Alyssa Montano - Shaking My Head

reed wrote:

subfive wrote:

Interesting how many argue that a faster pace in the 5000 for the Kenyans would be better against Farah...and some want Montano to slow the pace for better chances?

800 is not 5000. farah is not montano. there is zero correlation

and whoever said that nobody expected both montano and martinez to medal was wrong. i thought it would be

1. montano 2. martinez 3. savinova. sum came from nowhere. who else did you think would be the top 3?

What, zero correlation????? Are you a person who has actually raced at distances from 800 to say 10k ?????????????

As crazy as it looks to everyone, the way Montano runs the 800m is one way to do it. When you are a legit low 52x 400m runner, going out in 56 is a training interval. If your 400m PR is over a second faster than everyone in field and if you don't have great endurance, why not try to put up a big lead. Tactics are based on your strenghts and weaknesses, they work and sometimes they don't. Running from the back or the front is high risk, it is a big gamble, but it has pays off numerous times. This time it didn't work for Montano, but no one can accuse her of not going for it.

I assure you that if a few of the ladies in that race had went with her, it would have been a different race, but, they didn't, they let her go and judged their race appropriately. Considering the magnitude of the event, I was surprised everyone didn't get caught-up and let her go and I'm sure Montano was surprised as well. Beating Sum and Savinova was doubtful anyway and she came with in nipple of getting 3rd. You don't win multiple H.S., NCAA, National titles and make global championship finals and not know what you are doing. It was a fast race overall, Montano didn't run too far off of her PR after running rounds...how can you say that a 1:57x was a flop? Most years America's doesn't even have one 1:57x lady, this year we had 2, I think Montano missed out on a mdeal more so becasue of how great Martinez ran and Sum who came from almost of of nowhere. Like I said, I have seen Montano win tons of races doing it her own way and I think the focus should be on how great Sum and Martinez ran and not on Montano's tactics.

I find it strange that Everyone on Letsrun knows more about Montano and the 800m than Montano and her coach.

Good post. The critics of an athlete who barely finished out of the medals more than likely haven't competed in a championship level 800m or run faster than her PB. Her approach to the race is as a 400m/800m type of runner. Getting out fast and holding on is common when speed is your strength. It almost worked for her. She led well into the home straight. On another day she wins. Looking at the photo finish people do realize that Savinova finished just ahead of her with Martinez slipping by for the bronze. Not a bad run at all when you finish close to your PB after extending the reigning Olympic and World Champ to the point where she gets silver and not the gold everyone else was going to just hand her.

Bad Wigins wrote:

She ran the best race she could

So she's incapable of running more even splits than 56.06/61.89, with the first 400 going 26.80/29.26? Why do y have so little confidence that she can engage her brain one of these days>

TrackCoach wrote:

I find it strange that Everyone on Letsrun knows more about Montano and the 800m than Montano and her coach.

Right on. I enjoy watching her race. Not knowing whether she'll hang on for a gutsy run or blow up is exciting, and the explosion of posts about her proves she has track fans interested, for good or for bad.

Bad Wigins wrote:

How is 1:57 a bad result for a runner with a 1:57 PR?

Do not EVER call anyone else ignorant after this inexcusably daft nonsense.

PR this, PR that, PR. PR, WHO CARES -- when you run splits like that and die in the straight, you've come nowhere close to your best race. PERIOD. Doesn't matter if your PR going in is 1:54 or 2:04.

Try this, dimwit -- if someone gets ALL her PRs by dying badly in the last 25% of the race, isn't it possible that her PR isn't much of an indicator of her actual ability?

Shadonna Shingle wrote:

So she's incapable of running more even splits than 56.06/61.89, with the first 400 going 26.80/29.26? Why do y have so little confidence that she can engage her brain one of these days>

Of the many times she has run more even splits than that, how many has she gone faster than 1:57?

With the luxury of a pacemaker, she starter her PR in 27.1

In Daegu her fast start was modest compared to the field

All her fastest races have fast starts. All her slower starts result in slower races. How much "brains" does it take to not notice that?

In Daegu she was beaten by only 1:55 runners Savinova and Semenya, plus the even more "suicidal" Kenyan who hung on for bronze despite going out in 55.86.

This tactic worked pretty good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHid-nC45k

;-)

Curious to know if her coach has ever had her experiment in practice with 100% effort 800m time trials in practice using differing opening 200s/400s. Since she basically time trials in her big races, seems pretty easy to verify what works best for her with regards to optimum opening pace.

She wasn't terribly wrong in her approach but you have to leave something for the finish.

And she has run enough races to get a sense for this.

She could have come close to that 400m split but been more relaxed and even in her approach to get there.

And swinging wide when you are not passing anyone and allowing someone to pass inside of you is a cardinal sin in racing.

But it is instinctive to drift towards someone passing you on the outside.

Just leave something for the end no matter what.

* wrote:

She wasn't terribly wrong in her approach but you have to leave something for the finish.

And she has run enough races to get a sense for this...

1) Yes, she was TERRIBLY wrong in her approach

2) Some people just do not learn regardless of how many race they have run (lots of people, actually - see Kenyan/Ethiopian approach to beating Farah).

nn wrote:

Good post. The critics of an athlete who barely finished out of the medals more than likely haven't competed in a championship level 800m or run faster than her PB. Her approach to the race is as a 400m/800m type of runner. Getting out fast and holding on is common when speed is your strength. It almost worked for her. She led well into the home straight. On another day she wins. Looking at the photo finish people do realize that Savinova finished just ahead of her with Martinez slipping by for the bronze. Not a bad run at all when you finish close to your PB after extending the reigning Olympic and World Champ to the point where she gets silver and not the gold everyone else was going to just hand her.

Your points are good, except that you think people can't be critical viewers of the sport if they've never been elite. Too much of that argument going around these boards, and it's a total cop-out BS attempt to prove somebody wrong and end a discussion.

No, she was not TERRIBLY wrong in her approach.

If she was just a little more reserved she would have had the strength to hold on to Silver or Bronze.

History has shown that fast 800m runners can successfully go out fast and hold on if they do it right.

Solomon did this well at the US trials.

But he he ran tight in Moscow.

It wasn't so much a vast difference in splits but energy distribution.

If you are suggesting she should have sat behind and tried to kick, it wasn't going to work for her.

Not trying to prove anybody right or wrong. It's all opinion here. Just saying that Montano's style is get out fast and hold on. It may be the only way she believes she can put forth her best effort. She almost won in a WC final, and finished a close 4th. Some people may think that it is easy to "just run in a different way" and that this will result in a win. It's not as easy as these top athletes make things look. Just to get to the WC and survive the rounds to compete for a medal is a lifetime achievement to be proud of. She's competed well in a number of big finals.

* wrote:

No, she was not TERRIBLY wrong in her approach.

If she was just a little more reserved she would have had the strength to hold on to Silver or Bronze.

History has shown that fast 800m runners can successfully go out fast and hold on if they do it right.

Solomon did this well at the US trials.

But he he ran tight in Moscow.

It wasn't so much a vast difference in splits but energy distribution.

If you are suggesting she should have sat behind and tried to kick, it wasn't going to work for her.

Ah, yes, the old 'put-words-in-other-people's-mouths-in-order-to-argue-against-them' trick.

Yes, indeed she was TERRIBLY, HORRIBLY, PAINFULLY, EMBARRASSINGLY wrong in her approach. Go out in 28.5 and she wins gold. Go out in under 27 and she dies an agonizing death on the home stretch. It is really that simple.

Bad Wigins wrote:

All her fastest races have fast starts. All her slower starts result in slower races. How much "brains" does it take to not notice that?

Uh yeah she's already fast enough at the start. How much brains does it take to see she needs to work on her FINISH.

Uh yeah she's already fast enough at the start. How much brains does it take to see she needs to work on her FINISH.[/quote]

Exactly.

It was a terrible finish for Montano. Weaving, being passed and not being able to generate any sort of response, the dive.

Look, she was inconsolable after the race. This is maybe the time for reflection and attempting adjustment in race strategy.

Now if she had front run and barely got outleaned by a few runners at the finish, showing a gutty response to others' movers past her I think many people's "fourth was OK, she was right there" response would make sense.

But that is not what happened in the race.

Man, there may be a lot of good runners on LRC, but there sure as hell aren't a lot of great thinkers.

When an objective observer (like me, for example, and many others) looks at Montano's racing strategy, and suggests it seems incredibly stupid, there *might* be some reasonable ways to rebut.

'What have YOU ever done at a Championship level?'

...is not one. That's the recourse of morons who don't have an actual argument.

'Well, she's run 1:57 this way!'

...is also not one. It's completely irrelevant to the question.

For the mentally challenged, I'll lay out the question:

It's not, Can she run fast this way?

It's, Would she run faster with a different approach?

And, therefore, does it make sense for her to run this way?

'Well, she beats almost everybody else!'

...is also not a legitimate response (at least not for anyone with an IQ above 80).

Again, it doesn't matter who she beats (or, in this case, doesn't beat), it only matters if she's running the best she can run with her current approach, or could run much faster, and win more races, and place higher in others, with a different approach.

'She's really a 400 runner.'

...is, again, the response of an idiot.

If she's REALLY a 400 runner, she should be running the freaking 400.

AFAICT, she's running the 800. She needs to concern herself with one thing: how to run the fastest 800 she can.

The fact that she may be faster than some of the other girls for one lap doesn't really make a goddamn bit of difference, as long as her race requires her to continue on for a SECOND one.

From everything I've read on the topic, there seems to be lots of evidence that the most efficient way to run an optimum 800 is with positive splits of 2 to 3 seconds.

Is it possible that the optimum number varies a little from person to person, with physiological (and maybe psychological) differences among competitors? Sure it is.

Is it possible that there are some folks who can run their best with a +1 split, instead of 2 or 3? I would certainly think so.

Is it conversely possible that some folks might max out their achievement with a +4-second split? Why not?

As far as I know, there's no evidence anywhere to suggest that ANYONE runs their best 800 with 6 or 7 seconds of positive splits --but that's what Alysia does every time she runs. (Yes, on some occasions it's been over 7, though in this race it was slightly under 6 --actually a slight improvement for her.)

Look at the splits in this race (a really great, high-quality race with superb depth of performances): Let's just consider the top six finishers, since they're the ones who ran really fast. (Sixth place was Ajee, with a brilliant 1:58.21.)

Here are their split differentials, in order of finish, excluding Alysia:

1. +3.06.

2. +2.10.

3. +1.79.

4. +2.05.

5. +1.71.

Oh, and then there's Alysia: +5.71.

If you want to defend her strategy, there's only one argument to make: explain why you actually believe she's running faster with a plus-six than she would run with a +2 or +3, like everyone else.

If you want to suggest that she helps herself a little by running clear of the field, and not having to worry about contact or position, okay fine, maybe she gains a couple tenths that way, but who cares? She could go out a second slower, and still be clear of the field anyway.

I'll just say this: if she, and her coach, Tony Sandoval, haven't at least experimented thoroughly with slower first laps, and more human splits --if she's never at least *tried* going out in 57.5, let's say, and then seeing how fast she can close off that-- then they are idiots.

If they *have* --and they carefully examined the results, and concluded that she actually is somehow better off at 56/62-- then they ought to tell us that, and explain it.

At least that way, the rest of the world wouldn't go on thinking they're idiots (and quietly thanking their lucky stars that this awesome athlete, who *should* be kicking my ass, hands me the race by going out so stupidly fast).

And I've left out the fact (in the interest of simplifying a little) that she makes it even worse than what I've described by building most of that ridiculous first-lap lead in just the first 200.

If you want to make a real case that she's helping herself this way, do it.

Hell, I'd love to hear it.

Leave out all the stupid platitudes and usual BS.

As one earlier poster me mentioned, the real story is that she gave Martinez the inside and the bronze.

For all of the subjective discussion we could have about tactics/philosophy/etc. she made an undisputable error that did cost her the medal and also meant she made the race longer for herself

This really is basic racing mantra, never give up the inside.

The real story is the pass.