The less fit the runner, the greater the chance of winning by the pace being slow.
This, to me is the greatest gamble.
Who would purposely be less fit, to gamble on the pace being slow?
I personal think that is a terrible strategy, easily defeated by running a fast pace for the entire distance of the race.
Those who focus too much on developing a last lap kick are doing so to their detriment, as it undermines their form and efficiency for running a fast pace for the distance of the race.
It is a secondary tactic that, given too much emphasis, will undermine the primary tactic, which is to get from the start to the finish in the fastest possible time and, if possible, faster than anyone else.
J.R. wrote:
...the primary tactic, which is to get from the start to the finish in the fastest possible time and, if possible, faster than anyone else.
Aren't those statements backwards? The goal is to get to the finish faster than anyone else and if possible in the fastest possible time.
The Waterboy wrote:
It's also ridiculous that Bekele has the 5000m record. He's primarily a 10K guy.
Did you start following track in 2010? Sure a guy that ran a 7:37 3000 and then 5:00 for the last 2000 has no business holding the WR. If you want to see a race that was fast from the gun (and only rabbited to 2000), watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSSBtxvd5BIJ.R. wrote:
The less fit the runner, the greater the chance of winning by the pace being slow.
This, to me is the greatest gamble.
Who would purposely be less fit, to gamble on the pace being slow?
I personal think that is a terrible strategy, easily defeated by running a fast pace for the entire distance of the race.
This post is so stupid it practically drools.
The cream will always rise to the top regardless if it's a fast pace or a slow pace. It's a non-issue.
J.R. wrote:
The fear of running a fast pace all the way having a greater chance of losing is not a rational one.
The fitter the runner, the greater the chance is if winning by running a fast pace all the way, and by not waiting for a last minute kick.
Forget about the aerodynamic penalty of leading vs drafting?
Running on Empathy wrote:
The cream will always rise to the top regardless if it's a fast pace or a slow pace. It's a non-issue.
Well that's not true at all.
GoodTimes wrote:
Forget about the aerodynamic penalty of leading vs drafting?
What penalty is that? Exactly how much?
That's like saying I'm tired of all this passing in the NFL. Let's get back to real football and have the team that runs for 200 yards win the game.
You'd have to have the IAAF restructure their points system and the meet promoters restructure their payment system for that to happen.
These are PROS. They run to get paid. The higher they place the more they get paid. Running a fast race from the start jeopardizes placing high at the end and therefore what they get paid. Very hard to do both.
If you were a pro would you run fast from the start and risk not getting paid?
Track & field is about competition, not marks per se. Marks are a byproduct of competition, not vice versa. If they come as a result of competition, great, but unless it's a world record attempt people are going to run for place primarily.
Les wrote:
If you were a pro would you run fast from the start and risk not getting paid?
Track & field is about competition, not marks per se. Marks are a byproduct of competition, not vice versa. If they come as a result of competition, great, but unless it's a world record attempt people are going to run for place primarily.
True, but it sucks to watch (the slow times), much less PAY to watch it.
And as Alamirew proved a few days ago: maybe we'll go from watching a final 800 to the final 200?! Screw the first 4800m
dff wrote:
J.R. wrote:...the primary tactic, which is to get from the start to the finish in the fastest possible time and, if possible, faster than anyone else.
Aren't those statements backwards? The goal is to get to the finish faster than anyone else and if possible in the fastest possible time.
No, they are not backwards. Your statement is a pipe dream, a misconception that is false.
GoodTimes wrote:
Forget about the aerodynamic penalty of leading vs drafting?
Forget about the leader controlling the pace, controlling the pace, getting bumped around in the pace, dealing with the other runners and subsequent changes in pace, wasting energy, running extra distance, none of which the leader has to deal with?
jsjsjs wrote:
GoodTimes wrote:Forget about the aerodynamic penalty of leading vs drafting?
What penalty is that? Exactly how much?
About a second per lap at their paces. More if it's windy. A second per lap isn't a big deal if you're running within yourself, but you'd be a fool to put out a PR-pace effort from the front. You'd end up doing the work required for a 12:48, while a couple of other 12:48 guys get to hit the last two laps having only put out a 13:00 effort.
There's also the problem of not knowing what's going on behind you. If you start to wind up your kick while leading, everyone else gets to see and decide whether they're going with you. But if someone makes a move on you, they're going to be well clear before you have a chance to turn on the jets. (See, e.g., Bannister and Landy in the Miracle Mile.)
800 dude wrote:
About a second per lap at their paces.
Considering there's no significant wind, running in a pack is not going to help you.
There's also the problem of not knowing what's going on behind you.
Who cares.
If you start to wind up your kick while leading, everyone else gets to see and decide whether they're going with you.
So, wind it up from the start, and let them worry about "when you're going to do it."
But if someone makes a move on you, they're going to be well clear before you have a chance to turn on the jets.
I didn't notice anyone turn on the jets to pass Bekele at the end of his 26:17.
800 dude wrote:
If you start to wind up your kick while leading, everyone else gets to see and decide whether they're going with you. But if someone makes a move on you, they're going to be well clear before you have a chance to turn on the jets. (See, e.g., Bannister and Landy in the Miracle Mile.)
How long does it take to start kicking? It should be near instantaneous. Therefore it wouldn't make a difference if you were in front or not. You make it sound like it takes 10 seconds to reach kicking speed.
26:19 for 19k? [/quote]
Is really fast
Sorry JR, the point is to win the race, not run as fast as you can.
You all can keep whining and coming up with what you think are oh so clever ways to eliminate sit and kick races, or have more time trial races, or whatever it is you want to do, but it is a waste of time. Things will remain the same, as they should.
jsjsj wrote:
Consider This wrote:Do three 1500s and 3 less days to recover make any difference in your opinion?
3 1500s still aren't even half the distance of a 10k
Yeah, but it's still three races versus one. Plus he had less time to recover. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
george oscar bluth wrote:
Sorry JR, the point is to win the race, not run as fast as you can.
You all can keep whining and coming up with what you think are oh so clever ways to eliminate sit and kick races, or have more time trial races, or whatever it is you want to do, but it is a waste of time. Things will remain the same, as they should.
Then get rid of the pacers.
Or, have all pacers, for all races, instructed to hit a consistent pace. Say, for example, the A or B standard. For each DL race.