LetsRun, how can you call the Oxy women's 800 pacer "AWFUL"?

I haven't watched the video of the race, but wondered who called for 57.5. I could see someone like Montano or Price wanting a fast first lap and trying to hang on, but Martinez and Vessey are traditionally more even split runners.

She may have ended up close to 57.5, but her intermediate splits were terrible. She was probably out in like sub-27 for the first 200. You also need to have better awareness of what the field is doing. The rabbit in the women's 1500 (I think it was Phoebe Wright, based on the rabbit's form) did a great job of looking around, slowing down, and letting the pack catch back up once she realized that they weren't going with the prescribed pace.

The rabbit went out way too hard for 200 and slowed up a lot in the second 200, so while she ultimately just about hit the 57.5, it was in a pretty useless way. But I agree that it was a strangely fast pace for this particular field either way.

evaluator of pacers wrote:

The job is called pacemaking, not wind-breaking (although if the field was up for the pace they would have windbreaking, too).

It's actually usually called rabitting.

With the main objective to lead the field.

Creating a draft is more important than setting the pace.

They know pace, they just would like to draft.

Women pacesetters are usually crap, especially sprinters setting the 800. Conley did well with the 5000 though.

Star wrote:

evaluator of pacers wrote:

The job is called pacemaking, not wind-breaking (although if the field was up for the pace they would have windbreaking, too).

It's actually usually called rabitting.

With the main objective to lead the field.

Creating a draft is more important than setting the pace.

They know pace, they just would like to draft.

Thank you for showing your cluelessness. I won't dignify you with a real response.

As for the smarter posts, I agree a 57.5 opening lap in an 800 should be more even, with a 28.x opening 200 not 27.x ... but let's face it, the field was not coming either way.

Did you watch the race?

You ask, "How can we call it awful?" My response would be, " how could we not call it awful?"

I've just added a new segement to the women's recap. Take a look at the photo here:

That says all you need to know.

The point of the rabbit is to help the runners run a fast pace. You do that by theoretically running pretty even.

That photo shows the rabbit went something like 27-30.5. That's awful.

Going 26.5-31 or even 27.5-30 isn’t a good way to run 57.5. No one wants to go out that fast, and thus they end up running the whole race by themselves.

The Doha 1500 was incredible last week as the first lap was much slower than what you normally see in a DL. They runners could get into a rhythm.

A rabbit that the field is not in any contact with is completely useless.

They are there so that none of the competitors have the burden of leading and getting drafted off of.

If they are way out in front, then the next runner is actually leading the field.

Useless to the runners

I saw a ton of people (usually women) taking off at the start of 800s like there was no tomorrow - sprinting full out. Does anyone coach these people on how to rabbit?

Furthermore I've always felt that 200m/400m runners can't rabbit. They don't know pace and they don't know how to run 80%. Best to get an 800m runner who isn't racing that night.

All the times the broadcasters announced the rabbits would be running for the women's 800s were crazy fast. As said before if the heat one rabbit hadn't slowed considerably in the second 200, almost walking her last couple strides, she'd have been way faster than asked for.