FootLocker 4:28 1st mile

did you really just say "Alsome" ?

"Awesome" corrected

No matter what you think this is not smart racing.

I remember watching in 2005. Diego Mercado took it out in 2:10 for first 800 and he only had about 10 meters on the rest of the guys. I don't remember exactly what their mile split was, but it was in the 4:20s.

It amazes me how many people try to win races in the first mile, 800m, or even 400m.

as much as i agree this is stupid. I can't see any high school kid having the talent (let alone the balls) to go out and run even 4:45s to beat the field. Just think about how unrealistic that is in a real life situation.

Guppy wrote:

I remember watching in 2005. Diego Mercado took it out in 2:10 for first 800 and he only had about 10 meters on the rest of the guys. I don't remember exactly what their mile split was, but it was in the 4:20s.

It amazes me how many people try to win races in the first mile, 800m, or even 400m.

Mile split was 4:33 that year

miles of trials wrote:

as much as i agree this is stupid. I can't see any high school kid having the talent (let alone the balls) to go out and run even 4:45s to beat the field. Just think about how unrealistic that is in a real life situation.

I thought about it, and I can't see why it's unrealistic. Please explain.

I agree it would be pretty much impossible to do that but going out in 4:35-4:40 is more reasonable. It is slightly faster than race pace (for this course the first mile should be) but not suicidal like a 4:28 is.

stuartq wrote:

miles of trials wrote:

as much as i agree this is stupid. I can't see any high school kid having the talent (let alone the balls) to go out and run even 4:45s to beat the field. Just think about how unrealistic that is in a real life situation.

I thought about it, and I can't see why it's unrealistic. Please explain.

imagine being in highschool- so a 5k is the "long event," and being 100m behind the leader.

we raced like that in high school all the time.

im interested wrote:

imagine being in highschool- so a 5k is the "long event," and being 100m behind the leader.

Imagine being a hs'er and are in so much pain because you went out too hard, and then have to watch someone else blow by you 2 miles into the race like you're standing. Which is harder to deal with?

You go out fast primarily to avoid the crowd.

Brian Grosso was last at 1/2 way through the course.

1988 15:03 Brian Grosso 12 MW Western HS Walled Lake MI

GeorgiaFan wrote:

You go out fast primarily to avoid the crowd.

its not that crowded at footlocker nationals. our team would always make fun of teams or runners that went out too hard and got rolled up, if they did it on a consistent basis. trying it every once in awhile is understandable.

My freshman year I went out fast. After that I went out smart. I would sometimes be in 10th place or so at the mile before going on to win by 20 seconds, with 10th place finishing over a minute back. If you're smart and confident in your abilities, you can go run even or negative splits and run well, even if you're a good 100m behind at the mile mark. Most high school kids are not smart racers though, even if they are incredibly fast.

As Goucher put it during the 2004(?) FLN, when you're racing against a bunch of guys who are as fast as you, it really comes down to outsmarting them.

you guys now a days are just jealous at the fact you guys didnt have the balls to go out in 4:28, good distances runners are humble off the course, but cocky and outgoing during races... only the strong survive

Not going out too fast will guarantee your fastest race, but it will not guarantee the win, that's the problem. It's truly phenomenal when you roll everyone up (see Wottle in '72 800 final) but it doesn't always happen. That said, there is no doubt that there is still an extreme amount of misunderstanding about how to race. When Ritz won NCAA cross I remember the announcers wondering why he wasn't in the lead pack at the 1k mark. We still have people not understanding the absolute impossibility of running your best race with the first mile being the fastest. Mike Fout was the one who could handle the discrepancy: 4:30 first mile 5:00 second 4:45 third. 4:45 pace is roughly 14:43, he ran 14:50.

konroh wrote:

Not going out too fast will guarantee your fastest race, but it will not guarantee the win, that's the problem. It's truly phenomenal when you roll everyone up (see Wottle in '72 800 final) but it doesn't always happen. That said, there is no doubt that there is still an extreme amount of misunderstanding about how to race. When Ritz won NCAA cross I remember the announcers wondering why he wasn't in the lead pack at the 1k mark. We still have people not understanding the absolute impossibility of running your best race with the first mile being the fastest. Mike Fout was the one who could handle the discrepancy: 4:30 first mile 5:00 second 4:45 third. 4:45 pace is roughly 14:43, he ran 14:50.

A faster time will always place higher than a slower time.

The thing that gets me, being an adult, is why people still can't figure pacing out. Now I am, nor ever was, an elite runner. However, I'm competitive (in the local sense) and know what times are within my range. However, time in and time out, I'll see the same runners giving max effort for the first mile, only to fade badly thereafter.

It doesn't bother me, but it strikes me a little queer. Is that fun running your first mile fastest and the subsequent ones slower? I just flat out don't get it. If I'm shooting for a 16:00 5k, why on earth would I go out in a 5:00 mile?

With pacing being so important, why does it seemed to get overlooked so often? Do people get caught up in the moment, or are they delusional of their capabilities?