FootLocker 4:28 1st mile

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.

I've never run at footlocker nationals, and I assume you haven't either. But I can only guess that its a lot harder to do here than at your local duel cross country meet. And I'll tell you why it's unrealistic. You'd be lucky to find more than a handful (at best) of footlocker races won by someone who was a full 10 seconds behind the leader at the mile.

I agree with what that one guy said about it being more reasonable for them to go out in 4:40. Of course it is, but let's face the facts.

a) it's footlocker nationals so the field is not likely to let anyone run away.

b)only few kids in high school learn how to harness and execute pacing accurately.

c) The kid who won the race didn't win by running even splits. He was 2 seconds behind the leader at 1 mile, and a second back at 2 mile. He was in position to take over the entire race.

p.s. pacing in Cross Country on a course that is not flat as a track is also a horse of another color.

walter wrote:

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?

A 16:00 5K is 5:08 pace. Ideally your first mile should be 5:00-5:05, dont you think??

No, you would go out in 5:10 and run negative splits.

Alan

GeorgiaFan wrote:

You go out fast primarily to avoid the crowd.

Yes. It is much better to be passed one runner at a time than to look foolish after the first 100 yards when you are at the back even though you are only 2 seconds off the lead. Ignorance is why most high school runners go out too fast.

The goal should be to see how fast you can run the last mile of the race, not the first.

A 16:00 5k should be 5:13, 5:09, 5:06, :32.

Most high schoolers go 4:58, 5:12, 5:18, :32 which would put you about 18 seconds back at the halfway point.

Actually, I have stopped and thought about it. I know my talent level, and what kind of shape I'm in. I assure you, I'm a locally competitive runner due to ability, and I'm perfectly fine with that.Ahh yes, that one day when I tried to break 14:00 in the 5k, and was on pace for the first mile, but I cramped up and limped in for a 18:07.To be sure, I've "gone for it" many times. But you know what? It wasn't in the first mile of the race, be it 2 mile or a marathon.My comment was on the lack of pacing for the running populus in general, not the elite high school kids.He didn't win, so did his plan really work? Or was he not going for the win? He was "going for it" after all, was he not?

miles of trials wrote:

p.s. pacing in Cross Country on a course that is not flat as a track is also a horse of another color.

Agreed, and isn't the first mile the easiest mile of Foot Locker with more hills and turns the next two miles. Granted 2:10 for the first 800 is too quick no matter the terrain. 4:28 is still a bit fast, but 4:35(for the top 5) I don't think so much with how the course runs. Going out a little under your pace in XC feels fine. On the NCAA level, I've got to say the guy who impresses me with his pacing is Bobby Curtis. Saw Paul Short live, and NCAA's on the webcast, and he ran extremely smart races both times.

Is the first lap of a mile race, ideally, your fastest?

BIZZO wrote:

walter wrote:

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?

A 16:00 5K is 5:08 pace. Ideally your first mile should be 5:00-5:05, dont you think??

haha, YO wrote:

No matter what you think this is not smart racing.

I'm sure a lot of Africans would agree with you.

heyo wrote:

did you ever stop and think that maybe the reason you're just a locally competitive 5k runner is because you never went for it? How are you supposed to breakthrough if you never shoot for something outside of your range?

Considering that no one did any "rolling up" at FLN this year and that everyone from the end lead pack followed Luke in the beginning, his plan worked. He pushed the pace earlier like a person without a kick should do and everyone else fell for it. He ran his plan and it turns out he wasn't the best that day.

Derrick laid back and beat Puskedra because of it. There were others who didn't bite at the fast pace (Cabral laid off but made too big a move at 2 miles, Jarrett laid back and kicked in well to narrowly miss Puskedra). when you're an 8:50 2 miler and you get passed by three runners with lesser pr's in the last mile, I'm not sure I'd say the plan "worked". Fout, Derrick and Jarrett had the smartest races and it showed in their results.

...or he wasn't the faster runner, and that's why he lost.

Maybe if he wouldnt have pushed the pace no one would have and then with 800m left he would have watched 5 guys pass him with slower 3200 prs but faster 800 prs.

At least he has balls unlike some of you.

"The goal of the race is too run the fastest last mile possible." okay, runninggart. Last I checked the goal was to win, and he raced to do just that.

For a strength runner who can run a 14:45 5k at 4500+, 4:28 at sea level isn't unruly but is enough to take any would be kickers out of the picture.

If a talented guy like German had hung 8-10 seconds back at the mile, there's no telling what the result could have been. What tends to happen in these races is that several of the top guys will go out hard together, and the guy who probably would have won anyways will end up hanging on. But if one of those top guys went out a little slower when everyone else is in a dogfight up front I'd have to like his chances. And FL is a field of like 40 runners, it is not at all difficult to work your way up. I won a cross country race where at one point I was at least 100m behind the lead pack, and my splits were pretty much dead even. I didn't need to pick up the pace, slowly everyone else just faded.

In a race like Footlocker... If you are hoping to win you need to put youself in a position to win. If you are trying to "pace" yourself and you let the lead pack go... it is very likely that one or two kids from that lead pack will continue to pull away. If you are 100m -200m back, that lead could be too much to overcome against elite HS runners. That race is tough because you are running against kids you don't know much about. You need to assume that everyone could pull away and win. If you are not "in" the race... you are racing for top[ ten at best.

~Kinney 88'

The people saying you should pace yourself have never been in a true competitive race. You have to go out with the leaders to have a shot at the win that's the reality because in a pack of say 6, there is a huge possibility that one or two will be able to maintain or just slightly back off the pace and continue to pull ahead. If a great runner is having a good day he's not coming back. This is not the local scrub road race level most of you people are thinking about. This is guys who run big mileage, have huge talent and there is a lot of the line.

Well I didn't say 100-200m, 8-10 seconds would be more like 50m.

BTW, here's a quote from Withrow (who devastated one of the toughest FL fields ever):

The first mile, they went out fast. The first 200-300 meters...they went out hard. The South guys took it out hard, I kind of knew they were going to do that, I mean, how many of those guys broke 4:10 in the mile already? They're all fast guys. At first I was thinking maybe I wanted to get out hard...but I haven't really done that all year, so my legs just wouldn't take me too hard in that first 400... I think I was in about 20th or 22nd. I looked behind me and I saw like three people...

Again I reiterate that racing to win is not equal to racing your best race. I know Pre said to take it out front so you can leave everything on the track. I think when you are going for a world record or a PR then you can run a fast first mile and hold on because you don't know how you're going to feel, oftentimes, however, you drop back. If you race from the front and everybody dies, you win. This plan backfired for everyone but Fout. If you race from the back, you can manage your best race, but you may just let someone go who you can't catch. The possibility, however, that you could have been front-running and stayed with that person is slim, however, because if you run your best race, that's all you can do. Think Deena Kastor's bronze medal or Meb's silver, slowly eating people up in last miles. I know the marathon is a different beast but the point is that both Meb and Deena had to let the leaders go in hopes of coming back. They didn't run for the gold, they ran for their best.

Check out any race with splits, I guarantee you the top finishers run negative splits. In this year's NCAA cross Div 1, the top 30 or so ran negative, last year, it was only the top 10 on a muddy course.

Here's the main point: how many high school kids who go our fast could be faster if they paced themselves better, 75% or more? Come on, let's teach this stuff.

Does anyone remember what place Sara Bei was in at the mile the year she won??

Also, I heard that the leader actually went through the mile at 4:33 - and wonder where the actual 800m mark is that those splits came from??? Anyone that was there recall an 800 marking??

The 800 mark (1/2 mi actually) is just before the turn left around the tennis courts. The leader was under 4:30 at the mile and 2:10 at the half.

konroh, your comparison between the Olympic MARATHON and a highschool 5k albeit elite 5k is laughable (I am literally laughing at that, honestly). You cannot even begin to compare pacing in a 26 mile race to a 3 mile race.

FYI, In the marathon you have two hours to run people down not to mention the different systems of the body that will come into play, weather (cloud cover), nutrition and hydration along the way to name a few. In a 5k letting someone go can cost you the race simply because you'll only have 9-10 minutes to bring them back in and if you let them have a 10-15 second lead in the first mile...well the good ones aren't coming back easily.

Like I mentioned, anyone who has been in a truly elite and competitive race (no local 16 min turkey trots where you know exactly who is running and what kind of shape they are in) understands this perfectly.