Doubtful Witness wrote:
I'd like that first 1000 measured again.
Yeah I'm also skeptical of the measurement. Perhaps it's 1K if you run in the middle of the course of something like that but I don't buy that large of a group went out in 2:30 pace for the 1st K. While many of them can run sub-4 for the mile many can't, so thinking they went out at that pace on grass is silly.
The problem is you need to train to race with an even or negative split to be successful at it. I don't know many teams other than the old CU Buffaloes that specifically had that type of mindset, confidence, and training to pull it off.
Nico young, for example, who runs through 2:29 at 1k... he should know his body won't sustain it and "hanging on" better than the others is an idiotic strategy in a 10k race on a wide course where you can pass still pass people.
If he held back 10-15 seconds off the lead at 1k, he would have been in a better place from a threshold perspective. The leaders would not have run away. This just showed to me for a Nico Young-level athlete, that even they are insecure on their own fitness level.
FormerStopwatch wrote:
When i coached this getting out hard thing was a major difference that the european athletes did not get and was always a sticking point.
the problem is that everyone is good in this field and it is incredibly deep. It is almost impossible to be all American going out in 150-200th at 2k. As for teams, I’d you want a trophy you better be in the top 4-6 at 3k. Scores are refined at that point but don’t change a lot.
It is human nature to race those around you and is extremely hard to continuously move through the field. This was also a more narrow course compared to OSU or Indiana State with lots of turns with string out a race even more.
For most it is counter productive but the truth is you have to go fast at the beginning and play the game.
Training that way is smart, but when it is time to race you HAD BETTER run the course the way it needs to be run. Often that means going out conservatively, but mud, hills, tight turns, narrow paths, wind, rocks, and other things might necessitate that you change to a different plan. Different does not always mean going out fast or going out slow!
birdbeard wrote:
The idea that you can’t go out reasonably and move up and be a podium team — or even win — is silly. CU basically made their name doing exactly that.
QFE.
One of the years that CU won, maybe ‘14 or ‘15, I can’t remember, I went out towards the front of the pack. I was somewhere around 40-50th at 1 mile. Multiple CU guys came flying by me. They all finished in the top 25. I blew up.
to quote the great Ali G - "Science.... wot iz it? Techmology..... wot iz it all about?"
come on folks time to use some modern science and technology (weather data, google earth, ncaa xc race/athlete history, and common sense - aka logic, even a bit of anecdotal observation wouldn't hurt) ... 2:29 were the very first guys, midway through the field was about 2:35, it was >9m/30ft net downhill, half of it low gradient (comfortable downhill speed maintenance), half flat, they all have super shoes which no doubt help the impact going downhill, they had a small tailwind from the north (was NE pre-race NW post-race, recorded in both Earlysville and Charlottesville), and course conditions were generally fast. The guys at the front could all handle a 2:40, as for most that's about 5k pace,... so if all of this stuff doesn't add to 10sec then who cares, because its highly probably it adds to at least 6 seconds (2:35-36), and much of the field around equivalent of 2:42 or slower. Plus it all depends on mentality of the guys racing as to how they approach it or feel about a fast pace. Clearly, it didn't work wonders for all, nor entirely compromised others' races, so its likely it was a RELATIVELY fast 1km for a reason.
class dismissed.
Dudewhat? wrote:
The problem is you need to train to race with an even or negative split to be successful at it. I don't know many teams other than the old CU Buffaloes that specifically had that type of mindset, confidence, and training to pull it off.
Nico young, for example, who runs through 2:29 at 1k... he should know his body won't sustain it and "hanging on" better than the others is an idiotic strategy in a 10k race on a wide course where you can pass still pass people.
If he held back 10-15 seconds off the lead at 1k, he would have been in a better place from a threshold perspective. The leaders would not have run away. This just showed to me for a Nico Young-level athlete, that even they are insecure on their own fitness level.
I think it's easy to say this in hindsight or from looking at splits but the reality of the race is that that's not really how it plays out. Nico is a very experienced runner with an even more experienced coach and he still finished up front, though maybe not exactly where he wanted. I think if he's 10-15 seconds back at the start a few things happen: 1. he's buried early and doesn't have the easy ride that people assume there is just because the pace is slower, 2. he has to surge (effort wise, though maybe not pace wise) to get through the traffic and then see where guys like Blanks, Kai, and Samuel have ended up, 3. he throws off the positioning of his other guys on NAU because I'm sure when they "look for their guys" everyone expects Drew and Nico to be controlling it at or towards the front. Ultimately while the pace on the clock was shockingly fast, the effort must not have felt that bad because all the top guys went with it and managed a solid race overall. I also don't recall seeing anyone who ended up in the top 10 who came from that far back and all the big movers I've seen highlighted have topped out in like the 20s. Again, this is a solid race but I'm sure it was no picnic and the true top guys would be kicking themselves if they ended up there by playing it conservative.
Looking at the All Americans (the top 40 finishers), there were 9 guys outside of the top 100 at 1k. Only 2 of the top 2 were outside of the top 100.
Oklahoma State's Victor Shitsama was in 120th (2:37.2) and ended up 12th. Iowa State's Sanele Masondo was 107th (2:36.6) and ended up 16th.Montana State's Matthew Richtman was 204th (2:41.3) and ended up 26th.Princeton's Nicholas Bendstsen was 123rd (2:37.5) and ended up 29th.Charlotte's Nickolas Scudder was 180th (2:40.1) and ended up 30th.Loyola's Chris Devaney was 147th (2:38.6) and ended up 31stBYU's Kenneth Rook was 104th (2:36.6) and ended up 35th.Akron's Timothy Chesondin was 116th (2:37.0) and ended up 36th.Iowa State's Rodgers Kiplimo was 197th (2:37.0) and ended up 37th.
By 2k - only 4 of the AA weren't in the top 100. Matthew Richtman was 153rd, Scudder was 125th, Devaney was 102nd, Kiplimo was 156th
Derp de derp de doo wrote:
Here are the guys that moved up to All American that were 100+ at 1km
Rogers Kiplimo ISU 197>>37
Timothy Chesondin Akron 116>>36
Kenneth Rooks BYU 104>>35
Chris Devaney Loyola 147>>31
Nikolas Sudder Charlotte 180>>30
Nocholas Bendtsen Princeton 123>>29
Matthew Richtman Montana St. 204>>26
Sanele Masondo ISU 107>>16
Victor Sh*tsama OSU 120>>12
If you’re in for the win you need to be up front. If you’re looking to place top whatever, stay back and pick off the runners who went out like they were going for the win.
I doubt that is true. But it is most of the time because the fastest guys are up front.