another runner wrote:
zzzz wrote:
Of course a 13:52 is worlds apart from a 13:30. I've been a track fan since the '80s, I know. I'm not talking about improvement. Needing improvement to get to 13:30 from 13:52 would be a guy tops out at 13:52 in a race that is even paced and run in lane one because it's strung out. That's not the case in Walmsley's race. What others and I see is a 13:30 ability runner in that race that very day, not needing improvement to get to 13:30. Just being in the right (fastest) heat would have done it that night. Like the other morans, you totally ignore the absolutely free 9 seconds from running in lane two for half the race, even if you don't understand how pacing works.
Have you ever run under 14 minutes?
Can you respond to arguments by addressing the points I made? Why don't we list them, so you don't miss addressing each item:
1. running in lane two for about 7 laps is about 54 meters longer than 5000m. That's 9 seconds at 13:52 pace (6 meters per second). In a different, more strung out race, he could have run it in lane one. That's 9 free seconds.
2. Pacing matters. An even pace, or just barely negative split (small percentage ~1-2% within the margin of error for closest second lap times) is optimal for a overall times in distance races. If there is energy to have splits 11% apart (68, 61) for substantial portions/multiple laps of a race, evening out the effort would produce a faster time.
3. Stats Gangsta's running calculator does a decent job of estimating what that evened out time would be.
I've run under 13:56 in a "5K" cross country race. It was short by about a minute though. Since you didn't specify distance...