Going Out 2:29 1k

There probably are examples of what you are saying, but i think it was Blanks who said that there were a lot of guys (including him) who regretted not going with Bosley and Young early on last year. They were all probably of the mindset that they needed to be up there to match any early moves since last year's was decisive for the top 3.

While the move was incredibly foolish because that is not sustainable, because everyone went with them it caused the entire field to slow the same way. Obviously some guys blew up incredibly bad. But for the most part all the main contenders are so good that they all died pretty much equally and it turned into a race of who was the toughest, Blanks won that. Could Drew or Nico won it if they made it an even split race for 28, probably. But at that level everyone was just going to race off what they did because 1.) They are both fit, and 2.) They have a reputation of taking the lead early. So everyone knows just follow them and try to outlast them and then both are beatable in a kick.

I don’t think the pace was that insane. They went out in 2:29-30, the women went out in 2:54-56Overall the 10th place woman averaged 3:22/K after (+27/K). The men’s 10th placer averaged 2:58/K after (+27/K). This is all to tell you that it is a very downhill first K and the men’s/womens first K while fast was not outrageous.

I get your point, but no matter the gradient of the downhill, a 2:29/1K either by the speed/lactate or downforce-impact is ridiculous at the start on anyone's legs

One notable instance is Galen Rupp's victory in the 2008 NCAA Championships. Rupp stayed back for the majority of the race and made a late surge to win the race. His conservative start allowed him to conserve energy and make a decisive move when it mattered most, utilizing his strong finishing kick.

Another example is Patrick Tiernan's win in the 2016 NCAA Championships. Tiernan stayed patient during the early stages of the race, gradually moving up throughout the course. In the latter part of the race, he unleashed a strong surge, overtaking the front runners and ultimately crossing the finish line as the champion.

Warm regards,

Stan Hayes

No doubt your statement is correct. But, that 1K was not only net downhill but also downwind. So, as far as 2:29 1Ks go, that was probably one of the easiest ways to do it.

Still too fast though, obviously.

I'd like that first 1000 measured again.

Ive run the course, very accurate markers.

What's easier, going out too hot and hanging on, or going out conservative and trying to pass 100+ bodies (while still going out faster than you can sustain)? I don't think there is a simple answer.

My thought is going out in a mad sprint and getting the position you want is probably better. You may not feel that much better by 5k if you go out in 2:38 and spend the next 12 minutes trying to work your way through the field.

Can't think of any

I think going out conservative and passing lots of people would be way easier. Once you blow up, you are done. Passing people and moving up builds confidence and helps you feel way better about how you are racing. It also shows confidence. If you are confident in your abilities, you don't need to be in any particular position 1km into a 10km XC race. You can do your thing, run your race, and pass all the chumps that started like idiots.

I have stated on here for years, the merits of even pace. Usually no argument except some believe it is best to positive split, 200m to 1000m events. None of the young men who split first 1K sub 2:32.50 would dare to do the same, track season, 10000m. It takes a lot of discipline for guys who see themselves as top ten finishers to avoid going out too fast. If a XC runner has 35th to 40th place ability, laying off the early pace is best.

I think 2:29 was NAU's best chance of gapping OK State's top 3 and winning the team title. Unfortunately for NAU, OK State's top 3 are monsters.

This is the correct answer.

This is the right answer, the conservative pacing strategy would have been a huge benefit in this race. Looking at the splits across the board, I'd say this nationals would be a contender for the all-time worst pacing in race history. Check everyone's 5k split vs full 10k, very few didn't positive split by anywhere from 30 seconds (the best pacers) to a full minute in the 2nd half.

Most of the guys that were in 200+ place at 1K moved up significantly throughout the race.

Definitely the worst pacing ever. Ugh imagine how painful that had to be — going out around mile pace for 1k, then slowly dying for 9k.

lol ok... did you run it with a wheel?

When i coached this getting out hard thing was a major difference that the european athletes did not get and was always a sticking point.

the problem is that everyone is good in this field and it is incredibly deep. It is almost impossible to be all American going out in 150-200th at 2k. As for teams, I’d you want a trophy you better be in the top 4-6 at 3k. Scores are refined at that point but don’t change a lot.

It is human nature to race those around you and is extremely hard to continuously move through the field. This was also a more narrow course compared to OSU or Indiana State with lots of turns with string out a race even more.

For most it is counter productive but the truth is you have to go fast at the beginning and play the game.