paula radcliffe has won and set world records leading from the front
paula radcliffe has won and set world records leading from the front
You aren't going to lose very many races running a consistent 12:50 so run it however the hell you like.
Frontrunning is definitely more bad ass, but also a less successful strategy overall if you're running against people of similar calibre. Again, at 12:50 that wouldn't be very often.
javi wrote:
paula radcliffe has won and set world records leading from the front
Like in Sydney and Athens? For an athlete who should be dominating her opposition, she has precious little Championship hardware to show for it.
soler wrote:
In response to original question: several of my college teammates and I used to discuss the very same question. Most of us were strength guys who had little in the way of a finishing kick. We all thought it was the most honorable to run from/near the front. It worked fairly well for most of us. We had several all-conference performances and even a multiple-time conference champ who employed the run-away-from-the-pack tactic. However, our only national qualifier on the track was a kicker. He was super-talented, but not exactly a dedicated runner. His brutal last lap in a steeplechase got him to nationals after he let another guy lead the first 6.5 laps. Our classic frontrunner was a high-mileage guy who made it to nationals twice in cross because he just ran his guts out to beat theoretically more talented runners. Because of my associations with strength/mileage being equated to good attitudes/work ethic, I've always had an affinity for the frontrunner. Also, it seems like the American attitude. It's almost embedded in our national consciousness. Americans like the idea of the person who works hard and "pulls himself up by the bootstraps." My impressions of English/European attitudes are that they value tact, planning, and intelligence. This may play into people's decisions about which type of runner they would rather be.
Good examples: look at Fire on the Track and Born to Run to see the varying attitudes/methods as exhibited by Pre and Coe.
Excellent post... thank you.
dont care wrote:
If the result is the same, I would not care. Why would anyone. Worrying about how you look? I have better things to do in my life than empty posturing.
Thanks for the response...
The original reason for this thread was that it seems to me that more "value" is placed on runing from the front -- running "honestly." I just wanted to see what other opinions were.
Grimlock wrote:
More honorable to run from the front?? ha! That is only believed by those who consistently try to win races leading from the front and then lose to a kicker. A race is meant to be won - there is no honor code.
Of course, the bottom line is to WIN, and how you do it doesn't really matter in the end (short of cheating).
Maybe I should have made the thread "Would you rather win a race leading from the gun (a la Pre) or from the pack (Dave Wottle, 1972 Olympics)?"
bump
I'd much rather kick, it's way more badass to burn the last lap leaving everyone surprised and in the dust at least 30 metres back.
highschool runne wrote:
I'd much rather kick, it's way more badass to burn the last lap leaving everyone surprised and in the dust at least 30 metres back.
I agree --perhaps it's not "honest" but I'd rather have the announcer yelling, "Look at that kick!"
Besides, that's my strength so I'm prejudiced. I like to worry 'em for 90% of the race knowing that I'm lurking back there, ready to pounce when the moment comes.
frontrunner all the way!
No preference, I'm not that vain or irrational.