what's the benefit of not wearing a watch during a marathon?

No watch wrote:

I wore a watch in my first marathon and blew up, trying to match a preconceived pace that just wasn't there that day - my next race will be done based on effort

If you run based on effort, won't you have big positive splits? Because e.g. running mile 1 at 6:00 pace feels way easier than running mile 26 at the same pace.

HardLoper wrote:

Feyisa Lilesa didn't wear one either. 1-2-3 sweep for the watchless. In a tactical race in unpredictable weather on a course with many turns, every km split is going to be different...

Rudisha was wearing one, just like van Niekerk...

watch-er wrote:

Rudisha was wearing one, just like van Niekerk...

Yeah but we all know wearing a watch is essential for sprinters to have the right splits.

I think it is because at there level when they are racing a marathon competitively i.e they are racing each other to win a medal as opposed to us- a) they are a lot more in tune with what they could run than your typical marathon runner who isn't running conpetitevly. I mean let's face they train a lot more than us and a lot differently to us and they can run a marathon at a pace that is faster than what most of us run a 5K.

b) they aren't running to PR but to win the race time splits really don't matter it is a question of whether you have it on the day or not in order to win. Look at Stanley Biwott who DNF'ed. You could have asked what is he not "fit enough" to finish? Of course he is but that is besides the point. Finishing is meaningless to him as was PR'ing. The only thing that mattered was winning a medal. In that circumstance you just have to give it your best on the day regardless of time splits and try to run with the front runners and when the surges come be able to stay with them until you are able to put in your own surge and drop everyone or stay strong for a sprint if it comes to that. Believe you me no one will be staring at their watch and go- oh no it's beyond my pace zones. They will fight on and try to win if they can.

cheap thrills wrote:

Few runners have mastered the intricate weight differential of having a 42-80oz watch on one hand but not the other. It would explain who was able to run the tangents and not. Even those who normally wear one but took it off were in trouble. You either have to pump something like a remote in your other hand for weeks at a time, or never train with one to be in proper marathon balance.

80oz is 5 pounds. No wonder it throws people off.

If you're planning on going for the win then the lead car will provide the time. If you can't see the lead car, then you've probably lost the race at that point and there's little point in caring about hitting precise splits. Position is more important than time.

I run all my races by feel AND wear a GPS watch (I just have the face set to some random screen, like sunrise or altitude). I prefer to pace off of perceived effort.

At the same time, I like having the GPS record after my race. Both because it's interesting to look at the different data (HR, splits, etc), and because every once in a while, a timing mat does miss me. If I have the GPS record of my run, and someone questions my race because I missed some mats, I can always provide the file for that race to prove that I'm not a Rossi.

The lead pace truck usually has a clock that shows the pace they are running. If you are planning on staying with the lead pack, you do not need a watch. If you have a game plan and are willing to let the lead pack go if the pace is too fast compared to your plan, you do need a watch.

Rupp has a tiny watch embedded under his skin.

And it reads out his splits in a small speaker in his ear.

Salazar can also speak to Rupp via that speaker.

darkwave wrote:

I run all my races by feel AND wear a GPS watch (I just have the face set to some random screen, like sunrise or altitude). I prefer to pace off of perceived effort.

At the same time, I like having the GPS record after my race. Both because it's interesting to look at the different data (HR, splits, etc), and because every once in a while, a timing mat does miss me. If I have the GPS record of my run, and someone questions my race because I missed some mats, I can always provide the file for that race to prove that I'm not a Rossi.

Yeah, I've become a big fan of GPS watches over the past couple of years (pretty much since they started pre-caching satellite locations so I didn't have to stand outside like an idiot, looking at the sky for 10 minutes before running). But I never use instant pacing information from GPS. On occasion, I'll use current lap average pace if I'm doing mile repeats or something, but my main uses are to have data after the fact and so I can explore new routes on the fly and still hit my planned distances on the nose.

When I'm racing, I just have total time and lap time displayed, and I take splits manually, just like I used to with my Timex.

Star wrote:

Rupp has a tiny watch embedded under his skin.

And it reads out his splits in a small speaker in his ear.

Salazar can also speak to Rupp via that speaker.

And were all his hats different satellite receivers?

laughing madman wrote:

Funny. Your kids calling Rupp an experienced marathoner. Funny.

Except that no one called him an experienced marathoner. Funny.

Watch this wrote:

watch-er wrote:

Rudisha was wearing one, just like van Niekerk...

Yeah but we all know wearing a watch is essential for sprinters to have the right splits.

Michael Johnson always checked his 20m splits to make sure he was on pace. That's why he was so consistent.

gaining it wrote:

Star wrote:

Rupp has a tiny watch embedded under his skin.

And it reads out his splits in a small speaker in his ear.

Salazar can also speak to Rupp via that speaker.

And were all his hats different satellite receivers?

No, his hats had small topical EPO batches that would absorb into his scalp.

I've always found I race better with a standard stopwatch where I get a time-check every mile and not a GPS watch where I'm looking down more often at the watch for my pace. It keeps the focus on the racing.

I've also tried racing with an HRM and tried to hit a goal HR, but it's always a bit too slow and my goal too inaccurate, and I feel like I could have run faster if I didn't use it.

yacomatic wrote:

I've always found I race better with a standard stopwatch where I get a time-check every mile and not a GPS watch where I'm looking down more often at the watch for my pace. It keeps the focus on the racing.

I've also tried racing with an HRM and tried to hit a goal HR, but it's always a bit too slow and my goal too inaccurate, and I feel like I could have run faster if I didn't use it.

Heart rate is pretty worthless at racing intensities.