Wejo's quote on Boston

In 2009 Merga won in 2:08:42 (vs. Hall's 2:08:41 in 2010). 2:08:42 would have won 14 of 21 Boston Marathons since 1990.

I understand that elite marathon fields have been getting faster and deeper. But at 10:00am on Monday, a reasonable person might well have believed that pacing for 2:08-high would allow Hall to be in the race with a mile to go.

As the poster above implies: *if* you know RC is going to sustain 2:05, then the winning strategy is to go with him on the off chance that you can hold 2:05. But if you *don't* know that RC will run 2:05, and if you expect someone on 2:05 pace to fade and run 2:08, then Hall's time trial looks like a good strategy.

Maybe Hall should have tried to stay with the leaders so he could gauge their effort and figure out if RC had enough to run 2:05? Of course, if Hall knew that he *wasn't* in 2:05 shape, there isn't much that he could have done with the knowledge that RC was.

Here is the solution. Next time, Hall needs to time travel into the future in multiple parallel universes and find out what the winning race time will be in each parallel universe. He can then compute the average winning time, and possibly even a 95% or 99% confidence interval on what the winning time will need to be in our universe. Based on that information, he can then figure out which goal pace he needs to sustain in order to win. That overcomes the chief weakness of the constant pace strategy, as there is less guesswork in determining the pace.

Last Yr wrote:

In 2009 Merga won in 2:08:42 (vs. Hall's 2:08:41 in 2010). 2:08:42 would have won 14 of 21 Boston Marathons since 1990.

That may be true. However, the weather was near perfect in Boston and the course is point to point so Hall did not give himself the chance to run faster than 2:08:41. At some point you have to adapt to the conditions and the race especially on a point to point course.

It's just a different mindset. Duncan Kibet last year ran 2:04:27 running a 3 minute pr. When the guys were on 2:04 pace he didn't think "I've only run 2:07, no one has run 2:04 here before". He said, "I want to try and win this race."

If you are trying to win the race and one or two guys makes a break in front of you, then perhaps let them go. They might blow up. But if it's later in the race and 5-10 guys go I can say it's a pretty safe bet, that if you don't try and increase your pace (you can do it gradually) you're not going to win.

For most of my running career, I focused on what pace I could run instead of competing. In 2000 that changed. In 2000, I dropped 1:22 from my 10k pr in one race. Before the race, I was just trying to get my coach JK to give me a pace to run. He for once said, "I can't tell you what pace to run. Get out there and compete and judge your body."

It's a balancing act because you have to be smart and not be suicidal but I think most of agree that Ryan Hall is at the point in his career when he can take a few chances.

wejo wrote:

I think if all of a sudden someone throws down a 4:30 mile at mile 10 of a marathon, you don't have to go with them right away. You can run a 4:40 mile and try and slowly catch up. I have no problem with Hall doing that.

But once you regain the pack if it's later in the race and they make another surge, likely you need to go with them if you want to try and win. Meb did this and Ryan didn't. I think what Ryan did was easier than what Meb did. I think Merga's 2 second finish ahead of Hall was was more impressive than Hall's run.

As opposed to what, running 4:42 14th and and a 4:37 16th mile and running 14:57, 14:49, 14:34 between 25k and 40k...

You're basically complaining that Hall didn't make the move to win with 12 miles left, to me, that doesn't seem smart or noble, it sounds like suicide... ask meb...

Did the strategy work for the win, clearly it didn't, but I still don't think you can knock the guy for not "making the move" on a suicidal pace with 12 miles to go... had the move happened at 22 and he kept at pace... i'm completely with you...

+1

In a race you should focus on what you can personally directly control. Namely:

1) Giving 100% effort

2) Running a smart race

You can't control the weather, what other runners show up, or what they do. So overly focusing on or making them an intregal part of your race plan is a mistake.

From my perspective a smart race is one that allows you to run your very best time given the conditions (course, weather, etc) because the race goes to the one who runs the distance the fastest.

There is alot of stress and anxiety in focusing on things you can't control. But a great deal of peace and confidence when focusing on what you can control. I think Ryan figured this out at Boston.

I can do it wrote:

Obviously if you let guys surge far ahead of you they are way more likely to get to the line first. No science behind it, just simple observation shows this.

You've never watched a bike race, have you? Not every surge (in fact, very few) within a race lead to the ones who lead or cover those surges getting to the finish before anyone else behind them. Did you see who finished 2nd on Monday? Did you see him trading surges with Cheruiyot and Merga late in the race? It's clear at least to me that if he hadn't been surging at all and instead ran more even splits that Cheruiyot could have run even faster than he did. What it means is that he had the best fitness of anyone in the field and as such was able to use that fitness in surging to push and drop competitors. He didn't want to lead the race for a more fit competitor to win without a fight.

How can there be all this argument about whether not covering surges can be a viable strategy to win when just 20 minutes or so before Cheruiyot crossed the line there was the ultimate demonstration that coming from way behind can work? The women's race could have very easily gone to Pushkareva. It didn't, but it can't be said that she had a poor strategy.

It's even hard to argue that trying to cover all surges makes for a more compelling race after witnessing that women's finish.

Bottom line: no strategy was going to beat Cheruiyot yesterday.

Ryan Hall is in a NO WIN situation. Amazing.

We have a guy whose worse race of his career was 10th in the Olympic Games Marathon. His consistency has been better then any American of all-time (having raced in London (twice), the Olympic Trials, The Olympic Games, Boston (twice) and New York all at very high levels, no DNF's. He just ran faster then any American has in the 114 year history of the Boston Marathon, but that's not good enough.

At the end of the day as a human being you have no control over your competition, the weather, etc. The only thing you can control is yourself. And maybe I'm an old man, but I thought the idea was to place as high as possible in a race. Using your brain and running a smart race should be rewarded. No one gives you a medal at the first mile marker.

This was no set up attempt at a sub 4:00 mile on a track with rabbits, etc., this was a marathon. Hall trained on this course, he ran it last year and he believed he could run in the mid 2:08's on it (which by the way no American had ever done). He did that.

Hall ran HIS race, give the man some credit. If he had crossed the line first in 2:11 then everyone and their brother would say he was the greatest of all-time.

All the best to Ryan Hall. No matter what you do, it will never be good enough.

He knew at mile 16 or whatever that if he surged he would blow up. It's no mystery how fast you can go for the remainder of a marathon at that point. In fact, he was on 2:07 pace and couldn't even hold that. So, he obviously knew he could not handle that surge.

Sazerac wrote:

How can there be all this argument about whether not covering surges can be a viable strategy to win when just 20 minutes or so before Cheruiyot crossed the line there was the ultimate demonstration that coming from way behind can work? The women's race could have very easily gone to Pushkareva. It didn't, but it can't be said that she had a poor strategy.

It's even hard to argue that trying to cover all surges makes for a more compelling race after witnessing that women's finish.

Bottom line: no strategy was going to beat Cheruiyot yesterday.

I was surprised no one mentioned this before you. You're exactly right, had Pushkareva won people would be talking about what a genius of a race she ran. It just shows how people judge strategy AFTER the fact.

It's also funny to me that we have people saying Ryan obviously has the talent to do better (how would you know?), and others who say he's never really been all THAT good in the first place.

It's ridiculous to me that people care so much about being first. Sure it's the goal, but it doesn't mean you only go to all-comers meets you think you might be able to win. It's as if just because you aren't Bekele you might as well hang it up. (If we can believe what we hear from our media...) There have been times when Chinese Olympians have been treated that way by their country, and it's a shame. We run because it's good for us and we enjoy it and the challenge it brings, remember? Sure, learning to cover surges is part of the challenge and might very well be necessary at times. Learning to run your own race and to not get psyched out by others is also valuable.

What was that quote from last week? "The Process is the goal"?

MPR wrote:

In a race you should focus on what you can personally directly control. Namely:

1) Giving 100% effort

2) Running a smart race

Exactly. Leading without pulling away and just breaking the wind for your opponents is NOT running a smart race. Hall did not figure this out at Boston, even though he should have learned it last year.

hardset nipples wrote:

You've never watched a bike race, have you?

This was actually a running race, see? Team tactics and drafting matter very little in running compared to cycling.

You talk to your right hand?

Uh, did I say anything about races where drafting or team tactics are in play? Plenty of crits are devoid of both yet still see plenty of breakaways.

welcome to running wrote:

hardset nipples wrote:

You've never watched a bike race, have you?

This was actually a running race, see? Team tactics and drafting matter very little in running compared to cycling.

I could not help noticing that at about 1:15 into the race while Hall is looking at his watch and keeping his perfect pace going that he is about 7 secs behind the leaders.

At the paces they are going there is prob. about a 5-8 sec per mile advantage in drafting. So why not tuck in and compete with these guys rather than ignore them?

At other times he runs toward the front. I just really prefer Meb's racing style. He stayed in contact with the leaders. When surges came he picked it up just a little to stay close then closed it back down as soon as the surge ended.

How does one run the perfect even race without knowing your finishing time before the race started? I would like to see Hall run a marathon with no watch.

This is a fascinating thread.

A few points.

1) Why do people think that Weldon was being critical of Hall? He flew over to London to watch Hall there. He is a big fan of Ryan's. He is just analyzing the race.

2) I've always thought that in these races that half the guys who surge and end up 10th could beat the guys who run conservatively or even and get 3rd. Ritz's run was very impressive last year but how many Africans could beat him if the pace was 12:56 from the start? I used to think a lot but then again not very many guys ran 12:56 on the season.

3) That being said, I do think the even paced running is smart. The Africans are by and large better than you so maybe try to save some energy and then beat them at the end like Ritz almost did to Bekele.

4) All of that above haven been said, I've basically never seen the strategy of running your own race work. Of course, normally the best people don't employ this strategy (don't have the guts to do it?)as they are the most fit so they just get up front and surger with everyone else. Everyone gets equally tired and they of course still win. But what if you are only the third or 4th most fit? Maybe it makes sense to try it??

I used to have guys I coach just run for time. Now that they are better, I generally tell them to start conservatively but to put themselves in it at the same time. Otherwise, you have to pass a ton of people which negates some of the advantages of coming from behind.

5) There's nothing wrong with saying you fond someone's race to be more impressive than someone who finished ahead of them. Would Merga have definitely finsihed 2nd if he hadn't surged? I don't know. BUt the guy made the race and is a total stud. I don't care if he ended up dropping out at 25.5. Yes the race is 26.2 and Hall almost beat him but my brother once beat Abdi to get 4th at USAs because Abdi let up at the line.

We were very proud of Weldon's win and Abdi shouldn't have let up but we also knew that Abdi was a better runner than Weldon.

rojo wrote:

my brother once beat Abdi to get 4th at USAs because Abdi let up at the line.

We were very proud of Weldon's win and Abdi shouldn't have let up but we also knew that Abdi was a better runner than Weldon.

Getting 4th isn't winning.

While we are on this topic of racing, here is some more thoughts on the subject:

Race Goal Setting

I am a very strong believer in goal setting, for most everything you do, but especially for training and racing. Setting goals helps to keep us focused and gives a sense of purpose to what we are doing. I believe in setting 2 types of goals: primary goals and secondary goals. Primary goals are things that we can directly control, and secondary goals may include items we may not be able to be entirely directly control.

Primary goals are items such as executing a smart race plan and giving 100% effort in the race. We can directly control these items and by putting our primary focus on these items all other goals will take care of themselves for the most part. We can not control the course, the weather or what other competitors show up or what they do. So items that are dependent on these should not be included as primary goals.

Secondary goals are things at we can only partially control but that are important to us. Secondary goals may include things such as our time, our place, beating a rival or setting a new personal best.

Race Plan – Smart Race

A smart race strategy is one that will allow you to complete the race in the shortest amount of time. In order to know what the best tactic is for running a smart race you must know many things including: the race course, the race conditions (weather, crowds, etc), your training leading up to the race, and your strengths and weaknesses (physically and mentally). Let’s talk about each.

• Course - a careful examination of the course prior to the race should be done (to the extent possible). Know where the hills are, where the turns are, where sections are particularly open to the wind, where the split markers are, were aid stations are, and what the approach to the finish is like.

• Conditions – do your research; know the weather forecast, the race day (particularly pre-race) time schedule, the way starts and finishes are handled.

• Training – review your training log, where have you excelled in training, where have you fallen short, what has the sequence of your workouts been, look for useful information in formulating a race strategy.

• Review prior race logs. What has and hasn’t worked for you in the past? Did you run this course or race previously? What strategy did you use? Learn from the past to execute better in the future.

Then take all the information you have gathered above and formulate your race plan, commit to it fully and take ownership of it. If the conditions or course changes during the race, the intimate knowledge of the race plan and the reasons why it was put in place will help you make any in-race adaptations necessary.

Things not to do:

• Do not make any major component of your strategy based on something you don’t directly control (like someone else).

• Do not second guess or doubt your strategy – instead, own it and believe in it.

100% Effort in Racing

In order for an athlete to get 100% effort out themselves in races ,they need to be able to push right up to the physical limits of their body and that requires the ignoring or tolerance of the early warning cries of the brain without altering intensity. The runner’s motivation and commitment to a 100% effort are MAJOR factors in their ability to do this. Additionally the brain can be callused to “get use to” these approaches to the physical limits and delay or lessen its initial warnings cries.

As we just stated, motivation is a key ingredient in the runner being able to give a 100% effort in a race. It takes significant motivation and will power for the runner to overcome the warnings cries of the brain that the limit is near. Therefore it is logical that the stronger, more consistent the motivation is, the better and more consistent the runner will be able to be in giving 100% efforts (or close to it) in races. Motivation is a largely an individual question. What motivates one person may not work for another person. But some types of motivation appear to be less consistent than others. So a major key to a runner being able to run 100% effort in a race is for them to find and understand what motivates them. Motivation should be a major topic in race logs in order to help the runner understand and hone them.

Race Log

I strongly encourage you to keep a detailed race log or journal. In it keep at least the following information for each race (at a minimum):

1) Detailed description of your strategy going into the race (write this before the race)

2) A detailed description of what happened in the race, include warm-up and any other details you feel are important - include mental thoughts and feelings

3) List things that you think you did very well in the race and that you did poorly in the race

4) Try and determine why you think you did the items listed in #3

5) What did you learn from the race

6) What things do you want to change in future races

By doing this you make every race an experience you can learn from and it may provide you with valuable input for future race planning and feedback on areas you may need to work on in your training.