Alyssa Montano - Shaking My Head

This ^ is the perfect post.

CrossFan wrote:

This tactic worked pretty good:

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

;-)

Awesome

Great post. Sums it up well.

Spot effing On.

proves the point wrote:

1) She's never gone out that slow;

okay, all you jackasses who think she should go out in 28 (and hasn't tried)

If you didn't even watch this year's Pre Classic, or all you remember about it was Mary Cain, it's time to stfu about the 800, quit ragging on Montano and find a nice thread about the 5000 or marathons. Seriously. I hate to ever say this, but you all have no clue what you're talking about.

Because that is what happens when Montano goes out slow. 28.4 gets her 1:59. And that was no heat, no championship, that was a fast, competitive time trial against the world's best. She started slow and finished even slower than if she'd started fast.

The only reason I keep responding to this thread is people actually might learn something from all this about different energy systems and when each is used in a long sprint. Some of Vigil's stuff is summarized here:

You can't save stored ATP for the end. You use ATP for about 10 seconds, then it takes another 20 seconds or so for aerobic energy to get going. You can't save that stored ATP for later, so if you've got more than anyone else, as Montano does, you better start faster than them. On the other hand, what you do anaerobically doesn't limit you aerobically except insofar as it produces acid, which comes from anaerobic glycolysis after 10 seconds, not from ATP-CP.

Review Montano's races and you'll see she usually hits turn 1 hard, after which she has a lead on the backstretch but isn't really going much faster than anyone else after they reach top speed. In Eugene 2013, she runs an average turn, and how much energy does that save for the rest of the race, absolutely none.

ATP-CP. Use it or lose it.

sp23 wrote:

(Juantorena, rant, spit, snarl, bitch, flame, agree with self under different names)

Juantorena was, besides a freak of nature and exception to many rules, a racer who never really reached his full potential in time trials. He was brand new to the event when he ran his fastest times, and his pacing was far from optimal, but it was good enough to win and set WR's, and that was good enough for him.

If he'd had more 800 experience at his peak, he'd have been even faster, possibly 1:42. By the time he had the experience, his speed was gone.

Is there one example of an 800m runner built like Montano over the last 50 years of competitive T&F that consistently positively split +6 and was world class?

Watching the final I think she would've medalled had she run a straight line down the homestretch. Obviously that's the shortest distance and Martinez would've had to go around her which may not have been possible given the crowding. Instead she let Martinez run the shortest distance down the homestretch.

One example is all I'm asking for. When we think of "big" 800m runners, Mutola is the first image that comes to most of our minds. She was 5'5" 139 pounds. Montano is 5'7" 118 pounds. Mutola was bigger, more muscular, and didn't routinely positive split 6 seconds.

One example? Anyone?

Note to the young runners , run through the finish , run all the way , learn the art of leaning at a tight finish.

A dive is a dive , posters please show Christian Smiths 800 2008 trials final dive , thats how a dive is executed.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The only reason I keep responding to this thread is people actually might learn something from all this about different energy systems and when each is used in a long sprint.

Hey BW - You are missing the forest through the trees.

Bottom line: She went out too fast, died, and lost. period.

sp23 wrote:

Wow, thanks so much for the lecture, Einstein.

.....

I think you're full of crap.

As well as being an a**hole.

whoa! Admit it BW, right about now you are kinda missing my more "constructive criticisms", huh? ;-) (and admit this too: you probably figure one of these posters was me: it wasn't, this is my first post on this thread. You apparently rub others the wrong way too, as do I)

ANYway...... my 2 cents:

I agree with BW that overall, you can't say AM ran a really bad race, she was close to her PR, and there's no guarantee that she's capable of running significantly faster with any change in tactics. ( i said significantly. I think she had at least 1/2 second in her with a more even pace. See next- )

I disagree with him that a more even pace would not suit her better, and suit anyone better for that matter. She hasn't experiment with a more even pace much, so your data points of her going how more slowly and not running fast are few and far between .

Also, connected to the above, this idea that it is a physiological fact that the most efficient way to run an 800 is with a big positive split (of at least 3 seconds), I aint' buying. As pointed out before, I've seen Borza, who was a very quick 400 runner (45.?), run fantastically with even splits: 1:44 easing up at age 19 in Olympic semi's running 4 x 26 I believe (he was 25 meters down at 200). He would have run at least 1:43.9 if he has not let up (he did, because he was already in top 2, atuo qualifier). If one is gonna say: yeah, but if he went 23.x and then 48....he would have run 1:41! I call an obvious BS.

Now show me the studies, BW, that demonstrate, incontrovertibly, that ZERO PC is available to the muscles after 20 seconds of use and that it is an absolute "use it or lose it" proposition. I don't think that is true. And even if you can do this, show me that there is not a price to pay, later in the race (due to excess acidity, etc), for TRULY maximizing the use of this PC early. This is not an either/or proposition: one might maximize their use of PC, but but themselves in much bigger O2 debt by doing so. It's a balancing act.

Your biggest problem is that you think you have this all figured out, and clearly you don't (on many topics).

But in this case, you are 100% right about one thing: there are a couple of posters that have posted under numerous names to bash you and agree with themselves, this is obvious, and lame.

Lastly, to the poster who wrote: "AM, you've lost me as a fan!" I am sure I can speak on her behalf when I say: "Boo, f'n hoo."

Most people on this board are LD types, who may have run a couple of 800s on relays is H.S. The half is nothing like what you think about cross country, road races or the mile for example. Over half of the athletes who run the 800m are actually sprinters and a fast first lap is not that difficult for them. However, by the 600m mark, they are as tired as the bell lap of a 5k, but an 800 meter runner only has 200 meters to go. There really is no such thing as a kick in the 800, the last 200m at best, you are trying to maintain.

When you are an 800m specialists, someone who has been running the event for many years, there are things you learn about the event and yourself that only comes from expereicne. People run the 800 in the way that works best for them and for people to assume they know better than a world clas athlete and an elite coach, to put it simple...that's crazy.

It is a vaild debate weather Montano should have backed off a little bit and saved something for the homestreatch, but commenets like, idiot, "Shaking My Head" suggest people think there was no plan at all and that her and her coach must be stupid. The plan did not work, it came close, but I am not sure the results would have been any different no matter how see ran that race...she got beat by some really good athletes.

TrackCoach wrote:

commenets like, idiot, "Shaking My Head" suggest people think there was no plan at all and that her and her coach must be stupid

Well done!

This was one race at the championships no one can claim was dull and boring, mainly thanks to Alysa Montano, but also Eunice Sum who virtually front-ran as well and just didn't tire at the end, Mariya Savinova who ran a tactically perfect race that just couldn't win her the gold medal and Brenda Martinez sneaking in from the inside.

CrossFan wrote:

This tactic worked pretty good:

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

;-)

Borza was even further behind when he ran his 1:44 in the semi's of 2000 OG's for 2nd (eased up, could had 1st). I need to find the video.

But think about this: Montano went out in her first 200 nearly as fast as Wottle and Borza did in 1:44/45 races!!

Who's smarter about pace, her or them?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Borza was even further behind when he ran his 1:44 in the semi's of 2000 OG's for 2nd (eased up, could had 1st). I need to find the video.

But think about this: Montano went out in her first 200 nearly as fast as Wottle and Borza did in 1:44/45 races!!

Who's smarter about pace, her or them?

I think you are focusing on the wrong points to address the issue. Who cares what much faster men did in championship races when they were off their potential? Alternatively, let's look at other sprinter type women and how they ran their 800s successfully. She is a 1:57 800 girl even with this 'terrible' tactics, so the assumption must be that she is 'really' a 1:55 or 1:56 athlete, so where is she going to get her time from? Surely we need to get away from comparing her to any men. I mean, look at Koch's 400m WR. She had a dreadful last 100m compared to any elite male and most top females, but she is the one with the nearly untouchable WR.

As we see in the Pre video, her second lap is terrible even with an easier first lap (specifically, easier first 200m). Do people think she is losing time from 600-800 because of how hard she goes 0-200? I think that is slightly preposterous because of how easy she is running that portion.

Additionally, she has done well in fast time trials, even when leading out in front.

I think what should be more considered is if there is a way for her to run more efficiently through the rounds. I think if she can come into finals better rested and back off just a bit from the fast pace (which would simply be easing up slightly in her acceleration during 50-100m IMO) that she would have more left for the last 150.

There is also a possibility that she is coming in with too high of a tone, which may make the first 200m fast and easy, but leave little for the end.

Me, THAT's who. Who cares what you think about this topic other than you? A possibility: no one.

"off their potential"? Borza running 1:44 easing up at age 19 in a semi was off his potential??? Not even close.

Oh give it up already. I was just pointing out that people (yes, other HUMANS) who finished their races 12-13 seconds faster than her only ran their first 200 about 1/2 second slower than her. You may not care, others might. Men and women, while different, are not different species of animals, by the way. And as we all know, even physiology studies of different species, such as mice, are often applicable to humans. So "SURELY" comparing men to women is not as absurd as your brilliant intellect seems to think.

I mean, wow, you came up with one whole example to prove your "point"! Bravo. And she was on drugs to boot. Yes, clearly one can see now that clearly what applies to men physiologically does not apply to women based on your one example of a PED female WR.

hey, your figured out that being more efficient in the rounds AND running a bit easier in the first 200 or 400 are not mutually exclusive ! Excellent. (and while you think she only needs to ease off during "50-100", others are arguing that she could back off even a little more than that)

Translation?? (I've heard this crap before. what is one of your old posting names? Oh wait, just figured it out. "WELLNOW". You've been hiding out all along. Forgot all about you. Wish I coulda kept it that way)