For the love of god, people, Mo 62:15 IS A PLAN TO WIN.

rojo wrote:

The same thing coudl be said about my brother. We still argue about this now. He talks about how he got more confident after college, etc. I laugh. I was like - "You got fitter and everything else took care of itself. The same guy that couldn't get highter than 5th in his conference meet wanted it real bad in college but suddenly was 4th in the country post-collegiately."

This. But for some reason, I believe your brother's situation more than Mo's. Just my naïve opinion or not?

Here's what we know: If Mo goes out hard, with Mutai and/or others, he's at a disadvantage for at least two reasons: 1) he hasn't raced the distances and therefore doesn't know how/whether his fuel will hold out (Ritz); and 2) he doesn't know how to read the signals his body will be giving him in the final six miles. His competition WILL have answers to both questions.

So it's to Mo's advantage to take at least a slightly conservative approach, avoiding the possible blowup and trusting to his speed and racing instincts to carry him through the last 6.2.

It's easy to kibbitz big races of this sort, but we all know that it ultimately comes down to one question: is it your day? If it's not, the conservative plan actually becomes the dead-center realistic plan, or even a slightly over-optimistic plan.

I don't know why serious fans always forget this truth, but we all remember it when we're in a long race that isn't going as well as it was "supposed" to. It's the lesson that first-time marathoners of decent caliber always make: they say "I managed to hold my planned marathon pace for the first 21, but then I slowed." Ah....no. Actually, your planned marathon pace was 10 seconds too optimistic ON THAT DAY and when you slowed, you ended up with what your ACTUAL marathon pace was, and should have been.

Mo's best race will come if he holds to his (slightly conservative) plan and then ends up matching strides with another runner of his approximate caliber, making it into a race as both runners pick off the dying leaders.

I should have written "....and when you slowed, you ended up with an average overall pace, at race's end, that was you ACTUAL marathon pace--the pace you should have run for the entire race." In fact, you end up with an average pace that is slightly SLOWER than you could have averaged if you'd run an evenly paced race."

what???? wrote:

He was an above average runner from 2005-2010 but nothing spectacular. Certainly not a world beater. The weird thing is that no one thinks his rise to prominence is suspicious. But these same people who support him have no problem calling out other athletes.

Mo was more than "above average" before training under AlSal. Yes he improved a lot under Al, but the potential was there. Renato has stated that he told Mo, before he went to Salazar, that he was talented enough to become world champ if he improved a little bit.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

what???? wrote:

He was an above average runner from 2005-2010 but nothing spectacular. Certainly not a world beater. The weird thing is that no one thinks his rise to prominence is suspicious. But these same people who support him have no problem calling out other athletes.

Mo was more than "above average" before training under AlSal. Yes he improved a lot under Al, but the potential was there. Renato has stated that he told Mo, before he went to Salazar, that he was talented enough to become world champ if he improved a little bit.

I was suspicious even before he went to salazar when he had some "breakthroughs" in his late 20s.

KudzuRunner wrote:

It's easy to kibbitz big races of this sort, but we all know that it ultimately comes down to one question: is it your day? If it's not, the conservative plan actually becomes the dead-center realistic plan, or even a slightly over-optimistic plan.

I don't know why serious fans always forget this truth, but we all remember it when we're in a long race that isn't going as well as it was "supposed" to. It's the lesson that first-time marathoners of decent caliber always make: they say "I managed to hold my planned marathon pace for the first 21, but then I slowed." Ah....no. Actually, your planned marathon pace was 10 seconds too optimistic ON THAT DAY and when you slowed, you ended up with what your ACTUAL marathon pace was, and should have been.

Well said! So many guys that are "supposed" to run fast their first marathon end up crashing and burning because they go out faster than they should. Always better to play it safe and then pick dudes off. All one has to do is look at how huge the front pack is in every major marathon. Out of that, look how many guys either DNF or fall off hard. Negative splitting in the marathon is the greatest feeling because you're picking it up and picking all kinds of dudes off while doing it. Not to say that Mo should let the leaders get way ahead, but so much can and does happen the last 10 miles. Dudes seem to get caught up in how far they "should" be from the leaders failing to realize that most of the leaders are going to fall back and be ripe for the picking.

Both 62:15 and 61:45 Split paces are strategies for the win.

Since the Bejing olympic marathon there has been a tendency to take out big competitive marathons really hard.

I guess as a race like London has such a deep field at the bleeding edge, the contenders know it's going to take a very special performance on the day to take the win anyway, so they are going for broke searching for 'their day'.

This strategy causes a high casualty rate, but the risk is worth it as in London the only thing that really counts is winning.

So you got 8 guys or so going full whack (I think) knowing most of them are going to pay for it, but you wouldn't bet against 1 surviving and running a 2:04:xx.

The 'conservative' (talk about everything being relative!) approach seems better for a debut as Mo is a lousy bet for the win, but it's giving him the best option to get to the finish line in a time that could win it.

For Mo, getting 3rd in 2:05:xx would be a better result than anyone else of the main contenders getting 2nd.

observador wrote:

I guess as a race like London has such a deep field at the bleeding edge, the contenders know it's going to take a very special performance on the day to take the win anyway, so they are going for broke searching for 'their day'.

This strategy causes a high casualty rate, but the risk is worth it as in London the only thing that really counts is winning.

So you got 8 guys or so going full whack (I think) knowing most of them are going to pay for it, but you wouldn't bet against 1 surviving and running a 2:04:xx.

This. The big payday is what they're after. It's the Hunger Games, only one person survives.

Like Timothy Bradley just said before his fight with Manny tonight: "He will get absolutely no compassion from me. In that ring, it is all about my family eating or his family eating. Manny Pacquiao will have to knock me out to stop my family from eating."

Winning one of these major races will transform the life of whoever wins it - if it's a first time winner - and guarantee the continued success and security of a runner who has already won. 2nd or 3rd place pays the bills, but it doesn't have the security that winning does. And a world record would set them up for life.

I will bet OP or anybody else in this thread $10,000 USD that Farah doesn't win.

Roller wrote:

only on letsrun could ANYONE be criticised for intending to go through the half in 62.15 on their debut marathon, on the grounds that he's somehow 'wimping out'

10/10

Track Historian wrote:

Roller wrote:

only on letsrun could ANYONE be criticised for intending to go through the half in 62.15 on their debut marathon, on the grounds that he's somehow 'wimping out'

10/10

0/10

'wimping out' means trying to use the sit-and-kick strategy to win a marathon. This ain't no 10k race run on an oval.

He's not wimping out, he's being realistic. Ritz ran 2:07 in perfect conditions and he has indicated that he outperforms Mo and Galen on long-runs. Obviously that was before MO started marathon specific training, but I still get the sense that Mo has more natural speed than endurance, while Ritz is the opposite.

Mo knows that he's not capable of running a world-record, otherwise he'd be going out with the leaders. If it slows to 2:06, Mo can kick for the win. If not, he gets the British Record and walks away happy.

what wouldn't make sense is for the experienced marathoners here to let it be well behind wr pace and keep Mo in the race until near the end, like in all of his recent championship races.

Certainly Not Skuj wrote:

Stop with all the silly talk about lowering expectations and respecting the distance and breaking only the British record.

I can still see sub 2:04 possibilities for those who hit 62:15, and I don't believe this is a WR day.

THE GOAL IS TO WIN THIS THING.

Sheesh.

He missed what you called a "lowered expectation" by over a minute.

Almost won, though.