Let me clarify and then end with a question for you.
I don't really care about times and think meets like this are interesting. When the heps 1,500 went out in about 240 one year, I yelled to my guys 600 meters in, "Too fast, too fast." The looked over and gave me a chuckle.
I totally understand it - meanwhile every other men's coach was freaking out and irate it was so slow.
I do think it would be hilarious if the women's times were faster as all of the time obsessed and title ix people would love it.
But i also am often thinking of "what about the sport?" and so my idea of having a minimum time standard or performance standard is worth at least contemplating. I guess it's probably not a good idea but i just hate seeing conferences that don't care about certain events still score them. SPrint dominated conferences will have men score at like 15:45. GIve me a break.
my latest thought is have a guy pull out of a hat a number twice in the first 4 miles of a 10k a number and whatever that number is you must run that lap in that pace or you are pulled off the track. But we'll leave that for another day. I also love Donn cabral's idea of changing the order of the DMR as i've always said the DMR is a stupid event.
now let me end with a question.
Can you tell me what as a coach I can possibly due in the 24 hours before conference starts to insure that my guys run well (and i'm not going to shoot them up with thyroid, steroid, epo, or allergy stuff)? A team meeting takes what 20 minutes. I can do that and meet with every kid in my group in two hours.
So after that, i slaved away for hours to provide you with your running news. And what do i get in return? Anger.
I wasn't ripping on the Big East guys too much - just a little. All I know is the Heps 10k this afternoon isn't going to be nearly as hot - 70s - but if one of my guys has the lead before the finish - well lets say mile 4 - i'm going to be irate.
I don't know man, that sounds pretty harsh
|over reaction ?|
@ Pink Black
There is a difference between a slow race and a flat out waste of time. That race is embarassing. 15:15-15:30 is a slow, tactical opening 5k. 18:06 is "I am afraid to hurt".
I completely agree. Watching all those great athletes jog the first 4 miles was eye burning and damn pathetic. EVERYONE was seemed so afraid to take command. They turned it into a 2 mile race (barely), which was stupid. At that point I was hoping they were going to run slower than the girls so we could give them more sh!t about, unfortunately that didn't happen
Why are people so concerned with time? You race to win. There is probably no one in this race that would trade the win for a PR.
I always find it odd that people act like tactical races mean people didn't try. Have you ever been in a tactical race? It feels like a tempo run that all of a sudden turns into an 800. The 800 is awful, especially after 5.5 miles of tempo. My legs always felt awful after tactical races.
The only people you should be upset with are people that have 0 speed. But kicking in a tactical race isn't 100% about the fastest food speed. I've lost to people with slower 400 times and slower 10k prs than me and on the flipside i've beaten people who were better at both.
A few comments.
1) What was the mile 4, mile 5 and maybe 9200 splits?
I really want to know how this played out.
2) I really wish the women's 10k had been after the men's and the women had seen this time and gone for it to embarrass the men.
3) Anyone think they out to have some standard of "Hey if you don't run a certain time, the points come off the board."[/quote]
If the primary objective of the race was to add points to the various teams' scores, it boggles my mind that the coaches of at least half the guys in that race weren't demanding that they pick up the pace after a few laps. A lot of those guys were going to have slim to zero chance of scoring in a really slow race that came down to the final few laps. So what were the coaches thinking and doing during the race? BTW, I'm in my 50s and could have been sitting in the pack at 5K feeling fairly comfortable at that pace, which should embarrass someone (and I went to a Div. III school and never even broke 33:00!).
essentially everybody that was supposed to score did, who cares about time, its all about racing, people on this forum always complain about people who just race for time, but now they're bashing a tactical race that ran the last two miles fast and for place as opposed to trying to run a certain time from the gun, if any of us were in the race, i doubt we wouldve surged early, probably would have sat in the pack and waited like everybody else did
|Big East Observer|
It was pretty darn slow. Here were the splits for the leaders:
86 (6:02 mile)
84 (5:39 mile, 11:42 total)
84 (5:40 mile, 16:00 total)
81 (18:06 5k split)
76 (5:19 mile)
71 (4:42 mile)
65 (4:37 mile)
56.xx last lap
TC Lumbar was a good runner, but he never broke 15 in high school. Minnesota has too many "real" cross country courses to do it. But he was a 9:12ish two-miler on the track, that's for sure.
Also this race is pathetic. I don't care how hot or miserable it is, 33min for these athletes? They probably do six minute miles on their TRAINING RUNS in this kind of weather. What a joke.[/quote]
Last I looked this was a race, not a beauty pageant; the gives points for places not times. Furthermore, some might want to double back for the 5000. Think of it this way: your coach tells you what the objective is -- what would you have done? Run fast (they ran hard, but not at evrn effort) here and not only do they not do well in the 5000, but ruin Regionals as well.
I suspect none of the people pushing this point of view are coaches of any regard (probably also not female).
You guys are still missing the point. 18:06 is not a tempo run. It is a waste of 18:06. Don't you get that? Also, quit this "oh but the last two miles was fast" bs. 9:03 is not fast off that pace, sorry. Neither is 2:01
In my conference we had what was termed the "honest effort" clause. Basically, if were signed up for multiple events, you had to give what conference officials deemed an honest effort or you would be scratched from your events later in the meet. So you couldn't jog the 400m to get to the 200m fresh (assuming you weren't scratched from an event before the meet started). If you were entered in the 5k, mile and 3k (the races went in that order) you couldn't decide halfway through you didn't like the pace and jog the rest home. You would be removed from your other races. The exception is obviously if you got hurt and didn't finish one race you could try to gut it out later in the meet.
I realize it may have been hot out but 18:06 for an opening 5k is pathetic and definitely not indicative of an "honest effort". I object to everybody claiming this is "racing" because the majority of the event was not even close to a race effort. In college, our team did a 6 mile tempo on trails in 80+ degree weather and I ran faster than 33:06 pace.
|I do run run run|
Reminds me of the GOODWILL GAMES 5K in 2001, where there were multiple sub 13 guys in the race yet it was won by Paul Bitok on 15:26.
All while the women's race was won in 15:12 by Olga Yegorova. Make sense of that! :)
Olga Yegorova (RUS) 15:12.22
Berhane Adere (ETH) 15:12.97
Kathy Butler (GBR) 15:17.96
Paul Bitok (KEN) 15:26.10
Luke Kipkosgei (KEN) 15:26.61
John Kibowen (KEN) 15:26.63
I never said anyone should have been aiming for a particular finish time. My complaint, which I thought I stated clearly, is that there were guys in that race who had little or no chance of scoring points in a race that slow. So why didn't anyone get yelled at by a coach and start moving faster, sooner? Why weren't they "racing," which you say is what it's all about??!?
I don't think anyone is complaining about tactical races.
But the idea that a group of young, fit men would run a 95 second lap, in any weather or circumstances, is ludicrous. It's like a high school basketball team that tries to dribble out the clock with a 1-point lead and three minutes left. Sure, there's nothing technically wrong with it, and maybe it's a sound strategy. But it's hardly satisfying, for the athletes or the spectators.
|break it up|
So in a conference meet you have maybe 10 guys hoping to score points and a group of others. I don't get what goes through the minds of the 30:30-31:00 10k guys that let a damn college men's 10k going through in 18:06. Are they saving everything to get that one point? When its over what did they get of it?
You go into the race and know the top contenders and they are pretty much a lock. 30:30 guys are concerned with scoring points but the other slugs filling the field have to be going through 5000 at 18:06 easily. I can't believe they aren't thinking "this is a joke and at least we could keep this going at an honorable effort".
What else do they have for motivation? 18:06. You have to be kidding me. You train and work all year long for that?
So even by your own logic, this was a poor strategy for the 20 men in the field who didn't win.
The women's 10k, held before the men's, was won in 34:37. That's really all you need to know.