Gouchers 400 splits

Mr. Tactics, unlike Goucher you ran only 400m at 74 second pace. He ran a solid 6400m at that "over his head pace". What i'm trying to say is, he ran that pace until his body literaly would not let him do so anymore. Its not just going out hard that makes that race special. It is the fact that he wasnt afraid to go out and run with the best there is UNTIL HE COULDENT POSSIBLY GO ANY LONGER at that pace. Then he sucked it up for another 4k to run as fast as he could. He gets all of my respect.

Aim High wrote:

Your pollyanna perspective is woefully naive. Take your blather about risk and reward to Vegas.

Some things are facts. For example, Goucher went out in 13:37 and couldn't hold it. That's a fact.

Other things are matters of opinion. For instance, you think Goucher is an idiot for going out in 13:37, pace to take a shot at the AR. Some other people think it's great that he went for it rather than, say, going for a conservative, evenly paced 27:40.

Why is it so important to you that no one has a different opinion from you? People's personal reaction to a performance is subjective, and it seems strange that you're so bothered that other people are appreciative of a performance you don't value.

As for your general ranting, you display some major ignorance about track. First of all, any idiot understands the balance of "risk and reward" in judging the pacing of a distance race near or at the edge of one's abilities. Secondly, your suggestion that only "ignorant Yanks" are unaware of multitude of competitive opportunities to run 27:40ish with a good pack in the second half of the summer begs for even one example, let alone "many".

Bad tactics are bad tactics. Surely Goucher knew he could not handle that pace. So why "go for it?" Did he expect divine intervention to give him the legs to continue?

It was a foolish venture from which he gained nothing. He should have run the race he was capable of, not the race he wished he was capable of.

Mr. Tactics wrote:

Bad tactics are bad tactics. Surely Goucher knew he could not handle that pace.

On the contrary, I would bet that he went through 13:37 with the goal of running 27:15ish, give or take five seconds. Sure, it looks dumb in hindsight -- but if you want to run 27:15, you can't head out at a conservative pace and then decide to go for it if you feel good after 6k.

You ought to know better than to run a 74 quarter if you are in 39 minute shape, because your quarter splits are more like 95. Goucher on the other hand went out in 64 maintained it for half the race, and died in the end running some 69s and a couple of 70s. 5 to 6 seconds difference between splits.

The same cannot be said for you because you apparently went out in 74 and fell off to 105's. Immediately. 31 seconds difference. The fact that you say both were crappy races is silly because at least Goucher had some semblance of a chance at holding 64 to 66, while you obviously had NO SHOT at holding 74. Even for a mile.

Your illustation is flawed.

Mr. Tactics wrote:

Bad tactics are bad tactics. Surely Goucher knew he could not handle that pace. So why "go for it?" Did he expect divine intervention to give him the legs to continue?

It was a foolish venture from which he gained nothing. He should have run the race he was capable of, not the race he wished he was capable of.

I don't think he expected "divine intervention," but as I and others have pointed out on this thread, he only had two choices:

1) Run his own pace/a more manageable pace and do it on his own for basically the entire race

2) Go out at a pace faster than he could probably maintain but also have people to run with.

Either option sucks, and if he had decided to run his own pace and do 65.5s or 66s and let the pack go, he very easily could have started slowing after 15 laps or so (since its easier to draft off people, both mentally and physically) and ended up running 27:50 and a bunch of people would have criticized him for having all these great athletes to run with and instead choosing to run by himslef.

Personally, I would have done the same thing he did. He had two less than optimum choices and made the best of the situation. For those of you criticizing him for crashing and burning, I'd really love to know what you would have done intead.

Man lets run is great... here you have a guy who goes out and tries to run a great time with the best 10kers in the world. He dies, still runs the 5th or 6th best american 10k of the year, and he gets slammed.

Why? Isn't he displaying the attitude that we have sorely missed since Bob Kennedy? Isn't this the exact reason that American distance running has had such a downfall the past few decades? Wasn't it because we all feared the African domination and we all blast our elites for not having the balls to go out and try to run with them, essentially making us all a bunch of pussies?

I've always been a bit skeptical of A Gouch since his injury plagued years, but man, he's really recovered as an athlete to become what should be held as an example. A fearless competitor. He shouldn't get slammed "for an average performance", but patted on the back and maybe "you'll get it next time". Guys can't be the best in the world if they don't take shots at greateness. American distance running is on the rise because people like Gouch are taking that shot and realizing they can stick it. I think its exiting, not discouraging.

What I want to know is why a guy who ran a 43 minute 10k is talking crap about goucher?

blank_ wrote:

What I want to know is why a guy who ran a 43 minute 10k is talking crap about goucher?

That's a good question. Care to elaborate Mr. Tactics?

why would a 13:10 guy going out on pace to run a low 27 be accused of employing bad tactics

goucher has run faster over 5k this year than meb, the current american record holder over 10000 ever has so why should he "surely know he couldnt sustain the pace?"

he went for it and it idnt happen this time, im sure next time hell go for it again and maybe hell hang on, maybe he wont

thats the way it works...

Well put hmmmm. Based on this season alone he seemed fit enough to at least make a go at sub 27:30.

I'm sure for his next 10k he could go out pretty comfortably at 13:50 and come back evenly paced for a 27:40.

But being Adam Goucher he probably says to himself, "What is the point of that?" This is why he has many fans, he is willing to race each and every time out there, truly believing that he can hang with the best.

spokompton wrote:

Well put hmmmm. Based on this season alone he seemed fit enough to at least make a go at sub 27:30.

Bringing this thread in a perfect Letsrun circle in the same dopey line of logic that produces "if I ran my mile repeats in _:__ then what can I run for a 5K right now?"

Goucher can't hang with the best, we already know that and it's time he figured out that neither those Kenyans he's so hungry for nor the Ethiopians nor the Qatari/Kenyans nor the Moroccans give him even a passing thought, let alone a second one.

Wow, I wish I could run a horrible 27:59. Believe me, Goucher does not need you to point out how badly the race turned for him. I never even ran 14:22 and definitely should have. If you have run 27:58, it still doesn't mean you can give him shit, because it likely went down at a Mt. Sac time trial race, and he would have been at 27:30 ahead of you. So, leave the man alone. He runs professionally and those talking crap probably sell running shoes, retail, and train hard to blast a 15:46.4 at the local road race to be the king of the roads and get press in the Charlston Times News Week Daily Press.

J. T. B. wrote:

Wow, I wish I could run a horrible 27:59.

Of course you do, but you wouldn't be the only one shocked because everyone here, including you, knows that you don't have anything close to Goucher-level talent. What you or I could run is pretty irrelevant when talking about these things. How many TD passes has Kornheiser or Tirico thrown to be able to critique Farve and Palmer?

What I point out isn't for Goucher's benefit, silly rabbit!