the real lame wrote:
what's lame is poorly doling out your effort so that you have a thunderous kick left. that's a lack of proper pacing. finshing should feel like a kick but you don't go any faster because you used it all up already. that's the perfect race.
That is a strategy that people learn with experience. Plus there is always a little left in the tank (except for me at the end of a marathon...)
j walter wrote:
why save it for a kick? wrote:
If you were trying to beat other people, you wouldn't have let the lead pack run away from you while saving something for the kick.
You may want to re-read. I didn't say anything about saving for a kick.
If you are able to kick, you saved something for the kick.
why save it for a kick? wrote:
j walter wrote:
You may want to re-read. I didn't say anything about saving for a kick.
If you are able to kick, you saved something for the kick.
Not going to argue the semantics over what constitutes a kick, but you are neither a student of physiology nor running.
Wat? wrote:
macdaddy wrote:
Agreed as well. You got smoked - poor effort, poor attitude, poor pacing, poor everything.
Disagree. What's the point? Nothing lamer than two older guys way out of contention for the top spot sprinting for some meaningless place in the race. OP knew it was going bad and just finished it and didn't want to engage some douchebag in lame 50 meter sprint at a local podunk race.
Somehow Rupp quitting Boston because the conditions or his pace or whatever weren't to his liking is generally acceptable, but the OP's stance with a lot less on the line is somehow not?
What if those two old guys are bitter rivals or best friends who want to beat each other for bragging rights?
I can draw a distinction between dropping out of a race and this situation. My take was it was Rupp's decision based on what he knew about himself. In this case it was the decision of the sprinter based on what he knew about himself. Same thing: each person made a decision based on the information he had.
Negatively all over this thread. Let's turn it around.
Look, people have bad races. Sometimes races feel effortless and easy. You easily pull away from your competition and you can make big moves and even though it's painful, the last couple moments are exhilarating, intense and worth it. Sometimes you surprise yourself and run a lot faster than you'd ever thought you would.
Other times, it's just bad from the very beginning and you mentally tap out. You hit the wall in longer races and you end up walking. Happens to everyone. This sounded like a local race that mostly was for fun. And while I don't advocate quitting a race at anytime (unless you are injured) it might be better set realistic goals during the race and save the effort for another day when you are really tuned in and hitting your splits.
This is why we have B races and A races. Those B races PREPARE you for the A race. The poster indicated he was "tanking" the race....so it would be more beneficial to finish hard and think about the next race instead of engaging in some full tilt effort to shave 2 seconds off his time. That's also a poor racing tactic considering he was way out of contention (and why was his competition talking to him in the race? This isn't basketball.)
On A races, you should have absolutely nothing left when you finish. You should be close to vomiting. I'm usually sitting on my ass and trying to get my bearings after really tough "A" races.
And by the way, even if you "lose" by someone outkicking you in the final meters, realize that this has happened to every elite runner out there and probably every runner on this board. Don't take it so hard. Just man up and sign up for another race.
She Works Out Too Much wrote:
I'd say it is. Especially if you are not going to PR and you are not fighting for the top 3 overall spots.
Happened to me last weekend as I was absolutely tanking my race and some dude wanted to sprint for the finish. We were in a larger race and we were about 2 minutes behind the overall winner anyways. I just let him go because it wasn't worth the effort to kick to cut 3-5 seconds off my time.
Just worry about yourself.
j walter wrote:
why save it for a kick? wrote:
If you are able to kick, you saved something for the kick.
Not going to argue the semantics over what constitutes a kick, but you are neither a student of physiology nor running.
I'm not really clear on what exactly you disagree with. Are you claiming that running a faster overall pace would not diminish one's kick?
In my mind, there is simply no excuse for falling off the pace in the first place if you have a kick left in your legs at the end. I am, however, quite willing to consider any actual argument you wish to present that counters this opinion.
Kicking and running the race use different energy systems. You should basically always be able to kick at least a little bit if you ran a well paced race. Stop being dumb.
Wow you are insanely dumb wrote:
Kicking and running the race use different energy systems. You should basically always be able to kick at least a little bit if you ran a well paced race. Stop being dumb.
They don't use different energy systems. They use the same energy systems in different proportions.
I’d agree with OP. One of my favorite charity 5k moments happened in the first year or two I started running (6 yrs ago). I was trying to get back in shape, so anything around 7 min/mile was good for me. Anyway, I was approaching the finish and some dude comes up on my left in a dead sprint and outLEANS me at the tape.
We ran a 20:47 5k.
In probably 300th place.
Still laughing at that finisher photo. Beyond ridiculous.
why save it for a kick? wrote:
In my mind, there is simply no excuse for falling off the pace in the first place if you have a kick left in your legs at the end.
Agreed. Those 2:50 marathoners at London should not be passing anyone at the end if they didn't stay with Kipchoge as long as they were physically able.
faintors wrote:
why save it for a kick? wrote:
In my mind, there is simply no excuse for falling off the pace in the first place if you have a kick left in your legs at the end.
Agreed. Those 2:50 marathoners at London should not be passing anyone at the end if they didn't stay with Kipchoge as long as they were physically able.
"Passing people at the end" doesn't necessarily mean that you are kicking. And yeah, if you aren't competing for the win, you are presumably trying to run the fastest time possible, in which case you'd probably be better off pushing harder over the last few miles rather than kicking.
When did you have a lengthy conversation with the other guy to find out if *he* was trying to run a PR, or some other goal that he had?
Do you want us to decide, and hopefully (in your mind) agree with you, that nobody else should kick if not fighting for YOUR PR or the top number of spots you deem appropriate?
No, you don't have to kick if you don't want to...but you really don't need to assess whether others should.
We can all run a personally lackluster 3.1M any day of the week we want, for free, on an open course. The advantage of racing is to be motivated and practice such tactics. Even on an off-day, an advantage of kicking is the training aspect of practicing it, training your mind and body that the last ~30 seconds are going to be harder.
You won't be able to DROP THE HAMMER if you don't practice hammering!
why save it for a kick? wrote:
faintors wrote:
Agreed. Those 2:50 marathoners at London should not be passing anyone at the end if they didn't stay with Kipchoge as long as they were physically able.
"Passing people at the end" doesn't necessarily mean that you are kicking. And yeah, if you aren't competing for the win, you are presumably trying to run the fastest time possible, in which case you'd probably be better off pushing harder over the last few miles rather than kicking.
Totes. No way a 15:30 guy should be able to close in 36 for the last 200m vs. the 37 and change he's been averaging. It means he's wasted a better time, right?
It's more lame to kick for the first .1 mile of a 5K.
faintors wrote:
Totes. No way a 15:30 guy should be able to close in 36 for the last 200m vs. the 37 and change he's been averaging. It means he's wasted a better time, right?
I wouldn't consider that to be a kick. And I don't think you would either if you weren't trying to be argumentative.
Trying is lame. You don't want to be labeled a "try hard"
She Works Out Too Much wrote:
I'd say it is. Especially if you are not going to PR and you are not fighting for the top 3 overall spots.
Happened to me last weekend as I was absolutely tanking my race and some dude wanted to sprint for the finish. We were in a larger race and we were about 2 minutes behind the overall winner anyways. I just let him go because it wasn't worth the effort to kick to cut 3-5 seconds off my time.
You sound like a pretentious loser.
why save it for a kick? wrote:
faintors wrote:
Totes. No way a 15:30 guy should be able to close in 36 for the last 200m vs. the 37 and change he's been averaging. It means he's wasted a better time, right?
I wouldn't consider that to be a kick. And I don't think you would either if you weren't trying to be argumentative.
Sure I would. Where do you draw your arbitrary line?
What is the threshold that separates a "hobbyjogger" from a "sub-elite" runner?
BREAKING: Leonard Korir not going to Paris! 11 Universality athletes get in ahead of him!
Hicham El Guerrouj is back baby! Runs Community Mile in Oxford
Do "running influencers" harm the competitive nature of the sport?
Why's it cost every household $5000 in taxes just to run a public school?