"Tactical Races" make no sense to me

Lots of people on LRC talk about tactical races, meaning the first lap or 2 are probably 5-10 seconds faster than the last lap. The pace is slowed at the beginning of the race to play into the hands of the faster guys with better kicks. So what really matters in races like that is whether or not you have closing speed (Ex. Mo Farah), and whether your racing tactics are good (Ex. Matt Centrowitz)

This is what modern day championship racing is about, which trust me I am not too happy about. It is this way because every thinks they're the fastest and that they will catch others in the home stretch rather than having a few guys commit to a fast pace, and string the race out. I think winning a race w/ a new meet record, national record, or world record would be a lot cooler than winning a race 15 seconds slower than your PR, and closing in a 53 second last lap.

None the less, tactics are a huge part of modern day racing especially at the professional level, so that needs to be addressed when talking about times during races.

Think we've had this discussion a million times before.

Unless you're far and away the fastest in the field, leading and pushing the pace on hard will result in you losing badly.

I appreciate that 'having a few guys pushing the pace on and stringing it out' will make it a more honest race and perhaps a better spectacle, but it's very rarely those setting the pace don't win. It's the ones who sit in, and then erm, kick.

TDodd22 wrote:

The pace is slowed at the beginning of the race to play into the hands of the faster guys with better kicks. So what really matters in races like that is whether or not you have closing speed (Ex. Mo Farah), and whether your racing tactics are good (Ex. Matt Centrowitz)

Right, I understand what is happening, but it just makes no sense why. If I'm racing Mo Farah, and I know he can outkick me in the last 400m by 2 seconds, then I know I have to be at least 2 seconds ahead of him at that point or I've already lost.

Example: Runner A has a 13:00 PR and a 53 second last lap. Runner B has a 12:50 PR and a 55 second last lap. If runner B just runs his hardest every race, he always beats A. But if he runs slower so he's even with A going into the final lap, he'll lose.

The "tactics" make no sense to me. Runner B is faster and can win if he just runs his best. Why would he ever choose to do anything else? It seems like the fastest guys should always just run their hardest and win. Anything else just gives slower guys a chance to outkick at the end.

Those setting the pace rarely win because there is only 1 of them, and up to 15 or so other people behind them who are close enough that their lead doesn't matter. That gives them about a 6% chance. The wind resistance and supposed extra energy expended and all that reduces it to maybe 5%, it makes little to no difference.

If you're in 5th, drafting on the kerb the whole way, you've still got the same 6% chance of winning. Maybe 6.1% if you figure the slight disadvantage to whoever was leading. But viewers, and often the athletes themselves, act like it's a race between just two people, the leader and everyone else, and convince themselves that it's much better to be everyone else, even though you can't be 15 people at once.

As for being far and away the best athlete, the "tactical" winners are generally far and away the best kickers. If you can't beat them at that, then a breakaway is your best bet. If they stick to their game plan, they'll let you go, and everyone else who considers them the favorite will stay back with them.

The Kenyan trials 5000m had a breakaway today. The guy finished top 3.

Also it's very hard to PR every time out and who knows how the PR was set, maybe pace makers did took them through 3k of a 5k to run that 12:50. Your example is also very close in time. The drafting and mental energies expended by the leader may wear them down a bit and the faster pace may pull the kicker to a new PR. The bottom line is the kicker is entering the last lap having done no mental work on pacing and having drafted off of 1 or many more and then they are maybe only 1 second behind and its over. I think your example most of us would be ok with and even races under 13:15. It's frustrsting when pro runners are running races in the 13:50s.

The only way your example works for the 12:50 runner is if he had solo'd a 12:50 consistently and that still may not do it.

confused hobby jogger wrote:

It seems like every time someone talks about a race being tactical, they just mean ran slow until the last bit then sprinted to the finish.

Taking the lead from the gun is a tactic, too. It's a tactic that rarely wins at the elite level.

If you're the local hobby jogging king and you know you're two minutes faster than everyone else at the turkey trot, you can use pretty much any "tactic" you want, including a suicidal first mile. If you're in the Olympic final, no one is so far superior to the rest of the field that they can just take off early and leave everyone behind.

A tactic that works against Bob the accountant may not work against Mo Farah.

teenage wasteland wrote:

A tactic that works against Bob the accountant may not work against Mo Farah.

Exactly. Hobby jogging has about as much in common with elite running as rec league softball does with the World Series. They're two totally unrelated things.

I know this, despite being a hobby jogger whose highest aspiration is an age group medal at this year's turkey trot.

So is drafting really that big of an advantage? I thought drafting in running was something of a myth, except in cases of substantial headwind.

If it's just the mental effort of leading and setting the pace, does that mean that Alex Honnold or some Buddhist monk could crush the field through mental strength?

Okay, what if runner A runs a PR? What if runner B just doesn't have his best stuff and fails to run 12:50? What if runner B doesn't know to the second how fast he and runner A can both close on this particular day? You're assuming a whole lot of knowledge about everyone's fitness level and closing abilities on the particular day in question.

You're also assuming a situation where the fastest closer is slower overall, but that isn't usually the case. If you push the pace early on Mo, he'll just go with you and still outkick you. Same was true of Bekele.

In a situation where one guy has bad closing speed, but has a PR that's so much better than everyone else's that he can just run away from the field without pushing so hard that he risks blowing up, sure, that guy will use that strategy. Can you name a runner in the last few Olympics/WCs for whom this would have applied?

still confused wrote:

So is drafting really that big of an advantage? I thought drafting in running was something of a myth, except in cases of substantial headwind.

If it's just the mental effort of leading and setting the pace, does that mean that Alex Honnold or some Buddhist monk could crush the field through mental strength?

Okay, 5/10. You suckered me in for a minute, but then you overplayed the "playing dumb" trolling card. Remember, to keep a good troll going, you can't blow the subtlety or believability factors.

I don't know if drafting is a big advantage but it's an advantage and it's well established that for whatever reason, taking the lead early in an elite field almost certainly means you won't win. You could count on your fingers the number of Olympic or WC races won by someone who went hard from the start and lead and still have fingers left over. There's not one single reason for this and getting into reasons would be a long discussion but it's universally accepted that if you want to win a championship race you DO NOT want to spend most of the race in front pushing the pace and that's true even if you're racing people who have better kicks than you.

You probably won't beat those people by running slowly and kicking but you certainly won't beat them by leading the whole way. So you run the slower pace and hope that you can get a jump on them when you kick. Maybe they'll be boxed. Maybe they're a bit off form. Maybe you can muster up the best 300 you've ever run and pull off the upset. This doesn't mean there aren't other tactics than running slow and kicking but, yes, holding back on the pace, not leading in the early going and trying to win with a kick is the most common one now.

still confused wrote:

So is drafting really that big of an advantage? I thought drafting in running was something of a myth, except in cases of substantial headwind.

If it's just the mental effort of leading and setting the pace, does that mean that Alex Honnold or some Buddhist monk could crush the field through mental strength?

This is a great thread because you have exposed one of the most widely accepted piece of crap. Unless there is a head wind and you can run in a pack drafting to reduce wind resistance, its basically a non-factor. So this idea of race tactics is really a myth (unless of course you get boxed in). The fastest person wins the race. If mentally tough, they should be able to run as fast by themselves or in a group. It doesn't matter the pace the other runners are running.

If you are slowing down the pace or pushing the pace to make an opponent run too slow or too fast in the beginning you are just assuming they are not mentally tough and that you can make them run a slower time. You might be slowing your own time in the process.

You should run at a pace that MAXIMIZES your speed and forget about "tactics" unless you really think you opponent is faster than you and is mentally weak enough that you can make them run at a pace that's not good for them.

Now, these tactics made the best sense, may have been foolhardy but for John Ngugi paid off on this day!

See video.

rat teeth wrote:

still confused wrote:

If it's just the mental effort of leading and setting the pace, does that mean that Alex Honnold or some Buddhist monk could crush the field through mental strength?

Okay, 5/10. You suckered me in for a minute, but then you overplayed the "playing dumb" trolling card. Remember, to keep a good troll going, you can't blow the subtlety or believability factors.

Not trolling, nor stupid per se. My buddhist monk comment was meant somewhat sarcastically or facetiously, not literally.

I'd understand if we were talking about high schoolers, but it seems inconceivable to me that elite runners can't lead the pack without it being detrimentally taxing on them mentally.

You've obviously never raced.

Yes I have and when I was racing I believed all the BS about tactics. When to make my move, when to push it, when to hang back, at the time I thought it made a huge difference just like you do now. But simply you need to run your fastest race at your best pace. End of story.

Bottom line, the fastest runner wins the races, UNLESS HE SCREWS UP. It doesn't matter what your competitor does. He could start out slow, he could start out fast, just run YOUR FASTEST Pace.

The rest is nonsense.

T-Rex wrote:

...but for John Ngugi paid off on this day!

Yes - but see what happened to Domingos Castro in this race!

Going to the front early and pushing the pace almost guarantees that you will finish at a lower placing than if you follow.

And when you follow, you have no control of the pace, so it's usually slow.

If you are racing Farah (and that means if you are any one in the world), you're not going to be able to get away from him because he can keep up with whatever pace you can maintain. But he and everyone else will key off of you and pass you before the end. Everyone's good at a world final.

The only way you can maximize your finishing place by running fast from the front is if you are clearly better than anyone behind you that you are trying to beat.

Anyone who is near equal to you will catch you and beat you.

That is why the tactic of going out slow in a championship race makes sense.

Zersenay Tadese i suppose? The guy would start pilling 62 second laps in the middle of a 10km final.

However i don't really believe he didn't have good closing speed, it's more like he never really bothered to check it.

Neither should he since he was battling a 26:17 guy who could close in 52 or so if necessary.

Therefore i think that the only way he could possibly win is by pushing the pace and hope Bekele was in a bad day.