50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

The Goal Is Always To Race For Gold-Silver-Bronze.

I'm with Cush; and I learned it very late in masters-life thanks to a great friend/runner/coach who taught me how to Race With Confidence. To this day it is my objective to pass the lessons along to the high school student-athletes I am privileged to coach. The short of it is to run a fast time in a race before the Championships (whatever that may be). This brings confidence that one can be in the mix for the medals; because it was proven and no longer a stressful expectation. Besides, the last time I checked, one of the most difficult goals to pull off is to aim for a time-goal, PR, etc. These days it's been showing a lot for those of us out there attempting solo time-trials for a fast time.

There is nothing finer, fantastical, funner than "Championship Racing" through the rounds - Prelims, Semi-Finals, Finals - yet another reason why it's a bad idea to try and set a time-goal. It might just knock you out of the Championship Race; the one that matters most.

Isn't That Cush's Story? And I Couldn't Agree More.

KP

Mopac wrote:

Prerace rankings from 2015 and 16 and results (no guarantee I haven't missed someone).

Kipchoge (2.3.05) 1st 2.8.44.

Biwott (2.3.51) DNF.

Abera (2.4.24) DNF.

Berhanu (2.4.33) 2.13.29 13th.

Kiprotich (2.6.33) 2.13.32 14th.

Lilesa (2.6.35) 2.9.54 2d.

Abraham (2.6.40) 2.11.42 7th.

Ghebreslassie (2.7.46) 2.11.04 4th.

Mesel (2.8.18) 2.14.37 21st.

Kigen (2.8.24) 2.14.11 17th.

Sasaki (2.8.56) 2.13.57 16th.

Katajima (2.9.16) DNF

W. Korir (2.9.17) DNF.

Simbu (2.9.19) 2.11.15 5th.

Great list; thanks.

I wonder if it's normal for so many of the (potentially) fastest guys in a marathon to DNF or finish lower than their "seeding." Maybe it is; I just don't know. The marathon is so strenuous, and courses can be so different, maybe a "seeding" based on best recent times is never going to pan out real well.

Might be an interesting topic to look at, if someone has time on their hands.

KPdx wrote:

The Goal Is Always To Race For Gold-Silver-Bronze.

KP

Yes, of course. You guys keep saying that and I keep agreeing with you.

My radical contention is that running as fast as you can is the best way to win a medal. But no one else seems to agree with that, so I guess I'm crazy.

I'm not winning any medals anyway, so I'm just speaking as a running fan.

Brittle Master 1958 wrote:

My radical contention is that running as fast as you can is the best way to win a medal.

That’s true as long as no more than two others in the field can run faster than you.

oId guy wrote:

Brittle Master 1958 wrote:

My radical contention is that running as fast as you can is the best way to win a medal.

That’s true as long as no more than two others in the field can run faster than you.

So if there are 10 runners in the race, and nine of them are faster than I am, I should not run fast?

I should run SLOW to maximize my medal chances?

Help me out here; I guess I'm not following your argument.

Brittle Master 1958 wrote:

oId guy wrote:

That’s true as long as no more than two others in the field can run faster than you.

So if there are 10 runners in the race, and nine of them are faster than I am, I should not run fast?

I should run SLOW to maximize my medal chances?

Help me out here; I guess I'm not following your argument.

If you are like me and believe that you have a better kick (i.e. anaerobic capacity and speed) than your competition, but maybe less endurance, then there is absolutely no reason to press the pace. If the competition is going to let you hang around until the lat 100 meters when you can out-sprint them, there is no sensible reason to push the pace to a level that will leave you with no chance to kick at the finish.

The rule of thumb was it takes 7% more energy to lead then to follow. The other point in a high quality race is to get on the curb. Running the extra yardage towards lane two is not smart.

Pretty normal these days. 2012 OG all 3 Ethios were DNF also Ryan Hall and several other seeded runners.

2015 WC I rememember the 2 previous WR holders from Kenya both DNFd.

Looking at that field Kipchoge only had one guy who had run within a minute of his best. That was his countryman Biwott.(DNF). Kipchoge was previously one of the great track runners. He probably had a 2.7 in him on that course but no need to push and risk blowing up. He was a class above the field in every way.

Lilesa had a best 3 mins slower than Kipchoge. He was unlikely to run away from him from the front. Probably thinking if I hang on who knows what might happen?

Rupp had no fast marathons to his name. A quality track guy, best to wait and see and maybe use his track speed.

Ghebreslassie (4th) won the WC in 2.12 but had not ran a time within 4 mins of Kipchoge. Probably felt he was best suited to a slow tactical race.

Most of the next finishers were guys in the 2.9 /2.10 range. For them it would be hang on in there and if they have a good day they get a high placing.

13 th placed Berhanu was with the leaders until quite late in the race I think so he just didn't finish it off.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The rule of thumb was it takes 7% more energy to lead then to follow. The other point in a high quality race is to get on the curb. Running the extra yardage towards lane two is not smart.

At last some guys say something concrete that I can understand.

I was really taking the 2016 Olympic Marathon as my example, not track races with lanes etc., but I am sure there are some similarities such as drafting and having to run around people.

Needless to say, none of this applies to me, because I am not winning races at any distance.

For me as the slowest guy in the race, it probably makes sense for me to run slow, and then hope all my competition drop dead (a mass fainting episode would also be fine for my purposes) so I can cruise past them to the finish. I'm in the 60-64 age group; could happen.

not old guy wrote:

If you are like me and believe that you have a better kick (i.e. anaerobic capacity and speed) than your competition, but maybe less endurance, then there is absolutely no reason to press the pace. If the competition is going to let you hang around until the lat 100 meters when you can out-sprint them, there is no sensible reason to push the pace to a level that will leave you with no chance to kick at the finish.

Great point that I can relate to. Currently my kick is weak but not as weak as my endurance. When I go to the track and someone else is pushing a baby carriage around the oval, I have to dig deep to pass. My 50-year-old self would not recognize me now, at almost-62. Would probably kick sand in my face and take my wallet: "You're not going anyplace anyway, old man; go home and read a good book."

Also impressive analysis by Mopac: it's like you were there in person and remember the race. I just watched the video two days ago and couldn't have told you anything about Berhanu.

Brittle,

The road racing equivalent is make sure you race the tangents. Or, drafting into the wind. Expose yourself with wind at the back. Conserve energy on the uphill, swing from the hip on the downhill. I did see numerous poor tactics in the Olympic Trials Marathon. Two guys sacrificed themselves for nothing. Lead pack of women running five abreast and bunched three places deep. As if in either case there was any advantage to such racing. You notice none at the front early were in the top finishers.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The road racing equivalent is make sure you race the tangents. Or, drafting into the wind. Expose yourself with wind at the back. Conserve energy on the uphill, swing from the hip on the downhill.

Igy

Great stuff. Remember Chris Severy in Running with the Buffaloes? What a fantastic uphill runner he was. Such a loss.

I would think some of the fairly fast modern day marathoners have not really "raced" the event. Often they start as a pro pacer then graduate to hanging in the peloton for a fast time. No tactics no thought other than just hang in at a fast pace in ideal conditions on fast smooth courses.

A great old tactical race to watch is the 83 Rotterdam where Deek lined up against Alsal and Carlos Lopes.

They had a pacer keeping them honest but were watching each other mostly. 10 km to go Deek pushes at 3 min km pace and opens the race up. He continues to build the speed with just Lopes sticking with him. 29.20 last 10km, 14.20 last 5km, 4.20 last mile 64 last 400. Lopes the subsequent OG winner and a faster track man couldn't outkick Deek despite being about 20secs quicker over 5km.

Another great tactical race but very different was Steve Jones in the 85 Chicago.

Some pretty fast rivals to contend with but Jones just broke their hearts running sub 62 for the first half and hanging on to run 2.7 and missing Lopes' WR by just one second. His rivals running a "sensible" 2.8 pace didn't see him after about 5 kms.

Mopac wrote:

A great old tactical race to watch is the 83 Rotterdam where Deek lined up against Alsal and Carlos Lopes.

They had a pacer keeping them honest but were watching each other mostly. 10 km to go Deek pushes at 3 min km pace and opens the race up. He continues to build the speed with just Lopes sticking with him. 29.20 last 10km, 14.20 last 5km, 4.20 last mile 64 last 400. Lopes the subsequent OG winner and a faster track man couldn't outkick Deek despite being about 20secs quicker over 5km.

You inspired me to watch a short 13:44 version on Youtube of the 1983 Rotterdam Marathon. One of De Castella's great wins. What a surprise to see him outkick and break the faster Lopes in the last 200. De Castella simply would not be denied.

Salazar certainly had some great achievements in his career but I wasn't sorry to see him lose this race, especially after the cocky interview he gave beforehand.

De Castella had a strange way of moving his arms, but as they say, you don't win a race with style points.

Brittle Master 1958 wrote:

My 50-year-old self would not recognize me now, at almost-62. Would probably kick sand in my face and take my wallet: "You're not going anyplace anyway, old man; go home and read a good book."

You're not alone. I just turned 62 and would be pretty unrecognizable to my 50-year-old self. In my case, though the problem is speed, not endurance. I can still plod along for 2 hours or so at around 9:30/mile, but I doubt that I could hit 8:00 pace in a flat-out sprint. This morning two fat, overdressed joggers emerged from a side street onto the road I was running on, and I was chagrined that I was just barely gaining on them and didn't have time to run them down before they turned down a different side street. They were both probably 1/3 my age, but they did NOT look like runners!

But hey, we're out here doing it, which is more than most 62-year-olds can say. Enjoy it for what it's worth.

Brittle Master 1958 wrote:

oId guy wrote:

That’s true as long as no more than two others in the field can run faster than you.

So if there are 10 runners in the race, and nine of them are faster than I am, I should not run fast?

I should run SLOW to maximize my medal chances?

Help me out here; I guess I'm not following your argument.

just so you know, at least in my opinion, we really are just speculating here, so don't focus on wrong or right. but at the end of the day it does come down at least a little to odds. you run the 2016 marathon 100 times, and i'd bet kipchoge wins it at least 90 times, so when i'm going up against that kind of dominance, you do everything you can to increase variance. a slow pace does that. kipchoge knows that weather increases the variance, so he sought to minimize that by sitting much of the race, but controlling it from a fair distance out. when you look for upset races, typically it's because of an increase in variance--look at centro's 1500m gold, or desi linden's boston win, or, going back a little, cacho's win over morcelli in the '92 1500. these were people who all had probably less than 10% chance of winning, but variance was increased (slow pace/weather/etc) enough to give them a chance. that doesn't always work--i always thought farah's tactics in the last olympics were actually a little poor (and i'm admittedly in the minority here, and result-oriented thinking would say i'm absolutely wrong), but he was good enough, and maybe lucky enough, to overcome even poor tactics (watch how he stumbles, which could have ended medal chances). kipchoge, on the other hand, i thought was a masterful tactician, controlling the race from as far out as the conditions would permit. but even if he'd sat and kicked, he probably would have still won it, but he would have been giving others an increased probability. anyway, we're all just monday morning quarterbacking this, so we're making educated guesses at best...

cush

Brittle Master 1958 wrote:

oId guy wrote:

That’s true as long as no more than two others in the field can run faster than you.

So if there are 10 runners in the race, and nine of them are faster than I am, I should not run fast?

I should run SLOW to maximize my medal chances?

Help me out here; I guess I'm not following your argument.

My point is that if everyone in the field runs all out, then the three fastest runners will medal (obviously). So if you are one of the three fastest, then run all out. If you are not among those three, then a tactical race is your best route to a medal.

All this talk reminded me of my local hero, Ron Hill. I was up in the stands to see him come into the Edinburgh stadium to win the 1970 Commonwealth games. Apparently he went through 10k in 29:24 - 2:04 pace. For zero prize money, I imagine. That was a few months after he smashed the record at the Boston marathon.

oId guy wrote:

My point is that if everyone in the field runs all out, then the three fastest runners will medal (obviously). So if you are one of the three fastest, then run all out. If you are not among those three, then a tactical race is your best route to a medal.

I totally agree. So why don't the three fastest guys run all out, and let the slower guys compete for fourth place with their devious tactics?

Other things being equal (which in fairness, maybe they never are), it would appear to be in the interest of the faster guys to run a fast pace and ditch the slower guys, so the slower guys aren't hanging around at the end with a random chance to pull off an upset. Especially if the slower guys have good kicks.

But I get the argument about drafting being an advantage, and there seems to be data that leading takes 7% more energy, which I hadn't heard before. Makes you wonder how anyone ever wins by running from the front, if it's really that much harder.