Grant Fisher: "everyone thinks they can kick"

The 4th to last lap was a 62.xx and the last mile was 4:05. They shifted gears hard. Doesn't change the fact that Fisher was the best kicker, and just how slow they were going up to that point. It's still got to be one of the slowest 5ks in a while.

Bad Wigins wrote:

The best kicker in that race was the TALL guy unfortunately he was out of position and ran too wide. Never assume you can outkick a tall guy!

Tell that to Leo Manzano, he did pretty well in the London Olympic 1500m final (arguably the legitimate gold medal winner.) Tall guys get out kicked all the time.

The Freeze can kick!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOnapjUHyeE

^ The real gold medal winner was much taller than Leo, was he not?

You can hope to DQ a tall guy, but you can't outkick him!

Warrior mindset wrote:

a bit more to it wrote:

Almost.

Fitness RELATIVE TO THE RACE PACE is what gives you the best kick.

I am a 40-something year-old weekend warrior, and I can easily run a 54-point rolling 400 to end a 20-something minute 5k, if I felt like jogging around for 4600 meters.

Meanwhile Farah and Rupp aren't going to finish in 54 in a 12:45 race.

You know what? I bet you've never tried that and would be amazed how far off you would be if you tried.

Even if you were a 15 flat guy right now.

It doesn't matter if he is a 15 min guy or a 18 min guy. If he can run something like a 52s 400m, he is going to be able to do a 54s one after jogging around.

People pretend the choice is to run hard for 5000m or to jog 4600m and sprint 400ms. There are a ton of options in between. Maybe knight would have been better running a hard last 800m and trying to go 59,59 instead learning he couldn't do a 62.9/55.8. But it is also likely that his mistake was passing fisher with 200m to go. Sitting on Fisher or Bruce and sprinting the last 100m might have got him the win. There is no way to know but in a close race the guys who finish 2nd or 3rd are always left to wonder if they made the right move.

Bad Wigins wrote:

^ The real gold medal winner was much taller than Leo, was he not?

You can hope to DQ a tall guy, but you can't outkick him!

Your schticks are all terrible,

and Makh is 5' 9"

Makh fan wrote:

Makh is 5' 9"

Wow, he's really tall!

No. A 52 second guy over 40 is rare enough and even rarer is the scenario where this type of guy can run any sort of decent 5k.

That includes 20 minutes.

you left out.... wrote:

to your points wrote:

Yeah, you took things to extremes and forgot about the fast guys with no kick.

Like John Ngugi and Carlos Lopes. Ever hear of them?

If John Ngugi were in a 14:35 race he would have a kick.

Not compared to Bekele. Or compare Ngugi to Aouita

ukathleticscoach wrote:

you left out.... wrote:

If John Ngugi were in a 14:35 race he would have a kick.

Not compared to Bekele. Or compare Ngugi to Aouita

Ngugi would have lost to Fisher in that race if he tried to kick for the win.

Fisher the King wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Not compared to Bekele. Or compare Ngugi to Aouita

Ngugi would have lost to Fisher in that race if he tried to kick for the win.

Ngugi ran like 1:58-9 two laps into a 13:11 race... I think he could handle a 9:50 two-miler followed by a 4:05 1600... You're a complete idiot if you're being serious.

KemboiKing wrote:

Fisher the King wrote:

Ngugi would have lost to Fisher in that race if he tried to kick for the win.

Ngugi ran like 1:58-9 two laps into a 13:11 race... I think he could handle a 9:50 two-miler followed by a 4:05 1600... You're a complete idiot if you're being serious.

What was Grant's last 300? 40-41? That not something to sneeze at

Cold War Coach wrote:

“The problem with big kickers is they often lose to other big kickers.” - Coach Groves, PSU

Tell that to Mo Farah

KemboiKing wrote:

Fisher the King wrote:

Ngugi would have lost to Fisher in that race if he tried to kick for the win.

Ngugi ran like 1:58-9 two laps into a 13:11 race... I think he could handle a 9:50 two-miler followed by a 4:05 1600... You're a complete idiot if you're being serious.

Yep, but he couldn't do a single 56 at the end of a 14:35.

while i also liked fisher's interview--his honesty and quick wit are rare in an immediate post-race setting--i'm not sure his comment really applies to 5k runners. certainly milers are notoriously guilty of this hubris, but i'd guess collegiate 5k runners are more aware of their varying strengths.

the real difficulty is this was a race with no head-and-shoulders-above-the-field favorite (no ches), and 24 pretty capable runners. in this case, it's not that everyone thinks they have a better kick, it's that no one felt they could lead and win from the front. if it's a choice between "run my race," or "sit and kick," you're not only weighing your best chance to win, but also your best chance to place well. in a race like this, sitting pretty much benefits everyone (except for the leader, of course), but it will always benefit someONE more than others.

leading in this case will almost always NOT benefit the leader--choge leading through 2600 led to a 21st place finish, and i doubt it would have mattered if he'd led it through faster, but we'll never really know. the only consideration should be how long you wait before you go--don't know enough about knight, but it seemed that maybe he knew the last 150 wouldn't be a strength of his, so he tried to push from farther out. without any way of knowing, i'd still hazard to guess that if he tried to take it wire to wire, he very well may have placed worse than 3rd.

if you're strictly playing the odds, leading generally will only benefit you if you have a significantly better pr than everyone in the field; sitting and kicking when you're the best--even if you have a great kick, like ches--actually lowers your chances.

by they way, don't bother bringing centro's gold medal race into the argument. clearly an exception, and while fortuitous for centro, the slow pace was less than advantageous to the favorite, kiprop, who, as noted above, obviously lowered his chances...

that's my story and i'm sticking to it....

cush

It is the internet, everyone lies about their times:). All I am saying is the limiting factor isn't 5k speed. You could be a 15 min 5k guy or a 18 min one. It doesn't matter. It is all about if you can actually run a 400m a couple seconds faster

Now they were a bit quicker in the NCAA and ran a pretty hard (3kish pace) 1200) before the kick. But that kick was also a bit slower than these guys 800m pace.

socalcush wrote:

if you're strictly playing the odds, leading generally will only benefit you if you have a significantly better pr than everyone in the field; sitting and kicking when you're the best--even if you have a great kick, like ches--actually lowers your chances.

There are very few times when anyone has a substantially better PR. A face pace makes the odds of being top 3 much higher (i.e. if it was a 13:30 pace there are only like 3-4 guys in the field who can run that fast) but it might not help you much against those couple guys.

Surge tactics can work well because people don't want to go with you (i.e. they know you are running too fast) and nobody in the second group wants to lead either. If you run a 62 and start running 67s and the trail group keeps running 70s, you can get a gap that is almost impossible to close over the distance left. The problem is when the trail group starts running 67s instead of 70s so the gap hangs at a level that can be made up over the last couple laps. And since they have been running in a more economical pace, they are likely to have better kicks over those last laps.

This is so true and something I shake my head at every year @ NC's when I watch both the men and women turn a 1500 meter race into a 400 meter sit and go. Disaster for all but 1 or 2 in the field, yet the majority let's the minority dictate the pace. Of course, every single finalist thinks he/she has the best kick on the track. They don't and they lose. Coaches are also to blame for letting races play out this way.