Today's 1500m races versus several years ago....

I couldn't agree with you more...

What about Morcelli's kick in the '91 World Championships? Pretty cool...

Even scarier, go to Jim Ryun's running camp site and watch him break the world record in the mile with the 3:51. Splits were 59-59-59-54. Led the whole way. It's pretty sick.

Don't blame ElG; many were doing the rabbit thing before he showed up. For years. You might as well blame the fans and sportswriters who only show up or write about records. If the meet promoters and such thought they could get the same attendance without paying for rabbits, they wouldn't hire rabbits.

Yeah, in his WR mile, Ryun said he wasn't a bit tired (53.7 last lap) on the "America's Greatest Miler" tape. In his book Quest For Gold, he said he and Timmons felt he had the raw materials to run 3:46 on dirt. BUT - even scarier is his 1500 WR a couple of weeks after the mile record. He covered the last 1200 in 2:46.6 (yeah, it's on my other post as well) in horrible conditions (105 degree track temp) at the LA Coliseum. On dirt. Ryun set records in solo runs, duels and a paced attempt - his first mile record. Don't see anyone doing this in all manner of races now.

Don't get me wrong, today's guys are great. But they get into that "run from the gun" rhythm and mode for the season, and few of them seem to have real racing skills. Or at least, their racing skills aren't very sharp. It's literally time trials every time out. Maybe El G would still win most every time out ... but you never know. Look what happened in Sydney. There may have been other factors involved, but El G didn't seem so comfortable.

Of course it's true that El G "didn't seem so comfortable" in Sydney (or Atlanta), and things didn't work for him. But it's sort of ironic that you're citing Ryun as the antithesis of El G, since he could win in any type of race. This is the same Ryun who, coming in as WR holder, lost in '68, and then fell in '72. Eerily similar to El G's two Olympic experiences. So having a little bad luck or getting burned in a kick doesn't necessarily mean someone is incapable of tactical racing.

(And please don't bother writing back with "altitude blah blah blah pushed over blah blah blah" -- the point is, as the previous poster said, in championship racing anything can happen.)

Well I'm on the topic, it made me smile (bitterly) to read the runnersworld.com summary of the mile on London: "The men's mile turned into a disappointing deliberate, tactical race won by Hicham el Guerrouj in 3:50.86 with Cornelius Chirchir second in 3:51.68." So which is it? What do people want? If it's tactical, then it's "disappointing" and slow. If it's fast, people are bitter because there's no suspense, since very few people can mix it up with the leaders in a 3:45 race.

At the end of the day, a race is a race -- you go out and run your best. If you think the pace is too slow, speed it up. If the pace is too fast and you can't keep up, you're just not good enough.

I

I think the general knock against El G ( I wonder what Muslims think of us Westerners shortening their names?) is the fact that he's deliberately used his countryman to dictate the outcome of championship races - -as opposed to simply employing rabbits in Grand Prix races.

It's one thing to set up the pace in Zurich, it's quite another to orchestrate an Olympic (or World) final, and I think that's what leaves a bitter taste in the mouth for some - including me. (Can you imagine Coe asking Elliot or Cram to sacrifice their race in order to set the pace? Cram was an 18 year-old in the Moscow 1500m final, and might have actually done it. But Coe or Ovett would have never dared ask.)

What's perhaps saddest is the fact that, had he not tripped up in Atlanta (when he was perfectly poised at 1100m ) he might well have won, and thus might not have felt the need to employ team tactics in his subsequent finals.

I do agree, however, that the marketing of the sport is such that records take precedent over victories, and that's a problem. (Although it's less of an issue in the Olympics)

For purists, I think a blanket finish at 3:38 with a 51 last 400m is just as (if not more) exciting than El G in 3:29, with the rest of the field strung out between 3:32 and 3:37. Unfortunately, the former will never get reported. The latter, however, will, usually like this: Morocco's Hicham El Guerrouj narrowly missed breaking his own 1500m world record last night in Paris, clocking 3:28.56 in a blah blah blah....

Martin

So what of the Kenyan and Ethiopian tactics at world or olympic events, do these leave a less bitter taste?

The tactics are nowhere near as blatant (I'll stand corrected if proven wrong, however) as those used by EL G.

He's sent Kaouch out as a sacrificial lamb twice - in 99 in again in 2001, to take the pace to 800m. From there, the kid blows up, staggers home in dead last (or next to last) and disrupts the entire field. He makes no effort to compete -- only to set up his countryman. (Thankfully, that tactic failed in 2000, when that's year lamb to the slaughter, Baba, finished in the ultra-competitive time of 3:56, after having lead in the early stages).

Now, I agree that team tactics play a factor at the major championships - and I don't like it, whether they're employed by Kenyans, Moroccans or Irishmen.

Martin

Anyone in the race is free to run with El G and make it a race. They are just too slow or too mentally weak. Just because the race is rabbited to ensure a fast time doesn't mean that it can't turn into a race. El G is the only one with the ability or commitment to running fast to try to run sub 3:50 every time out.

There's a difference between Elg and the Kenyans here...

With the Kenyans, it's something like "Let's all go out fast together, so we can protect each other and give ourselves the best chance of winning."

With El G, it's more like "You sacrifice any chance at a medal you have had, so that I won't have to deal with having someone near me with 400 to go."

DJL

Running is a wonderful sport because it is pure- success comes only through hard work, dedication, etc.- and often the hard work is the reward itself. On the same note, I only consider a race a success if I have pushed my body and mind farther than it wanted to go- finishing times or places are only reflections of my efforts, and therefore I can be satisfied with a time that would disappoint another runner.

When racing is done at the elite level, it seems as though the time or result is more important than the effort, a phenomenon that I find in opposition to the inherent purity of running as a sport and a lifelong activity. Perhaps for elites the result is more important- I realize running is a job for these athletes- but it seems that a tactical race goes against this fundamental purity. I would personally watch a race where there was no change in place from start to finish than a slow, tactical race where the winner sits and kicks- you might as well watch sprints for that.

However, I also believe rabbits somehow violate this purity as one athlete uses the strength of another to better his own time- although this is yet another fundamental aspect to racing.

Perhaps there is no solution- I don't like rabbits, but I don't like slow races either. I'll probabaly just hope for a good, solid effort, and watch high school in the meantime.

As this thread (and its many predecessors) makes clear, different people appreciate the esthetics of different types of races. Some people like crazy kicks, some people like fast times and "honest efforts", and so on. But why do people feel the need to demand that all races be run in their favorite manner?

The race is determined by the runners in the race, not the pundits. Each one uses the tactics they think best (based on their whole range of physical and mental strengths and weaknesses) to achieve whatever goals they're seeking in that race (ie. time or place).

I can't deny that I don't like El G's use of a countryman as a rabbit in finals -- partially because it hurts the chances of the great kickers (Sully and Hood!) that I cheer for. But in a final, 12 men line up to see who will cross the line first, and each can do whatever they want as long as they don't obstruct others. Running very fast for 800m doesn't obstruct anyone, and doesn't help one person any more than another.

Okay, I guess I'm ranting. Last point -- contrary to what someone above said, Kenyan team tactics almost invariably involve the sacrifice of the one of the younger and less experienced members of the squad. The fact that this runner sometimes hangs for 6th place or whatever is simply an indication of how damn good he is.

Running very fast for 800m doesn't obstruct anyone, and doesn't help one person any more than another.

That's not the issue -- the problem occurs when the same runner collapses, and runs about 2:10 for the final 700 metres, forcing the entire field to go around him, usually at a point in the race when, if you lose your position for even an instant, you can never get it back.

If the Kenyans do indeed sacrifice a runner, at the very least he, as you say, hangs on till the end, and can't be accused of impeding the rest of the race. This certainly isn't the case with El G and his minions.

Martin

Alex

My point is, I think a race should be run to determine who the fastest runner is- not to determine who has the best tactics or the best kick. This is not simply a matter of personal preferance- I think mine is an opinion that is relevant to our (I assume) mutual love of this sport.

Obviously, I'm in no position to tell any elite athlete how to compete, but I do wonder whether the emphasis in elite competitive running is on winning or on personal acheivement. If the emphasis is simply on winning, then I think there is a marked difference between elite competition and the competition in lower levels of the sport.

In any case, its something to think about.

Ryun could win in any kind of race - that doesn't mean you will win all the time. Sure, altitude, shoving, etc. happened, and you say not to mention them ... but they did happen - JUST as the Kenyans deliberately boxed in Morceli in '92. That was despicable, and not what racing is about. The Kenyan's tactics in many races have been what one could term "obstructionist". Block, spike, interfere, throw off the opponent's rhythm so the designated Kenyan medalist has a better chance.

Now, going out from the gun after a rabbit may still be "racing", in a way. But it doesn't seem to bring the adrenaline rush to the fans that racing, sans rabbits, does. This is because the outcome is very much more in question. I agree that El G didn't look as comfortable in Sydney. Usually he seems more concerned with the clock - but being concerned with the two Kenyans crawling up his back in the Oly final may have helped him tie up somewhat in the stretch.

Coe could win in any kind of race, yet didn't win all the time, at the frequency today's top runners do in paced events. As many others have pointed out, a lot of top guys seem "lost" when they are in a run and gun tactical race.