAA ranks. One of those obligatory letsrun posts that emerged every time someone speculated how good Jordan would be in college (when she was running great times in high school), or later how her chances were for a title (based on some of the marks that she ran in college) was that Foot Locker Girls champions simply did not replicate their success at the NCAA level. I won't profess to be a physiology expert here, but obviously there could be something going on with girls' maturity and changes to their bodies. Whatever it is, there was a fair amount of cynicism that Jordan could not take the next step in her running and become a college star.

Another rub on Jordan, which had followed her since her high school days was that she did not have finishing speed and was better-suited to time trials than to races. Although she ran some fantastic times in high school, she did have a few losses in the late stages of races that led to some speculation that she could be beaten once she faced athletes of a similar caliber.

Lessons from the BCS?

As people who read this blog or have talked to me about it well know, I'm all for livening up track and field with some new ideas. So, when NCAA coaches start hashing out ways to improve nationals and make it replicate the best aspects of the conference meets that precede it, I'm all ears. Arkansas' coach Chris Bucknam's proposal, however, is just a terrible, misguided idea. Texas A&M coach Pat Henry's 8 team meet proposal is even worse.

First of all, attempting to make a sport more "fan-friendly" and popular by replicating the BCS is about as logical as trying to dry off with a fire hose. Fans universally hate the BCS as evidenced by the piece of artwork I've displayed here and the wide popularity of books like "Death to the BCS". Everyone hates a system that may exclude the best based on arbitrary, elitist arrangements. Universally, there is a belief that the best athletes on merit should be a part of the championship meet.