Mid distance front running why is everyone so afraid??....

The comments being returned are excellent.I thoroughly agree on the energy saved principle and favoured sitting in the pack as opposed to leading when racing myself.

However as the thread's focus was on hard front running or 'taking it out' , until J Johnson recently everyone seemed afraid to go out.(note referring to US runners on this point..not Lekote et al)

Yes,there is a disadavantage if you are 'leading',but if everyone is in tow...then all will benefit from a fast pace...NOT to mention be READY for Europe.

The general consensus on here seems to suggest US runners should sit back and conserve energy."Don't go out too hard buddy..you might blowup"...Why??

I'll theorise here...if 2 guys go out hard..is that ok??they can work together and share the pacing??

Ok..Everett/Parilla were sitters and could run down the field...and lets NOT forget Kenah...so I guess thats the basis for the new style of running.

Once again I state..I'm from the 80's...maybe I'm ole fashioned but I like the pace fast even if I'm not up front...I'm going with the pack...But I guess back then I had no choice...follow or get left.I had to deal with Cruz,Jones,Marshall,Koech,Wuyke,Redwine...Wuycke a sitter who could windup like crazy....guy could kick...all the rest loved to push it hard...most of those guys ran 1;43...

I love to see great races...and I like everyone on here loves fast times...I see J Johnson bringing those fast times back by carrying Burley,Sylvester et al to the places Mack,Gray,Everett et al went...

Yes,there is a disadavantage if you are 'leading',but if everyone is in tow...then all will benefit from a fast pace...NOT to mention be READY for Europe.

The general consensus on here seems to suggest US runners should sit back and conserve energy."Don't go out too hard buddy..you might blowup"...Why??

------------------------------------------------------------

Runswizzle, Not everyone benefits. Just those in tow. The guy leading 'usually' fades to 4th or worse. While the others go to worlds, olympics, Europe, etc., the leader goes to the pool all summer. 'Usually' I said. There are exceptions, but few in an even field. Don't you think blowing up with so much on the line should be a concern? Now if one is comfortable frontrunning and it is a Maine race or Stanford, etc. with nothing on the line, by all means try something new if the urge hits. Do you suggest that a semifinal heat in the olympics is a place to "Go out hard & possibly blow-up"? Of course not. Just like a national championship, it qualifies for something bigger and better. Any race qualifying for another level is no place to lead for the vast majority of runners.

In life we ALL HAVE TO MAKE CHOICES...

In Mid Distance Running..here are the choices

1)Be the Leader command respect..set the pace...break the backs of the opposition...take it out..take it to them..

2)Follow the Leader..be a DISCIPLE ..get in good position in the run for home...BE READY TO KICK..watchout for boxes...don't trip...be ready to cover any pace..

now whilst I'm NOT familiar with the Maine Classic or Stanford Invites beyond what I read...I do know however that Regina$$$ does well as does Deena...Both those meets meet the needs of the runners that attend...If it's considered a 'lesser' meet to some I guess they can experiment...said 2 above seem to like those meets.

On the BIG STAGE... however ..what's a runner to do in the SEMIS...Olympics or World's??

I'm sure athlete and Coach sit and discuss the merits of the competitors and the formula for advancing in the competition.

Here recently we've seen the NEW FORMAT...of Semis at BIG MEETS ie Olympics ...in the 800...It has moved from 2 SEMIS and the top 4 advancing to 3 semis with the TOP 2 advancing and the last spots being the 2 fastest times.

IT HAS DEFINETLY FORCED ATHLETES to rethink their strategies...It has kept everyone honest and away from the looking around shutting it down on the homestraight style which was so common.

Yes,there is concern about leading or being upfront in the MAJORS..but the Athlete has to weigh the odds.It's a viscous cycle at the top ...everyone has a kick..and everyone feels their kick is the BEST....!!!

Johnathan Johnson is going to be great with his ability to lead a race and set a fast pace. He will go sub 1:45 this year. And then for the olympics he will be ready to run a 1:43.

16x wrote:

leading consumes 3% more energy.

i forget where but i once heard that leading consumes 11% more energy

in a race, time is secondary to place... now THAT'S old school...

I'd be happy to know the exact amount %??There seems to be some disparity in those numbers 3% is vastly different from 11%... Evidently lots of research is being done on the 'brash'style...in pursuit of happiness we go..!!!

Your 'point' is well taken,although as discussed,one must be aware that advancing in the rounds of races can come down to fast times.Why NOT just run fast to begin with...make it to the next round definitively rather than hope and pray you're in the top 2 or 3 coming down the stretch...in the mad dash for home.Looks like Robison stayed upfront last week in the 1500 Final..covering the moves and NOT stayin in the thick traffic where accidents(see NCAA Willis)can happen.

One must be very astute in mid distance running.Yes place is the key...but you have to make plans to run fast..or at least BE READY TO...

I have debated with some very prominent athletes and officals as to WHY Steve Holman NEVER took it out when he was seemingly struggling to qualify for BIG Championships.Holman would arrive at the start of the BIG TRIALS...and fall into line...and get dropped in the run for 'roses'...always amazed me.1;44 speed and they closed on him like houses on fire...Go to Europe ,he'd run like a CHAMP...I KNOW HE FOLLOWED THE PACE..BUT could he have not pushed the pace and run 3;34/3;35..well off his BEST..and make the top 3.I CAN'T IMAGINE 3 GUYS then going 3;35 at those TRIALS....just food for thought.

But remember Dave Wottle's 800 meter olympic gold medal which came from unleasing a monster kick in the final stretch of the race......

Wottle did not finish with a monster kick. All of his 200 splits were nearly identical, including his last 200. Everyone just died.

Noakes covers this in his book. At middle distance pace (67s/lap) he quotes that the energy used in overcoming air is about 8%, this should increase as the speed increases which is probably where the 11% figure comes from. If you draft really close (1m) you can save about 80% of that, however that was felt to be impractical and that about 1s/lap was more likely which is around the 3% value. The value quoted for wr mile pace is about 1.67s/lap at 2m which should be appropriate for 800m, so if you trail for 600m should save the equivalent of 2.5 sec in the race.

All of these numbers are ridiculous. It impiles that Johnny Gray would have run 3:40 or under with a good rabbit since he ran 1:42.80 going right to the front at the '92 Trials.

In the Coe book, Sebastian comments that he came to the conclusion that it was not physically impossible to maintain top speed and even splits in the 800. He implies that it's a wierd distance between sprint and distance. He decided that he would get his best times with a positive split, albeit a slight one. So in each of his world record attempts he looked to go out in 50, and then hold on for dear life in the second lap. Massive positive splits might make for exciting racing, and the occasional surprise win, but it will never make for world beating times.

I'm sure that you meant to say "under 1:40", and I have to agree with you in disagreeing with those who blithely assign 1, 2, 3 seconds per lap for following over leading. That is plain silly (unless we're talking about into heavy headwinds). The chief advantages in following is the slightly reduced wind resistance, the increased ability to relax while someone else is setting tempo, and the edge implicit in being able to suddenly jump someone from behind.

If runner A is 1 second per lap faster than runner B, leading by itself will not cause a loss. If runner A is only .5 seconds per lap faster than runner B, then leading will make the race quite close. If runner A is about the same as runner B, then leading will probably cost runner A the race.

Wow, all these top researchers are wasting their time doing their wind-tunnel experiments etc. all they had to do was ask Math Man! All he needed was a rabbit to take him through in 49 and stick to his tail in a trials! Gray never had the patience to run with a rabbit, had he done so he would have run faster. In all the European races when Coe and Ovett were setting records they used rabbits. Note that when they ran championships they ran 'sit and kick' because that's how you win races! Even they made mistakes, Coe getting boxed in the O final being a case in point.

there are certainly trade offs to leading or not. My thought has always been that what you lose on the energy side, you could make up in the actual distance run (unless you are on the rail the entire time) and in less abrupt changes of pace (which is also quite costly energy wise). If you are going to front run then you have to be committed to going wire to wire. You also have to be prepared to not crumble if someone else does take the lead. I don't think Earl Jones was fully ready to lead in the final at LA and when Cruz did get to the front it seemed to take a bit of the starch out of Earl which allowed Coe to get by him before the line. A guy like Kipketer seemed to be able to lead or follow and the most effective RACERS aren't married to one tactic and are confident and comfortable choosing either route. I tell my athletes that if they are leading to relax and run WITH the rest of the front pack so that they can have an answer in the last 150 if need be.

I'm from south carolina and Otukile Lekote pretty much makes Lekote's own decisions. When his coach would rather him run 7, Lekote will usually make his own decision. Plus he runs about 5 days a week at that.

In response to the Dave Wohttle response of him having a big kick isn't all that true. He just ran on pace. Ran all his 200m splits at 26 point. So he wasn't reeling them in as they were just coming back to him.

Slight complicating factor with Wottle's Olympic win was he had the flu most of the week, during all the heats and finals. He was running back of the pack strategy to conserve every last ounce of energy and because it was taking him longer time to get rolling and grooving when feeling down like that. He ended up running even pace due to those extenuating circumstances, but it's debatable that he might have been a bit faster overall with a faster first 200/400 had he been healthy with a full head of steam.

Exercise physiologists say the first 200/250 meters or whatever you are going to burn a certain amount of energy just getting up to speed because of the way the body's energy systems fire up right at first regardless of pace. Unless in Wottle's position of being sick and out of whack where you can't get rolling well at first, from energy systems standpoint physiologically it' better to run slightly faster first 200/250m. Aside from problems with the bunched packs in 800s leading some to start faster than they might like, that's the underlying physiological reason why very fast 800m and WRs are usually run positive splits.

By the way, the above is also why top-flight 400m races and WRs are virtually always positive splits as well.

I find it interesting that everyone thinks that Johnathan Johnson is so great because he had the guts to go from the gun at US Nationals. When Trinity Gray used to do the same everyone talked about how crazy he was. If what i heard is true and Trinity Gray is moving to train in Arizona under Cruz's coach De Olveira, the 800m is going to get pretty interesting. Can anyone confirm this rumor?

What happened to Trinity Gray anyways? After getting sick last year he doesn't seem to have run like he used too. I haven't seen Gray set a good pace in a race since running 51.5 indoor to run 1:46.12.