why does everybody go out too hard at the start of XC races?

NotBuyingIt wrote:

Sorry but there is NO way Ritz was clean during this race.

agip wrote:

good post indeed

Obviously, people sweat during races so running an entire race clean borders on impossible.

Maybe you could achieve this in a 100 or a 200.

[quote]yougottabekiddingme wrote:

Also make sure you are practicing the way you want to race. I know a few guys that make the same mistakes of going out too fast, and their workouts are the same way - first few intervals are often their best ones, or they're at least hanging on at the last two just to maintain pace.

[quote]

Are they not practicing the way they want to race?

You guys are posting idiotic responses to the OP on the delusional assumption that XC is run in a controlled environment with no challenging weather and terrain.

If you are stuck in the pack then you can't always run the shortest legal tangents and you end up running farther. Additionally, running in a large pack you may be forced onto the sloppiest surfaces which also impacts performance.

As a general rule runners who go out hard in XC (not crazy hard) perform better.

not everyone goes out hard. For the eventual winner - top 5 everyone else's hard pace feels easy.

webfoot wrote:

You guys are posting idiotic responses to the OP on the delusional assumption that XC is run in a controlled environment with no challenging weather and terrain.

If you are stuck in the pack then you can't always run the shortest legal tangents and you end up running farther. Additionally, running in a large pack you may be forced onto the sloppiest surfaces which also impacts performance.

As a general rule runners who go out hard in XC (not crazy hard) perform better.

All that is insignificant compared to how much most high school runners lose by going out way too hard, in track and in XC. In fact, it's outweighed at the NCAA championship level, too -- look at how Colorado runs and how frequently they finish higher than they had any business doing, up to and including winning against teams who were much better on paper. And they've done this repeatedly over the years.

So I don't believe your general rule for a second.

I was on a team that won the world xc championship. How did your team do?

Toasted wrote:

Cross country races are most often on narrow trails so everybody has to sprint out at the start because there can be a TON of people and it would be very easy to get boxed in and thus bringing those guys to 6 minute pace anyway

thats why you analyze the course before running it.

im just saying that this is also relevant to road races. i do a lot of road races and you get these kids and sometimes adults (i say sometimes because around here most adults arent fast) going out for a 5k at 4:50-520/mi pace for the first .75mi or 1mi if they can hold it and then just die off. I know to go out at what I know I can hold for the race and end up passing 20-30 guys from mile 2 and up.

let them sprint it out have the race. i just KNOW ill be passing them around mile 2

At big xc meets there can be up to 400, fairly equal (in capability), runners and if you dont sprint out at the start to settle into a good race position, youll get seriously boxed in because EVERYONE sprints at the start of races. You would get stuck behind 300th place and its hard to make up that kind of gap in only 5 kilometers which would lead to even MORE erratic pacing.

webfoot wrote:

the reviver wrote:

All that is insignificant compared to how much most high school runners lose by going out way too hard, in track and in XC. In fact, it's outweighed at the NCAA championship level, too -- look at how Colorado runs and how frequently they finish higher than they had any business doing, up to and including winning against teams who were much better on paper. And they've done this repeatedly over the years.

So I don't believe your general rule for a second.

I was on a team that won the world xc championship. How did your team do?

Dead last or close in conference, county, and section my junior year. Mid-pack in each my senior year. Dramatically better since. So by LetsRun standards, we didn't even exist. So much for the dick-waving.

If you want to ask me how I ran in high school, I didn't even exist either. Ability trumps pacing. But pacing trumps adjustments based on the course. Teach typical high school runners how to pace themselves, and they'll still have more to learn about certain situations where the course narrows and they need to avoid getting boxed in, or things like that. Those are minor tweaks in comparison, and they can learn them when they need to, and execute them as adjustments from the basis of even pacing.

Don't teach typical high school runners how to pace themselves, and they'll go out however feels right, pulled along way too fast by a hundred other idiots who went out however felt right, and a few much better runners who were running a reasonable pace for themselves.

In response to someone else, if the course is not too narrow, you can go around one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, any number of dying runners in five kilometers. Most courses, at least those run by American high schools (and all this applies to colleges too), are not too narrow. If they are, adjust as needed, but in a measured way.

OP, more important than any argument I can make, try it for yourself. Go out intentionally slow in a less important race. It's hard to go much slower than your race pace even if you're trying, so don't worry about that. See how the rest of the race goes. That will show you what works.

Thank you, HonestThief, for showing how to respond in a dignified, respectful fashion. LR posters, please take note.

HonestThief wrote:

SMJO wrote:

It is probably because Cross Country used to often feature portions of the course that would force people to go in single file. If you didn't get good position you could be stuck behind a chain of slower runners and unable to pass.

The tradition continues whether the course merits it or not.

That's an interesting theory, however I disagree with that being the main reason. Some courses are still like that, so it's true that sometimes you're forced to go out hard to get good position, however I think a bigger reason is adrenaline, as well as pack mentality, everyone dragging you along at the fast pace. Also, not being like a track, you don't usually get very much pace feedback till you are a mile in, way too late to fix anything.

you have to go out fast in xc if its a big race or if you are trying to stay with the leaders. I have gone out in 4:50 for a 25:4x race. It wasn't too fast, I didn't die, and I was far enough up in the race that I didn't have to attempt to pass 150 kids in the race.

Ritz finished 3rd, so how does that make him so smart? Isn't the goal to win the race?

It's nothing logical. It's a combination of psychology and inexperience with pacing. That's all. If everyone in the field wants to be near the front, you can see why the race would get out fast.

Mike from San Diego always goes out much more conservatively in his 5Ks, but unfortunately lacks the talent to muster a sustained effort... Otherwise, he would surely negative split and finally break 20.

Testosterone + bad coaching. Wetmore simply observed the effects of early oxygen debt, which, at altitude, are fatal. By the time boys/men are good, monitoring sensory data should be second nature.

I can't speak for everyone, but upon reflection here's why I did it:- I was young, and an inexperienced racer, believing that if I went out with the leaders, and could just hang on, then by the end of the season, I could hang on for longer and longer, and I would be with the leaders at the finish.- My coaches were nice guys, but now some 30+ years later, I realize there was a lot that they, and I, didn't know about training properly in high school. The best coach I had was actually a sprint specialist, but motivated enough to learn how the distance runners should train, and observant enough to push me down to the 800m, which was a better event for me.- You ask a great question -- if my coach had only asked me that my junior year, I might have been mature enough to reflect on it, and run a more even race.

pastaisgood wrote:

Looking at the splits of my team mates and others at races everybody starts the race way too fast. their first split will be like 5:10 and the end with a 6:00 pace. Why not just keep a consistent effort the whole way through or better yet, negative split? thats what ALL of the fastest guys do, the engative split. i know the anxiety and excitement is HIGH at the start of a race, but i'd think runners would get better results NOT sprinting all out at the beginning and negative split

hlkjhkjlhlkj wrote:

you have to go out fast in xc if its a big race or if you are trying to stay with the leaders. I have gone out in 4:50 for a 25:4x race. It wasn't too fast, I didn't die, and I was far enough up in the race that I didn't have to attempt to pass 150 kids in the race.

A 25 minute guy going out in 4:50 is not what this post is about. Its about the 27minute guy going out the first 800 meters in 2:15. Similarly its about the HS runners who can't break 18 for a 5K opening in 64 second 1/4 and then soiling their shorts by the last mile..

and 800m races, and 1500m races.....especially women 800m races are crazy.