Is Cole Hocker the worst tactical distance runner in the world over the past 6 years?

nader wasnt bad wrote:

Kerr won today and is historically a much better tactician than Hocker, so he’s a bad example. Tactics are hard, especially indoors when there’s less room to maneuver, but Hocker’s “lead and fade” is terrible. There’s no reason for him to keep a medium pace at the front if he’s just going to abandon his position at the end. He either needs to defend the spot he worked for or do what Kerr does and bide his time.

What Jakob did in Eugene is nothing like Hocker cruising 58s or 59s for the first thousand and then defending his position, that’s a ridiculous comparison.

And now you want to cherry-pick the two races where Hocker’s strategy “worked” while conveniently ignoring all the examples where it’s failed lol. You realize he won those races in spite of his abysmal tactics, not because of them, right? He was .05 away from missing the 3k team, and your assessment is that putting himself in a horrific position and having to make up a ton of ground at the end worked well, even though the same maneuver is the reason he missed the 15 team and wasn’t racing Garcia and Nader today?

If Nader took your advice and lost, you’d be on here saying he should’ve sat on Garcia instead of trying to lead. There’s no reasoning with you when your sole purpose in criticizing Nader is to deflect from Hocker’s tactical deficiencies. Did Nader make some errors that potentially cost him? Yes. Was his race a disaster class that amounted to little more than throwing away a free gold medal? No. That was a tremendous performance by Garcia in spite of whatever mistakes the others might have made.

All of this is a deflection away from the point which is that Hocker’s tactics have been extremely poor as of late. That other people also make tactical errors is irrelevant. Hocker is an Olympic and World Champion with 3:27/7:23. He’s not going to win every time, but he shouldn’t be losing (sometimes badly) in very winnable scenarios. You don’t seem to understand that he’s held to a higher standard due to the strength of his credentials.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Good discussion.

Firstly I don't compare Hocker to Nuguse. Hocker has the X factor and arsenal to win big races and quite simply Nuguse doesn't. Nuguse's biggest championship win was the US outdoor title in 2023? (I know he's won 4 DL races which is great - but they aren't championships). So honestly, Yared is irrelevant to this discussion (no disrespect intended).

Regarding Hocker and his ability to win every race right now? Well I would say yes to that with a caveat - given that he famously focusses on championships, I wouldn't expect him to win multiple DLs a-la Jakob, but yes I do think he can win every championship race at this point in his career where he is smack bang in the middle of his career peak window and it's not like we haven't seen this before from greats (and I'll go up as high as El G who of course got it done each and every time aside from once in his great career).

I disagree with the "perfect tactic" assumption because I actually don't think he needs to be perfect at all - that is very rare just due to the nature of racing. But right now he's rolling out the c- playbook here and it appears he's consciously doing it. I've asked this question before - have you ever seen a guy of his level run this way? And his level is Olympic and World Champion level which puts in the same stratosphere as Coe, Morceli, El G et al. I mean even Jakob who people rip for his one-dimensional approach isn't as bad as this. Like what did Josh Kerr do yesterday that Cole Hocker couldn't have done? What did Adrien Ben do so well tactically in the World 1500m semi that he qualified for the final and din't get himself DQ'd. Why can Nathan Green and Luke Houser put themselves in good spots in an indoor 1500m and he can't?

I'm not underestimating Josh Kerr - when did I do that? I'm just looking pragmatically at that race. If Hocker is only marginally better positioned he wins. He ran 26.04 for the final 200m going around 4 guys and made up 0.30 on Kerr who ran 26.34 going past one. There was no reason physical ability wise Hocker should have been there - the reason he was is because his tactic is to lead every final early but not commit to staying at the front of the race, or moving off the pole line until the final 200m. With that formula it is simply impossible for you not to be swallowed up and shuffled back through a pack. That is literally the only thing that can possibly happen. And when that happens you need to pray that whoever is in front of you bends enough for you to impose your race-best talent on them and win.

He can believe that he's going to win unpaced races doing this, but I promise you and him he's not. Using this series of tactics he's gone 3/7 since the Olympic final (which wasn't run this way). He won the US and world outdoor 5000 and indoor 3000, and been beaten in the US 1500, the world 1500 semi, the US indoor 1500 and now the world indoor 3000. And yet if he just made a small tweak to this (don't lead early, don't get passed by 4-5 guys as you enter into the business end of the race) I think he could be as dominant as the all-time greats and why wouldn't you aspire to be with his level of ability?

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

I get it, but I think it’s just overly critical. How many guys has Yared Nuguse lost to in those two finals? So while I think your critiques are valid, they are holding Hocker to just such a high standard to win every unpaced race vs comparable athletes. He’s better than Strand/Koech but one guy won a DL and the other ran 12.6 in that very race to run 3:30. Nobody expected those guys could do that (run mid-12s in the last 100). They haven’t done it since frankly.

TI understand your POV as you see a guy who has the ability to win every race if he ran perfect tactics. But I’d also say a guy like Josh Kerr is being underestimated by you. Kerr ran 8:00.67 and trounced the field in 2024 World Indoors. He won Budapest running 3:29-low with a 53 last lap running wide. He’s no schlub and if Hocker is better it’s pretty marginal. Look at the Philly GST where Hocker ran a far better tactical race and Kerr still won. And yes Kerr has also had tough days at the office. He’s been open his injury in the semi was a tactical blunder in essence. Lost track of where everyone was and injured himself trying to compensate. But he also rightly believes he can win every unpaced race if he nails his tactics. Jakob believes it too. But the truth is none of these guys win every time, and it’s not surprising to me it’s that way. I think Hockers tactics are hit or miss but again the actual record is not so bad, and there are just countless guys who struggle in rounds, let alone finals with worse tactics.

Good discussion.

Firstly I don't compare Hocker to Nuguse. Hocker has the X factor and arsenal to win big races and quite simply Nuguse doesn't. Nuguse's biggest championship win was the US outdoor title in 2023? (I know he's won 4 DL races which is great - but they aren't championships). So honestly, Yared is irrelevant to this discussion (no disrespect intended).

Regarding Hocker and his ability to win every race right now? Well I would say yes to that with a caveat - given that he famously focusses on championships, I wouldn't expect him to win multiple DLs a-la Jakob, but yes I do think he can win every championship race at this point in his career where he is smack bang in the middle of his career peak window and it's not like we haven't seen this before from greats (and I'll go up as high as El G who of course got it done each and every time aside from once in his great career).

I disagree with the "perfect tactic" assumption because I actually don't think he needs to be perfect at all - that is very rare just due to the nature of racing. But right now he's rolling out the c- playbook here and it appears he's consciously doing it. I've asked this question before - have you ever seen a guy of his level run this way? And his level is Olympic and World Champion level which puts in the same stratosphere as Coe, Morceli, El G et al. I mean even Jakob who people rip for his one-dimensional approach isn't as bad as this. Like what did Josh Kerr do yesterday that Cole Hocker couldn't have done? What did Adrien Ben do so well tactically in the World 1500m semi that he qualified for the final and din't get himself DQ'd. Why can Nathan Green and Luke Houser put themselves in good spots in an indoor 1500m and he can't?

I'm not underestimating Josh Kerr - when did I do that? I'm just looking pragmatically at that race. If Hocker is only marginally better positioned he wins. He ran 26.04 for the final 200m going around 4 guys and made up 0.30 on Kerr who ran 26.34 going past one. There was no reason physical ability wise Hocker should have been there - the reason he was is because his tactic is to lead every final early but not commit to staying at the front of the race, or moving off the pole line until the final 200m. With that formula it is simply impossible for you not to be swallowed up and shuffled back through a pack. That is literally the only thing that can possibly happen. And when that happens you need to pray that whoever is in front of you bends enough for you to impose your race-best talent on them and win.

He can believe that he's going to win unpaced races doing this, but I promise you and him he's not. Using this series of tactics he's gone 3/7 since the Olympic final (which wasn't run this way). He won the US and world outdoor 5000 and indoor 3000, and been beaten in the US 1500, the world 1500 semi, the US indoor 1500 and now the world indoor 3000. And yet if he just made a small tweak to this (don't lead early, don't get passed by 4-5 guys as you enter into the business end of the race) I think he could be as dominant as the all-time greats and why wouldn't you aspire to be with his level of ability?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

TL your defense of him seems almost personal and appears like it's born from this idea I am unfairly hating on him which isn't the case. From his emergence in 2021 at the NCAA level I have been a massive admirer of his ability and prospects (if you have the time feel free to go back and find any thread you like from that era and my posts in them - in fact I even started one comparing his performances that season to major 1500m finals historically and how he was already at a potential gold medal winning level).

But with the accolades and respect has to come critique when it's warranted. His tactical awareness has made winning a balancing act. There is no doubt Cole Hocker is one of the most complete 1500m runners of all time on a physical talent level. He can win in the fastest races (a 3.27 Olympic final) and he can win in slow races. He has comparable ability over 5000m. And nobody is downplaying an Olympic gold medal in the 1500m and a world title in the 5000m. But the facts are the facts and they don't lie. He should be winning more races than he does and it's because his race execution, which appears to be born of a bizarre strategy that he is actively employing and somehow believing will work out for him when quite simply it's not.

And I was thinking about the "Kirop was worse" side of the opinion and here is where I disagree. Because I don't think Asbel Kiprop ever had a "strategy" and so I doubt he ever had any actual tactics. And I'm pretty sure Cole Hocker is a more intelligent and aware guy than KIprop is, which means his inability to understand and adjust this set of bad tactics is actually worse.

You can say what you want - it's your opinion and I respect that. But the fact is this - in his last two US 1500m finals he's been beaten by 6 different Americans. Six. He was lucky to win that US indoor 3000m race (he beat Young by 4/100ths after Nico spotted him nearly 2 seconds at the halfway point) and he should have won that 3000m yesterday going away. Josh Kerr is not a better 3000m runner than he is and that's a world final. Regarding the world 5000m last season, you can argue that is was a masterpiece in pace judgement but the reality is putting yourself in a position where you have to pass 11 guys basically running in lane 2 for the final 350m isn't good tactical running - it's a testament to his talent and ability which nobody is questioning.

I don't have my opinion because I "hate" or am "hating" on Hocker - I just hate seeing a guy of his level of talent squander races away because I do want to see greatness. I do want to see the best guy win (and I believe he's the best guy) and I know that these windows aren't open forever - just ask Jakob.

I get it, but I think it’s just overly critical. How many guys has Yared Nuguse lost to in those two finals? So while I think your critiques are valid, they are holding Hocker to just such a high standard to win every unpaced race vs comparable athletes. He’s better than Strand/Koech but one guy won a DL and the other ran 12.6 in that very race to run 3:30. Nobody expected those guys could do that (run mid-12s in the last 100). They haven’t done it since frankly.

TI understand your POV as you see a guy who has the ability to win every race if he ran perfect tactics. But I’d also say a guy like Josh Kerr is being underestimated by you. Kerr ran 8:00.67 and trounced the field in 2024 World Indoors. He won Budapest running 3:29-low with a 53 last lap running wide. He’s no schlub and if Hocker is better it’s pretty marginal. Look at the Philly GST where Hocker ran a far better tactical race and Kerr still won. And yes Kerr has also had tough days at the office. He’s been open his injury in the semi was a tactical blunder in essence. Lost track of where everyone was and injured himself trying to compensate. But he also rightly believes he can win every unpaced race if he nails his tactics. Jakob believes it too. But the truth is none of these guys win every time, and it’s not surprising to me it’s that way. I think Hockers tactics are hit or miss but again the actual record is not so bad, and there are just countless guys who struggle in rounds, let alone finals with worse tactics.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

nader wasnt bad wrote:

Kerr won today and is historically a much better tactician than Hocker, so he’s a bad example. Tactics are hard, especially indoors when there’s less room to maneuver, but Hocker’s “lead and fade” is terrible. There’s no reason for him to keep a medium pace at the front if he’s just going to abandon his position at the end. He either needs to defend the spot he worked for or do what Kerr does and bide his time.

What Jakob did in Eugene is nothing like Hocker cruising 58s or 59s for the first thousand and then defending his position, that’s a ridiculous comparison.

And now you want to cherry-pick the two races where Hocker’s strategy “worked” while conveniently ignoring all the examples where it’s failed lol. You realize he won those races in spite of his abysmal tactics, not because of them, right? He was .05 away from missing the 3k team, and your assessment is that putting himself in a horrific position and having to make up a ton of ground at the end worked well, even though the same maneuver is the reason he missed the 15 team and wasn’t racing Garcia and Nader today?

If Nader took your advice and lost, you’d be on here saying he should’ve sat on Garcia instead of trying to lead. There’s no reasoning with you when your sole purpose in criticizing Nader is to deflect from Hocker’s tactical deficiencies. Did Nader make some errors that potentially cost him? Yes. Was his race a disaster class that amounted to little more than throwing away a free gold medal? No. That was a tremendous performance by Garcia in spite of whatever mistakes the others might have made.

All of this is a deflection away from the point which is that Hocker’s tactics have been extremely poor as of late. That other people also make tactical errors is irrelevant. Hocker is an Olympic and World Champion with 3:27/7:23. He’s not going to win every time, but he shouldn’t be losing (sometimes badly) in very winnable scenarios. You don’t seem to understand that he’s held to a higher standard due to the strength of his credentials.

I gotta go to sleep but let’s just be clear:

Nader losing by .43 to a guy with a 3:35 PB and no achievements at 1500 before this is somehow better to you than Hocker losing to Josh Kerr by .12.

the point: Hockers tactics aren’t perfect, but few guys’ are. He calculates preserving his kick vs selling out for position. It is not cherry picking to say sometimes it works great other times it doesn’t. Today what you are missing and Nader is not missing is that in a slow race the leader has the advantage. He said as much. He tried to run second which is not so easy but you are acting like should be easy for Hocker for some reason.

nader wasnt bad wrote:

“Let’s be clear…” proceeds to summarize my position with something I never said or even implied lol. Come on dude, you have to be better than that.

Do you understand that tactics are judged by more than just the outcome of the race? Hocker could have won today and it wouldn’t change the fact that putting himself in a hole in the latter stages is a stupid thing to do. That was the point I made about the USAs 3k which you ignored. Saying something “worked great” when it almost cost him a spot on the team is ridiculous. If he didn’t get himself into such a bad position he could’ve won with a much greater margin.

I took issue with your characterization of Nader’s tactics which was the reason for my initial reply. You tried to paint it like he made a huge error in not taking the lead, like it was obvious Garcia would go to the front and run away with it, which, as I said before, is just you benefiting from hindsight. Did you pick Garcia to win or even medal?

Listen to Nader’s interview. When Gault asks him about mistakes, he points to getting passed and having to use energy fighting to regain his position. Then Gault asks him “Do you wish you would have just stayed in 2nd on his shoulder?” and Nader says yes. So like I said already, it wasn’t his intention to lead. You either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what he said about leading (his point was that Garcia stayed out of trouble while he wasted energy fighting).

This discussion was never about whose silver was worse, and you’ll notice I never actually criticized Hocker for losing to Kerr. It was purely about tactics, and while Nader’s were undoubtedly better, that wasn’t even the point. This thread only exists because Hocker once again made a critical positioning error in the latter stages and gave himself too much work to do in the last 100. That he came up just short is a testament to his physical abilities, not his tactical acumen.

“Sometimes it works great, other times it doesn’t” is, frankly, an absurd assessment. I understand the pushback to worst tactician in the last 6 years (or ever), but to argue that Hocker’s approach is anything but foolish is insanity.

If a 3:27 guy fails to make a world 1500 final twice in a row using the same race plan, it probably sucks.

nader wasnt bad wrote:

Kerr won today and is historically a much better tactician than Hocker, so he’s a bad example. Tactics are hard, especially indoors when there’s less room to maneuver, but Hocker’s “lead and fade” is terrible. There’s no reason for him to keep a medium pace at the front if he’s just going to abandon his position at the end. He either needs to defend the spot he worked for or do what Kerr does and bide his time.

What Jakob did in Eugene is nothing like Hocker cruising 58s or 59s for the first thousand and then defending his position, that’s a ridiculous comparison.

And now you want to cherry-pick the two races where Hocker’s strategy “worked” while conveniently ignoring all the examples where it’s failed lol. You realize he won those races in spite of his abysmal tactics, not because of them, right? He was .05 away from missing the 3k team, and your assessment is that putting himself in a horrific position and having to make up a ton of ground at the end worked well, even though the same maneuver is the reason he missed the 15 team and wasn’t racing Garcia and Nader today?

If Nader took your advice and lost, you’d be on here saying he should’ve sat on Garcia instead of trying to lead. There’s no reasoning with you when your sole purpose in criticizing Nader is to deflect from Hocker’s tactical deficiencies. Did Nader make some errors that potentially cost him? Yes. Was his race a disaster class that amounted to little more than throwing away a free gold medal? No. That was a tremendous performance by Garcia in spite of whatever mistakes the others might have made.

All of this is a deflection away from the point which is that Hocker’s tactics have been extremely poor as of late. That other people also make tactical errors is irrelevant. Hocker is an Olympic and World Champion with 3:27/7:23. He’s not going to win every time, but he shouldn’t be losing (sometimes badly) in very winnable scenarios. You don’t seem to understand that he’s held to a higher standard due to the strength of his credentials.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

nader wasnt bad wrote:

“Let’s be clear…” proceeds to summarize my position with something I never said or even implied lol. Come on dude, you have to be better than that.

Do you understand that tactics are judged by more than just the outcome of the race? Hocker could have won today and it wouldn’t change the fact that putting himself in a hole in the latter stages is a stupid thing to do. That was the point I made about the USAs 3k which you ignored. Saying something “worked great” when it almost cost him a spot on the team is ridiculous. If he didn’t get himself into such a bad position he could’ve won with a much greater margin.

I took issue with your characterization of Nader’s tactics which was the reason for my initial reply. You tried to paint it like he made a huge error in not taking the lead, like it was obvious Garcia would go to the front and run away with it, which, as I said before, is just you benefiting from hindsight. Did you pick Garcia to win or even medal?

Listen to Nader’s interview. When Gault asks him about mistakes, he points to getting passed and having to use energy fighting to regain his position. Then Gault asks him “Do you wish you would have just stayed in 2nd on his shoulder?” and Nader says yes. So like I said already, it wasn’t his intention to lead. You either misunderstood or are misrepresenting what he said about leading (his point was that Garcia stayed out of trouble while he wasted energy fighting).

This discussion was never about whose silver was worse, and you’ll notice I never actually criticized Hocker for losing to Kerr. It was purely about tactics, and while Nader’s were undoubtedly better, that wasn’t even the point. This thread only exists because Hocker once again made a critical positioning error in the latter stages and gave himself too much work to do in the last 100. That he came up just short is a testament to his physical abilities, not his tactical acumen.

“Sometimes it works great, other times it doesn’t” is, frankly, an absurd assessment. I understand the pushback to worst tactician in the last 6 years (or ever), but to argue that Hocker’s approach is anything but foolish is insanity.

If a 3:27 guy fails to make a world 1500 final twice in a row using the same race plan, it probably sucks.

I think Hocker's approach is risky. I'd argue the Worlds Semi was one somewhat risky decision (not going out wide like Ben did), compounded by another (not zigzagging to get into the space behind Reynold when he had a brief moment). Truth be told, again watch that semi back, and it was truly remarkable how it played out.

It's not surprising that the other Semi had a pile-up that led to an injury for Josh Kerr. So, while Hocker's DQ gets all the attention both he and Kerr's World Championship 1500 experiences were ruined by difficult semis. This just shows how difficult it is tactically with so many guys in around the same range all fighting for the exact same positions. Kerr made the final, but he got injured doing so because of a tactical mistake.

I think Hocker's approach isn't so foolish as is some of the excess patience/passivity late. I think he's ceding too much ground to preserve his kick.

I didn't misunderstand Nader, I think his tactics were flawed and not being able to execute them is unsurprising. He is unwilling to lead, and when a race is an absolute jogfest that inflexibility is a liability. Last year he got passed on the inside and outside of the race on the last lap while in second place. Will you defend that as "good tactics gone wrong."

Hanging out in second place obsessively only to get passed at key moments in a slow race is worse than what Hocker does (outside of the USA Indoors 1500, which was plain bad). At least Hocker ensures he has a kick in the last 100. Nader once in his career did, and came from a more boxed/worse position than Hocker typically does and won a world title. Other times his last 100, he has wasted all his energy trying to be in second (including yesterday). That is not good tactics, even if it sounds good on paper.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

nader wasnt bad wrote:

Kerr won today and is historically a much better tactician than Hocker, so he’s a bad example. Tactics are hard, especially indoors when there’s less room to maneuver, but Hocker’s “lead and fade” is terrible. There’s no reason for him to keep a medium pace at the front if he’s just going to abandon his position at the end. He either needs to defend the spot he worked for or do what Kerr does and bide his time.

What Jakob did in Eugene is nothing like Hocker cruising 58s or 59s for the first thousand and then defending his position, that’s a ridiculous comparison.

And now you want to cherry-pick the two races where Hocker’s strategy “worked” while conveniently ignoring all the examples where it’s failed lol. You realize he won those races in spite of his abysmal tactics, not because of them, right? He was .05 away from missing the 3k team, and your assessment is that putting himself in a horrific position and having to make up a ton of ground at the end worked well, even though the same maneuver is the reason he missed the 15 team and wasn’t racing Garcia and Nader today?

If Nader took your advice and lost, you’d be on here saying he should’ve sat on Garcia instead of trying to lead. There’s no reasoning with you when your sole purpose in criticizing Nader is to deflect from Hocker’s tactical deficiencies. Did Nader make some errors that potentially cost him? Yes. Was his race a disaster class that amounted to little more than throwing away a free gold medal? No. That was a tremendous performance by Garcia in spite of whatever mistakes the others might have made.

All of this is a deflection away from the point which is that Hocker’s tactics have been extremely poor as of late. That other people also make tactical errors is irrelevant. Hocker is an Olympic and World Champion with 3:27/7:23. He’s not going to win every time, but he shouldn’t be losing (sometimes badly) in very winnable scenarios. You don’t seem to understand that he’s held to a higher standard due to the strength of his credentials.

100% agree with you and your final sentence is the salient point being missed.

I'm not sure if there is this weird "throwback complex" at play where people are just stoked an American MD runner is figuring in these races and pinching a gold medal here and there because at this point in his career, right now, he is good enough to win these races. He was clearly good enough to win the world 1500m had he made it. He was good enough to win this world indoor 1500m had he made it. And I said this in another post, he has the chance to be the dominant athlete for the back half of this decade and make himself an all-time great - but that means winning the races you have the ability to. On top of that, these are the races he wants to win and focuses on winning because he clearly doesn't care about the DL like others do.

I'm not sure if people understand the gravity of what happened in Tokyo. If he nailed that double, he immediately does what Jakob has tried and failed to do 4 times, and he joins a club of 3 to do it - Nurmi, El G, Lagat. 2027 Worlds are a long way away - there is no guarantee he gets that chance again.

Some of the names and mental gymnastics being done here are fascinating. Nuguse, Nader, Ethan Strand - people really think that Cole Hocker is the same tier of athlete? This is just all too simple to me, I'm not sure what others are/aren't seeing.

1) What other elite talent have we ever seen consciously run this way across history? Has he somehow unlocked the secret that all others before just couldn't tactically?

2) He's 3/7 employing these tactics including getting beat at the US level over 1500m by a combined 6 guys in the event he's the Olympic champion and record holder in.

3) This way of running is actually extremely inefficient, so even if you want to make a case there is some type of positioning benefit to doing so (please by all means someone try and make that case), the energy cost alone must compromise him, basically proving my position that he is one of the most physically talented and gifted athletes ever given how he's been able to overcome this, especially in that world 5000m final.