Sit and kick versus going for it at even pace - who wins?

I think a fair bit of it is inbetween their ears

OCDRunner wrote: Why does sit and kick usually win?

Because "sit and kick" runners know the laps leading to the last one are well within their abilities. Rarely do the "sit and kick" strategy runners miscalculate the gap to the early leader.

Going out early works when you have a clear advantage over the others in a race. It's about the only time it works consistently.

Sit and kick works only for long distance runnuers who have high speed and not that good endurance or overall time (like Slow-Mo) and it works for them only when the runners who have good endurance and better overall time but less speed are stupid enough to play to their hands and run slow until the end. The condition for It is not good tactics of the fast runner, but stupidity of the better time slower kick runner. And you can pull this dirty trick only with stupid runners who don't give it all from the beginning, sometime becuase mentally and physically it's much harder to run a fast steady pace from the beginning. That's what Slow-Mo always does, and lucky for him, the other runners play to his hands all the time. On the other hand, you would never be able to pull cheap tricks like that on Almaz Ayana, she forces all the other runners to a fast pace leaving them no air for the kick.

It's the same reason NFL coaches don't always go for it on fourth and short.

Womack wrote:

you would never be able to pull cheap tricks like that on Almaz Ayana, she forces all the other runners to a fast pace leaving them no air for the kick.

Somebody missed the women's 5000 in Rio.

There is about a 1% advantage to drafting in a windless race. This means that you have to be fitter by about 3+ seconds/mile to take it hard and steady from the gun. Nobody has that advantage over Mo on the track right now, so they are fodder for his sit-and-kick. On the roads, different story.

Do you compete?

Polymath wrote:

Womack wrote:

you would never be able to pull cheap tricks like that on Almaz Ayana, she forces all the other runners to a fast pace leaving them no air for the kick.

Somebody missed the women's 5000 in Rio.

No, somebody doesn't understand what sit and kick is. Ayana didn't go for sit and kick tactic. She never does. She gave it all from the beginning, running fast steady pace. The reason she lost is probably because of fatigue due to her fast 10k WR, and her qualifying 5000m.

Polymath wrote:

There is about a 1% advantage to drafting in a windless race. This means that you have to be fitter by about 3+ seconds/mile to take it hard and steady from the gun.

Did you fail math at elementary school too?

Middle94 wrote:

[quote]Womack wrote:

Do you compete?

Just say what you have to say

The reason Cheruiyot won was because Ayana wasn't fast enough on the day to run away and stay away, so the runner with the patience and cool head prevailed. You probably call that a "cheap trick", I call it "racing".

Womack wrote:

Polymath wrote:

Somebody missed the women's 5000 in Rio.

No, somebody doesn't understand what sit and kick is. Ayana didn't go for sit and kick tactic. She never does. She gave it all from the beginning, running fast steady pace. The reason she lost is probably because of fatigue due to her fast 10k WR, and her qualifying 5000m.

Best of luck with your recent head injury.

Polidiot wrote:

Polymath wrote:

There is about a 1% advantage to drafting in a windless race. This means that you have to be fitter by about 3+ seconds/mile to take it hard and steady from the gun.

Did you fail math at elementary school too?

Polymath wrote:

The reason Cheruiyot won was because Ayana wasn't fast enough on the day to run away and stay away, so the runner with the patience and cool head prevailed. You probably call that a "cheap trick", I call it "racing".

Womack wrote:

No, somebody doesn't understand what sit and kick is. Ayana didn't go for sit and kick tactic. She never does. She gave it all from the beginning, running fast steady pace. The reason she lost is probably because of fatigue due to her fast 10k WR, and her qualifying 5000m.

Nothing to do with cool head or patience. Cheruiot won becuase she was probably more adjusted to high mileage. She moves on to the marathon now. And she didn't sit and kick. She ran and kicked, unlike Slow-mo.

I think most people don't like those sit and kick tactical slow-moes runners because they are kinda like politicians. They have no principles. They act acording to the environment, according to public opinion. Not according to any inner thing. I have much more respect for a runner that gets last and have a PB than a runner that gets first far far away from his PB. For me the last is the true winner.

Womack wrote:

Middle94 wrote:

[quote]Womack wrote:

Do you compete?

Just say what you have to say

Just asking if you run competitively? Do you lead out every race and how much success has that brought you?

Our definition of success is different

Womack wrote:

Our definition of success is different

How do you know what my definition of success is? I'd define success as placing in the top 3 in the races you have entered, as well as finishing a season with a nice personal best. Winning titles is good also.

Do you race? Do you front run all your races? Have you taken part in competitions with three rounds? Do you front run those also?

Because most runners are sissies without gonads! The #1 reason for becoming a runner. And I mean functional nads. They lack 'em.

They get skinnied up by their coach, some middle class ne'er-do-well chasing lost glory, trapped in low body weight and low testosterone, then they get some kind of scholarship to win athletic fame in front of about 10 screaming fans, then either a degree in psychology or some other bullshit, or just maybe if they're one of the 10 most masochistic self-skinnifiers, they land a pro contract for about 5 grand a year plus gear and comp.

So then they get to their pro team, the track version of a Harlem Globetrotters opponent designated to lose to whatever Kenyan or Ethiopian shows up (this is not about race, but about the lower natural body weight of people in hunger-ridden countries of east Africa, so they don't sacrifice T by being skinny) unless they're lucky enough to reach the holy land of NOP with its sweet science.

And then they go up against Daniel Komen's legendary 3000, run at a fairly even pace and not kicked, and lose by about 20 seconds. So they go off to some B meet to run a sit and kick to feature on Flo Track. All because they were too well fed as children and didn't grow up naturally skinny like an east African. And then their coaches misled them to try to be skinny anyway and waste their lives trying to be pro track athletes when there isn't even any such thing.

So the moral is anyone who falls for that shit is a useless weaking and might as well sit and kick.

What the calculator is telling you is that the guy running 62-62-62-54 has the potential to run 3:54. It would be foolish for that runner to let someone else be 3+ seconds ahead at 400m and nearly 7 seconds ahead at the 800m. That's not sitting and kicking, that's just not putting forth an effort.

I don't know where you found the 1 sec/lap figure for drafting, but if you are admitting that the sit and kick runner is capable of a 3:54, then his best bet is to be on the shoulder of the guy running even 58.xxs and kick by him for a 3:51.

You are strange