LEADING a race early - ANOTHER successful example

leaping lanny wrote:

Coach D wrote:

Runing from the front against Lagat is not likely to be a successful strategy.

Is running from behind against Lagat likely to be successful?

Pretty much no strategy will beat Lagat most of the time. But often now, racers lead wire-wire against top, very threatening competition and win. A big thing is: The leader controls how fast and the type of race it is. The leader can decide whether it's a 3:38 race or 3:45 one. Just like every racer shouldn't lead... every racer shouldn't follow either. Especially when the pace is to their detriment.

What's especially confusing is how a racer always needs their coach to devise a strategy (I don't agree with this)... and yet, they just follow the leader anyway.

arls wrote:

Isn't this book Ancient?

Or was it revised for modern times?

1964

Blowing Rock Master wrote:

flabbytabby wrote:

Maybe I missed this, but, isn't Rupp the complete opposite (but equally valid) proof point here?

Do you think Rupp used those tactics because he thought it was the best way to win, or because he had to race 20km in 3 days and he was trying to conserve energy?

Either way, point is: leading a race is not the only way to win. Ask Pre and anyone Rupp ran against this past weekend.

ttc wrote:

...you're a wimp.

the old "real men lead" concept....many threads on this...

This argument is stupid. The one who crosses the finish line first had the best strategy. If you call me a wimp/bitch for sitting, kicking and winning I would laugh at you.

I believe Rupp could have won those races employing any strategy he wanted. He was just better than everybody else--better endurance plus better speed=winner.

Some reasons to lead:

You're better than anyone else, so don't give 'em a chance

Control the pace/ensure you run "your" pace

Stay out of traffic (esp. in a steeple)

Element of surprise

Racing against shorter-distance specialist moving up

No faith in kick

No faith in condition, so try to "fake out" the field

You like to front-run

Some reasons not to lead:

Aerodynamics/physics

Faith in kick

Unsure about fitness

Conserve energy (already tired, saving for other races)

You're not better than many/any other competitors

Moving up/new to event -- "shorten" the distance

It's more than smart/dumb, brave/wuss, good/bad kick

When the belief is that a certain time will win the race and you are capable of running that time, it makes sense to make sure the race remains on pace to achieve that time. In spite of his kick the 30 meters of the NCAA 1500m, my understanding is that GF will not win 100m footrace to the finishline of a slow pace; perhaps if someone had opened up with a 55, GF probably would not have lead. Pre also lead most of his races because like GF, an honest pace gave him the best chance to win.

To those mentioning Pre as an example of how front running can fail, remember that in the Olympic 5k, he decided to not take the lead till the last mile. He needed to take it much earlier and punish everyone in the field, he knew he was capable of running much faster than what he ran because of his AR at the trials. Sure, Viren probably would have still won, but Pre's strategy of waiting till the last mile was pure crap that day. If it ain't broke, don't fix it and front running had worked for him before.

This isn't to say that front running is the best.

I think the best is to run a fast time in general. A good example is Dave Wottle's 800 Olympic win. He was way behind in the first lap but he ran evenly so he ended up running the fastest time. So even if the race goes out at a blistering pace, just run the time you think will win the race or just run the fastest you can in your current shape. Of course, that's harder in bigger races because you can get boxed in and won't be able to run at your own pace.

let's see, in high school i ran from the front and won almost every race for two years.

in the pac ten, i did not win until i stopped running from the front, took the pressure off myself and let someone else break the wind.

hmmm, so if it is about winning, then maybe it really is about doing what you need to do to win...

and no pat answers.

but then one would think this was logical.

the best runners in history could win any kind of race. because not on every day are you going to feel 100% or be 100%.

i like the way wheating runs now, because he is really very new to running, and he is making it more comfortable and fun for himself. he knows what to do at each stage of the race, for him, now, and as he gains more experience and fitness, he can play with different kinds of races.

he's a rare breed, 4 years of running or whatever, and already at 1:45.

damned good for a norte americano.

and according to the OP and junior high school level thinking here, dave wottle was a pussy in the olymics.

well, there's at least one russian who thinks that.

yoda wrote:

This argument is stupid. The one who crosses the finish line first had the best strategy. If you call me a wimp/bitch for sitting, kicking and winning I would laugh at you.

I'm SAYING that sitting/kicking isn't the only strategy and that leading a race is a viable one to consider. Yet everyone calls leading as the cardinal sin of all sins. Wrong. I reply with German, Hall, Webb, Gabe in his best races, El G... Not to mention plenty of smaller races, where 1 person has the best PR on the field and a subpar kick. In my case, I had avg PR's and used to lead the race to slow it down. Unbelievable how faster runners would not lead at any cost... including losing the race.

I respect the way Pre ran. The guy was fun to watch and had a lot of guts.

But his Olympic 5.05k was painful to watch. If he is not leading, why is he running several turns in lane 2 and 3? The extra 50 meters he ran really cost him there.