Suppose that you and 1,000 people were placed at the west end of a long interstate highway. All traffic is cleared off the road, and at noon, everyone will start running or walking east.
You're given a 100 meter head start. If you can stay ahead of all of them until 11:59 AM the following day, you'll get $100 million. But if any of them pass you at any point before the 24 hours is up, you'll be shot dead.
The 1,000 people are selected at random from the U.S. population but will be the same age and gender as you. They're given the entire morning to coordinate a strategy and will each receive $1 million if any of them pass you. There's water at every mile, but everyone, including you, will have to carry their own food.
Would you take the deal?
I think my chances are pretty good. I can run a sub 2:05 800 and have done an 18 mile run sub 6:20 pace. The odds of a randomly selected woman my exact age (30 something) in the US being fast enough to get me in a sprint or a grind where I have a 100m lead are very low, I would think. I guess the biggest risk is experiencing a medical event or sudden tendon rupture making continuing impossible.
100 meters is far too short of a head start. As others have noted, the pack is going to have some speedsters chase you like mad from the gun, you run like hell to not get caught, then you die and get caught by a 5k/10k guy who didn't run the first few minutes like a madman.
I think to make this interesting at all, to hold them all off for an even hour, you probably need 800 meters so you can pace yourself and not have to sprint away from a sprinter up to an 800 meter runner. Even then, we would be assuming that you can outrun 1,000 people (all of them) for an hour and not give up more than about 3 minutes to any single one.
To hold them off for a day, you might need miles and miles of head start, and you would have to be a relatively accomplished ultra runner (or marathon runner at a minimum). If you burn out and walk, you get caught.
1,000 random people would likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners.
a random selection of 1000 people would not “likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners” that are currently in their accomplished running age. Are you crazy?
100 meters is far too short of a head start. As others have noted, the pack is going to have some speedsters chase you like mad from the gun, you run like hell to not get caught, then you die and get caught by a 5k/10k guy who didn't run the first few minutes like a madman.
I think to make this interesting at all, to hold them all off for an even hour, you probably need 800 meters so you can pace yourself and not have to sprint away from a sprinter up to an 800 meter runner. Even then, we would be assuming that you can outrun 1,000 people (all of them) for an hour and not give up more than about 3 minutes to any single one.
To hold them off for a day, you might need miles and miles of head start, and you would have to be a relatively accomplished ultra runner (or marathon runner at a minimum). If you burn out and walk, you get caught.
1,000 random people would likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners.
a random selection of 1000 people would not “likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners” that are currently in their accomplished running age. Are you crazy?
Nope. Not crazy.
What’s more rare; fairly accomplished runners (again this is for their age group) or millionaires and even people worth 50 million dollars? Because you should easily see that you are going to have some of those in the sample.
I think people are envisioning people of all ages and not being specific enough. In 1,000 24-year-old men there damn sure could be some people who can really scoot.
If one of the 1000 people understands the rules, you are dead regardless of running abilities, either yours or of your competitors : at some point during the 24 hours you'll need to go to a toilet, so basically to survive you are betting that you can resist to it more than 1000 other random people you age (they don't even need to run at all: they can just walk 100 meters behind you for the entire thing and then the fastest of them gets you killed). In this scenario in which the pchasers understand the rules, there is basically no way of surviving, unless you are a good ultramarathon guy (if you can run 250 or more km for 24 h, they either run the same distance minus 100 m or you can have all the poop you want because they are kilometers behind you at any point of the 24 hours). So, summing up, if you can run 250 km for 24 h you are betting that nobody is either a better miler/5-10k guy/marathoner than you out of 1000 people (which is a fair bet), otherwise you are probably dead.
At an evenly-paced 17:06 5K, I'd be running a low 41" for my first 200m, which means that the sprinter would have to run that time for 300m due to the head start.
There are probably fewer than 1 in 1000 random 38 year olds who could run a 41" 300 right now, and even if I got unlucky, he'd be completely gassed by the time he finished that 300.
The sprinter types don't have to catch you, they just have to make you run hard enough that one of the long distance types can catch you later. Filling in the middle with someone running their best mile, best 5k, best 10k, etc they're just trying to keep you running hard enough that you'll be forced to stop at some point.
Yes - sorry, that's what I meant. With a 100m head start I'm not concerned about a female sprinter of my age catching me, but I'd be concerned about whatever tactics they'd be employing (as a group!).
Having said that, in order for someone running their best mile, 5k, 10K etc to stress you they'd have to be pretty close which means they couldn't have slacked off too much earlier on either.
The tactics are the most important thing about this... essentially they want to make you as slow as possible. Mins the 100m, you need to be faster than all of them.
Even if there was a 50 second 400m runner there, I still have 100m on them so have to cover 300m in 50 seconds. A decent sprinter + 800m runner might be a good combination.
I think once you're past a few miles the 100m headstart becomes irrelevant and it's more a question of can any of them beat me over 5 miles, over 10 miles, over 50 miles, over 100 miles, over 12 hours, over 24 hours. But say there was a good 800 or 1500m runner there and I've essentially had to race then recover, that's not going to help compared to someone who could run absolutely evenly. Too many variables.
If one of the 1000 people understands the rules, you are dead regardless of running abilities, either yours or of your competitors : at some point during the 24 hours you'll need to go to a toilet, so basically to survive you are betting that you can resist to it more than 1000 other random people you age (they don't even need to run at all: they can just walk 100 meters behind you for the entire thing and then the fastest of them gets you killed). In this scenario in which the pchasers understand the rules, there is basically no way of surviving, unless you are a good ultramarathon guy (if you can run 250 or more km for 24 h, they either run the same distance minus 100 m or you can have all the poop you want because they are kilometers behind you at any point of the 24 hours). So, summing up, if you can run 250 km for 24 h you are betting that nobody is either a better miler/5-10k guy/marathoner than you out of 1000 people (which is a fair bet), otherwise you are probably dead.
Take a dump at ~11:30 am and pee at ~11:58. That'll get you through the first part of the race.
When you need to pee again at 2 pm or so, the rest of the pack should be a few minutes behind. Head to the edge of the road and do your business.
100 meters is far too short of a head start. As others have noted, the pack is going to have some speedsters chase you like mad from the gun, you run like hell to not get caught, then you die and get caught by a 5k/10k guy who didn't run the first few minutes like a madman.
I think to make this interesting at all, to hold them all off for an even hour, you probably need 800 meters so you can pace yourself and not have to sprint away from a sprinter up to an 800 meter runner. Even then, we would be assuming that you can outrun 1,000 people (all of them) for an hour and not give up more than about 3 minutes to any single one.
To hold them off for a day, you might need miles and miles of head start, and you would have to be a relatively accomplished ultra runner (or marathon runner at a minimum). If you burn out and walk, you get caught.
1,000 random people would likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners.
a random selection of 1000 people would not “likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners” that are currently in their accomplished running age. Are you crazy?
+1.
The largest 5K in my area draws about 4,000-5,000 participants each year from the local metro region (about 600,000 people within a one hour drive). It is by far the most popular 5K in the region.
So we have:
Total population : 600,000
Total male age 25-29: 20,000
That's 20 people for the top 0.1%. Let's assume that only 20% of the fastest people decide to run that 5K.
Last year, 4th place in the male 25-29 division was 19:27. Two years ago, that time was good for 2nd place in that division.
I can keep up that pace for a half marathon, so I'd take that bet.
a random selection of 1000 people would not “likely have some fairly or very accomplished runners” that are currently in their accomplished running age. Are you crazy?
+1.
The largest 5K in my area draws about 4,000-5,000 participants each year from the local metro region (about 600,000 people within a one hour drive). It is by far the most popular 5K in the region.
So we have:
Total population : 600,000
Total male age 25-29: 20,000
That's 20 people for the top 0.1%. Let's assume that only 20% of the fastest people decide to run that 5K.
Last year, 4th place in the male 25-29 division was 19:27. Two years ago, that time was good for 2nd place in that division.
I can keep up that pace for a half marathon, so I'd take that bet.
In a field of 25-29 year olds, you would get smoked.
If you can run that pace for a half marathon, great. First, there might be a guy who can beat you by minutes over that distance, and after his buddies force you to run the first quarter in 60 seconds and the first half mile in 2:20 and the first mile in 5:10, etc., the guys who have been pacing themselves are going to eat your lunch.
EDIT TO ADD:
Think of it this way, saying the Rabbit could hold off the Dogs is to say:
1) The rabbit is surely a better runner, over a wide range of distances and up to 24 hours, than a random group of 1,000 people. That alone might not be true.
AND
2) The rabbit can and will outrun ALL of the dogs, who could have equal or better runners, EVEN after having to run out of his mind for the first several minutes up to many, many miles.
It's like we've decided to neglect everything we know about lactic build up.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
The largest 5K in my area draws about 4,000-5,000 participants each year from the local metro region (about 600,000 people within a one hour drive). It is by far the most popular 5K in the region.
So we have:
Total population : 600,000
Total male age 25-29: 20,000
That's 20 people for the top 0.1%. Let's assume that only 20% of the fastest people decide to run that 5K.
Last year, 4th place in the male 25-29 division was 19:27. Two years ago, that time was good for 2nd place in that division.
I can keep up that pace for a half marathon, so I'd take that bet.
In a field of 25-29 year olds, you would get smoked.
If you can run that pace for a half marathon, great. First, there might be a guy who can beat you by minutes over that distance, and after his buddies force you to run the first quarter in 60 seconds and the first half mile in 2:20 and the first mile in 5:10, etc., the guys who have been pacing themselves are going to eat your lunch.
Ok here's a question for you- what's the maximum number of in-shape people you would take the bet against? As in, if it was guaranteed only 2 people in your fitness range, would that work?
In a field of 25-29 year olds, you would get smoked.
If you can run that pace for a half marathon, great. First, there might be a guy who can beat you by minutes over that distance, and after his buddies force you to run the first quarter in 60 seconds and the first half mile in 2:20 and the first mile in 5:10, etc., the guys who have been pacing themselves are going to eat your lunch.
Ok here's a question for you- what's the maximum number of in-shape people you would take the bet against? As in, if it was guaranteed only 2 people in your fitness range, would that work?
Well, you have redefined the group as "in-shape," so I would take a pass on the whole premise.
But a random group of 51-year-old men, as proposed originally? Maybe I would take on 10 and pray that none can sprint (although they are going to pick one who will sprint for all he's worth) or run a good marathon.
Ok here's a question for you- what's the maximum number of in-shape people you would take the bet against? As in, if it was guaranteed only 2 people in your fitness range, would that work?
Well, you have redefined the group as "in-shape," so I would take a pass on the whole premise.
But a random group of 51-year-old men, as proposed originally? Maybe I would take on 10 and pray that none can sprint (although they are going to pick one who will sprint for all he's worth) or run a good marathon.
Ok follow-up: How fast would you need to be to feel comfortable against the random 1000? If you could run a 2:25 thon, would you feel fast enough that you can hold off the early sprinters and then have time to recover and settle in?
Well, you have redefined the group as "in-shape," so I would take a pass on the whole premise.
But a random group of 51-year-old men, as proposed originally? Maybe I would take on 10 and pray that none can sprint (although they are going to pick one who will sprint for all he's worth) or run a good marathon.
Ok follow-up: How fast would you need to be to feel comfortable against the random 1000? If you could run a 2:25 thon, would you feel fast enough that you can hold off the early sprinters and then have time to recover and settle in?
That depends on the age.
If someone is a 2:25 marathoner in their 20s it has less value than in their 40s.
Regardless, let's put him in his 20s. What is he going to run with a horribly less-than-ideal start, while also having to hold enough back to run about 21 hours after the first 26.2 miles are covered?
Ok follow-up: How fast would you need to be to feel comfortable against the random 1000? If you could run a 2:25 thon, would you feel fast enough that you can hold off the early sprinters and then have time to recover and settle in?
That depends on the age.
If someone is a 2:25 marathoner in their 20s it has less value than in their 40s.
Regardless, let's put him in his 20s. What is he going to run with a horribly less-than-ideal start, while also having to hold enough back to run about 21 hours after the first 26.2 miles are covered?
If someone is a 2:25 marathoner in their 20s it has less value than in their 40s.
Regardless, let's put him in his 20s. What is he going to run with a horribly less-than-ideal start, while also having to hold enough back to run about 21 hours after the first 26.2 miles are covered?
No I meant you, as a 51 year old.
Well, removing the hypothetical that I die if I get caught, I do think that at 51 and being able to run 2:25, it would be interesting. Someone of that age who can run that fast likely has sufficient speed to get through the first mile without getting caught and without going too deep into the red.
EDIT TO ADD: We should keep in mind that you have to carry your own food (sufficient for 24 hours) and the designated sprinters definitely are not carrying anything. Not the biggest deal, perhaps, but one more variable that does not favor you.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Well, removing the hypothetical that I die if I get caught, I do think that at 51 and being able to run 2:25, it would be interesting. Someone of that age who can run that fast likely has sufficient speed to get through the first mile without getting caught and without going too deep into the red.
EDIT TO ADD: We should keep in mind that you have to carry your own food (sufficient for 24 hours) and the designated sprinters definitely are not carrying anything. Not the biggest deal, perhaps, but one more variable that does not favor you.
In a field of 25-29 year olds, you would get smoked.
If you can run that pace for a half marathon, great. First, there might be a guy who can beat you by minutes over that distance, and after his buddies force you to run the first quarter in 60 seconds and the first half mile in 2:20 and the first mile in 5:10, etc.,
You're off by a lot. If I'm forced to run the first quarter in 60 seconds, that would mean that there's a guy who's capable of running a sub 60" 500m. There are only 10 people in recorded history who've ever run that fast.
If I'm forced to run the first half mile in 2:20, that would mean that there's a guy who can run a 2:04 800 and maintain that speed for another 100m. I could see that happening in the 18-21 year age group since there are a fair bit of good HS and college athletes. But age 25-29? Most of the HS and college guys wouldn't be anywhere near peak shape, and the odds that any of those 1,000 are pro athletes are vanishingly slim (and even then, it would have to be a pro athlete in a sport like soccer. A pro golfer has no hope of running that fast on golf training).
Running the first mile in 5:10 is no big deal. I've done that a bunch of times in a 5K without blowing up afterwards.
In a field of 25-29 year olds, you would get smoked.
If you can run that pace for a half marathon, great. First, there might be a guy who can beat you by minutes over that distance, and after his buddies force you to run the first quarter in 60 seconds and the first half mile in 2:20 and the first mile in 5:10, etc.,
You're off by a lot. If I'm forced to run the first quarter in 60 seconds, that would mean that there's a guy who's capable of running a sub 60" 500m. There are only 10 people in recorded history who've ever run that fast.
If I'm forced to run the first half mile in 2:20, that would mean that there's a guy who can run a 2:04 800 and maintain that speed for another 100m. I could see that happening in the 18-21 year age group since there are a fair bit of good HS and college athletes. But age 25-29? Most of the HS and college guys wouldn't be anywhere near peak shape, and the odds that any of those 1,000 are pro athletes are vanishingly slim (and even then, it would have to be a pro athlete in a sport like soccer. A pro golfer has no hope of running that fast on golf training).
Running the first mile in 5:10 is no big deal. I've done that a bunch of times in a 5K without blowing up afterwards.
I'm not off at all.
Those people don't have to catch you. They have to push you. They have to scare you. In a population of 1,000 25-29 year olds, is there someone that can run a 60-second quarter? Very well could be. You need to maintain an edge.
The gun goes off and you have NO IDEA who is coming after you. You start to run at a pace that may or may not be good enough, looking over your shoulder. You don't want to over extend.
Here he comes. That gap is closing. You have no idea how fast he is coming or how long he can hold that pace. Your 100 meter lead is shrinking. You accelerate. You run a fast quarter and look back. He's dropped out but there are two more guys not far behind where he was. You have to keep pressing. They are only five seconds back. Are they 800 runners or milers? You have no idea...
And running a 5:10 is a HUGE deal when you have to go for 24 hours and have no idea what that turtle in the middle of the pack might do.