Why Run a Slow Tactical Race If You Can Run Faster?

To win.

If you far and away the fastest sprinter in the field, why not let the pace dawdle?

http://youtu.be/SlBw0jKFd9Q

because often you are not the fastest person in the field...

If you are not the fastest person in the field then going out and leading is just going to allow all the others to go past you later on.

It completely defeats the purpose if everyone just runs their own race. If you didnt have the fastest PR why enter? you're not going to win.

Gads wrote:

...

It completely defeats the purpose if everyone just runs their own race. If you didnt have the fastest PR why enter? you're not going to win.

Ah, not true, and this is the meat of my question. If you have a PR of 13:20, and several others in the race have faster PRs but are "tactically" running a slow 13:40 pace in a pack, then your 13:20 WILL WIN.

Again, it seems to me a person's best chance of winning is simply to run his/her fastest time in the manner he/she deems optimal. You can't do any better than that.

Obviously, if someone runs faster than your best, then they will win. But if your competitors are dawdling and going slower than your best, why concern yourself with them?

If your fastest time is 13:20, and the question were asked "which time would you like to run this race, in order to have your best shot at winning, 13:20, 13:30, or 13:40, I'm guessing that your answer would be 13:20. Last time I checked, 13:20 gets you over the finish line sooner than 13:40, whether you are all alone, in a small group, or in a pack.

Doesn't running in lane 2 or constantly jockeying for position during a dawdling race also cost 1 second per lap? It would seem so.

Also, laying off sometimes backfires for kickers. I think some rely on it too much - "Sure the leader is 30 meters ahead, but my Magical Kick(tm) will save me!"

Another question: Which is worse - Pulling a Glen Randall(GR), or realizing in dismay that your Magical Kick(tm) only got you as far as fourth place in the trials/Olympics?

watchout wrote:

you are really hurting your credibility when you keep suggesting Alan Webb is a good example of good racing tactics...

He hurt his credibility even more when he wrote "lol" in a post. Only tenagers do that.

10 out of 10...

DRAFTING.

I can't run a pr if I am leading a race. (Unless I just had a huge breakthough)

However I get get pulled to a pr.

If you're the fastest wire-wire person and Manzano-types are in the field, then you're a fool to allow a 3:40 pace. And I didn't see Hall run away from the field when leading the 2005 USATF's. The better Broe was even in th field. But Hall made it HIS kind of race. If he'd followed a 13:40 pace- THEN he prob. misses the world team.

Webb, Gabe, Hall (multimes), Ritz, BK (mult times), T.Williams (mult times), Winner 2012 women's SC, Joan Benoit for Gold have successfully led in championship races, and that's the point of the thread. Therefore, it is proven to work often.

The Quenton Cassidamius wrote:

There are not many people good enough to run away from the field so most of the time people are content to wait it out until the end to see if they get lucky.

See, this post proves EXACTLY how dumb it is for the SLOWER runner to go for anything less than PR pace (assuming good conditions blahblahblah).

People not capable of running away are better off running with the better runners and hoping to "get lucky"? News flash: better runners have better kicks BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER RUNNERS.

Hypothetical championship final. PRs:

Runner A 12:40. Runner B 12:45. Runner C 12:50. Runner D 12:55.

Why the f#ck does runner D always seem to think his best chance is to run in a pack with A-C and hope to "get lucky"? NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Best shot is to run for a 12:50 - he might beat one of A-C straight up if they're having a bad day, or especially if they let him go.

EVER HEARD OF MARILSON GOMES DOS SANTOS????

But why would the faster guys continue to run at 13:40 pace when someone tries to break away hitting a consistent 13:20 pace? That isn't running a tactical race, that is just bad racing.

What would actually (probably) happen in that scenario, is the entire lead pack of sub-13:20 guys would follow alongside the leader until they feel they are ready to drop the hammer, at which point the winner will be the one with the best kick and the most still left in the tank (the latter probably being the one who took it the easiest up to that point, hence not trying to lead).

By letting the race bunch up (not taking it out at a fast pace), the race becomes more "up in the air"... more people are capable of winning. For someone that goes to the front and runs their PR pace, they probably won't have as much left in the tank when the faster guys that have been racing relaxed right off their shoulder are ready to start their kicks. That is going to put the (former) leader at a notable disadvantage, unless he had always underperformed before.

Knowing when to lead and when to follow is an important part of learning how to race. I do agree with some of your guys' points, it isn't always best to follow and often runners don't take the lead when they should (I think there are far too many times when athletes let that happen, and are just content to sit in the pack and wait for someone else to make their move). And if your goal isn't to win the race, but instead run a PR, you'll have to be even more willing to take the lead if the pace is too slow. The thing is, athletes and their coaches don't always realize when it is the right time to take the lead and make their move -- they don't realize how good the rest of the field is from x meters out, or how much the other runners will have left in the tank at that point, or how willing they are to cover your move when you're ready to make it.

For most athletes, there are times when you should try to PR and times when you should try to win. For the lucky ones, often both trying to PR and trying to win is going to require the same tactic (if you PR, you should win). But for the others... leading isn't always the best tactic if you want to win.

If in previous races, a runner ran a sit and kick strategy and each time the results were similiar in that he/she would get blown out in the final 400, 300, 200 or 100, then it would be reasonable to assume that he/she needs a different strategy....i.e.has a poor kick. If a runner keeps running the same strategy, and the runner is met with the same dissapointing results, then shame on that runner. With that said, however, to develop a new strategy, the runner needs to train for such. That is, he/she needs to train to be able to run a constant pace. It may be that the other runners will still sit and out kick the runner, but there may be some runners that get dropped and at the very least still qualify for advancement. Bottom line is to determine which strategy will work for you based on your strengths and possibly your opponents' weaknesses. Once that is determined, then train for such so that you are the best at that strategy whether it be a constant pace, a sit and kick or even mid-race surges. Training, training, and training

When you run enough races an watch enough races, you understand why people do not just go out and run their fastest pace when racing to win.

It takes more energy to lead than to follow.

When the field has equal abilities, you cannot lead the whole way and get away.

The examples of people leading and winning are cases of runners that are clearly better than the field, at least on that day.

If a person with a lesser PR leads at his PR pace, the others will simply follow closely and eat him up. They are not likely to hang back at a much slower pace if there is a juicy rabbit up front.

Though some times a slower person has broken away and ignored by the rest and wound up stealing the race. Pretty rare.

Hard to find many or any examples of a mediocre runner just going at their best pace and holding on to win.

All of the examples by ttc were races where the field could not keep up.

If you are the median or lesser runner of the field they will keep up a d beat you.

In college & post-college, I always looked at the entry times of my competitors. If mine was best, I'd jump into the lead & go wire-wire for the win. Have *never* lost such a race having the best entry time. If I didn't have the best entry time, then I'd jump at the lead, toning down the pace to have a big last lap. This almost always worked, if the field was not too much better than my pr. If they were, then they'd control the race to a pace I couldn't handle. In the former 2 scenarios, it was always comforting that the field would always let me lead a pace to my liking. Won many races this way. Just saying, because you mention your races as helping you understand this. I've used my races this way and overachieved.

To the OP's point of why wouldn't a 12:55 5000m runner not just go out in 12:55 pace, the answer is he can't do that without help.

Anyone that has ever run 12:55 or better has had someone else leading the way in the early parts of the race.

Bekele did a good job of leading in 2008 and set an Olympic record of 12:57 but that was still 20 seconds slower than his PR.

I would like to see more of the top athletes try front-running once in a while, though.

They just don't ever do it. I think they would learn more about their abilities if they took that risk now and then during the season.

I don't think they should try this in a championship race as they will likely be used by the other equal competitors.

One thing good about Alan Webb is he was willing to take those risks and he pushed himself to get better and eventually get that mile record. He may have eventually done well in a mjaor championship if he could have kept it together.

But no one else runs like that and it is a shame.

Your competitors will react to you. I know, crazy concept, right?

So those guys who otherwise would have passed 4600 at 12:05 and blasted a 52 second last lap to lose to you in 12:57 (while you ran a steady pace 12:55) will actually be riding your butt through 11.5 laps which they will pass in 11:54 (right behind your 11:53). Then they'll blast a 57 last lap to finish in 12:51.

Of course, you will have the pleasure of knowing that you helped three of them PR while you come in a glorious 6th place.

remember that one time when that one guy from morocco had a slower pr than that guy from ethiopia and he ended up outkicking him little feller?

Any thoughts about how multiple rounds play into this discussion?