Thoughts on slow pace of NCAA 5000m races.

[lovetorun]

As I watched the men's and women's NCAA 5000m races, I had mixed feelings as the slow, tactical race unfolded. On the one hand, it made for a fascinating race i.e. who would break first and when etc. But, on the other hand ,I was frustrated that not one of the runners who knew they had no chance in a slow, tactical race had the courage to take it out and go for it a la Joan Benoit in the 84 OG marathon.

And, it isn't just these NCAA races...it happens frequently in championship races: no one wants to "sacrifice themselves", so they all jog along, assuring a slow time, and what some would call not an honest race, albeit an interesting competition.

[KevinM]

In terms of trying to win the race, it would have been to no one's advantage to push the pace with Rupp around, since not only is he the best kicker, he is also the fastest runner. A very, very slow pace with a chaotic last-lap finish would have given the field the best chance to pull a Cacho-like upset. In terms of trying to place well and not necessarily winning, I agree that it may have been to the advantage of the Bethkes and Meads of the world to ramp things up earlier, just as Forrest and Chelanga did the night before in the 10,000. The Forrest/Chelanga strategy certainly wasn't going to burn off Rupp, but it did make it a 3 man race less than a lap in.

[gh]

When the men's 5K final started it was 73 degrees with 87% humidity. Dew point 69 degrees.

If you wanna go for a long sprint under those conditions, be my guest!

[26mi235]

We hear this complaint very often in a distance race that goes out at a pace less than PR pace. Let us think about this for a bit. One the one hand you have a coach who knows his/her runner, a runner that likely has more experience than any of these posters, and incentive to do the best that they can. Repeatedly these players come up with a different strategy than the posters. Let me guess, who do you think knows best? The time trials were run at Stanford; you even get to watch them on FloTrack etc.

Also, there is often a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics: even if it is optimal for many of the runners to have the pace go out fast, it is also very sub-optimal to be the one setting that pace. The phrases 'it pays to collude and it pays to cheat' and 'prisoner's dilemma' [hey, I am an economist].

Clearly there are times when the athlete and coach think that the thing to do in these circumstances is to push hard for most of the race (e.g., KB at the OG 2008; Ruth W took a surprising-to some-approach to the '84 Trials). That does not mean that it will work all the time.

[gh]

We hear this complaint very often in a distance race that goes out at a pace less than PR pace. ....

Here's something else to consider: how many of the people in those races actually won their PR races? I'm willing to guess very few. 99% of the people in the NCAA distance fields get their PRs (and Qs) by riding the train in a Stanford-type race.

If they didn't win then, why would they think they would win if they ran a PR now? You instead think about kicking off a slower pace, varying the pace, whatever (not that many are bold enough ever to go to the front to try to dictate the tempo).

[George P.]

This is probably (too) simplistic, but not everyone is trying to win the race. They may be jockeying for team points, and approaching the thing as a PB-effort might be (as somebody put it) sub-optimal.

[lovetorun]

A point that I didn't make very well (by using Joan Benoits win in the 84 OG as an example) is that although most of the runners knew they couldn't win, wouldn't they feel better about their effort/performance if they had pushed the pace more (Chris Derrick actually did this somewhat) and ran the best they could under the conditions?

[kuha]

There are many good observations above. A high percentage of PRs are set in "losing" efforts; winning is rarely about time alone. Running from the front takes more effort than running from behind. In terms of early pace, there's probably slightly more fear of getting riggy and falling apart than there is of having a bit "too much" left at the end. And, of course, most athletes probably overestimate their own strategic cleverness vis-a-vis everyone else's.

[George P.]

A point that I didn't make very well (by using Joan Benoits win in the 84 OG as an example) is that although most of the runners knew they co uldn't win, wouldn't they feel better about their effort/performance if they had pushed the pace more (Chris Derrick actually did this somewhat) and ran the best they could under the conditions?

As one who's attempted to race in such conditions, I think 90 percent of your answer is right here:

When the men's 5K final started it was 73 degrees with 87% humidity. Dew point 69 degrees.

If you wanna go for a long sprint under those conditions, be my guest!

[George P.]

And, of course, most athletes probably overestimate their own strategic cleverness vis-a-vis everyone else's.

Bingo! It must be an occupational hazard: everyone in the field is convinced he or she has the best kick. (This is most evident on the European Circuit.)

[2 cents]

I agree with many of the above comments. However, remember that there is only one winner in a race, much like there is only one team that wins the Super Bowl. Listen to sports talk radio, and you'd be forgiven for thinking that almost all of the teams that did not win the S.B. were just a few bonehead calls by refs or mistakes by coaches or blown plays from winning themselves.
Now, back to the 5000: each athlete is trying to maximize his chances of placing high, and he may also, possibly subconsciously, be trying to postpone the moment when he may be in the grips of exruciating discomfort, that moment when he has committed himself to a pace he is not certain how long he can sustain, and so he feels that if he is along for the ride, he will not pay the physical and emotional price of venturing out of his comfort zone until the last moment he can and still hope for good results. There is also the dogma that is preached by so many: do not lead, let the others do the work. OK, that is often sound advice, but it is not always the best advice for any given athlete. There is also the matter of those in the lead having some element of control, which can be advantageous, and that they may run the rail. I notice many athletes who may not be leading, but they are running extra distance around the oval by not hugging the inside of the track. So, with the amalgam of human nature desiring to postpone discomfort and the psychological toll of leading, combined with the mantra often espoused by coaches, it is not surprising that the slow pace often results. Your team may not win the S.B., and you always have a piece of advice which you think may have helped in the cause to change the outcome. Of course, I may be full of it too.

[Jnathletics]

I have no issue with the slow pace race of championship meets. It is a more exciting race to watch when there is a pack vs. a line of runners. The outcome is more in doubt and the excitement grows better to the finish of the race.

I want to make two points, what's the old adage? You can't win the race in the first half but you can lose it. Meaning if an athlete exerts too much energy early there isn't anything left for the end. Just look at the MDG this weekend where a couple of the HS milers wanted so bad to break the 4:00 barrier that they ended up fading to probably some of their slowest times all year. So, I really doubt at NCAA champs level someone could win the race in the first mile and a half.

Second, everyone thinks that a kick is something a runner has or doesn't. (OK, Galen's kick it maybe true, but he didn't have that great of a kick last year.) But for most it depends how the race goes. How one feels throughout the race, rather then what your 400 PB is. Sometimes your place in the race is smooth and uneventful, while other times you are bumped, spiked, etc... Paying attention to everyone else can be very draining instead of moving through the motions. Many factors go into the final kick which seem to be ignored. Unless your head and shoulders above the rest, but even those athletes sometime falter too. So, the best strategy has to be staying comfortable until you know you can make it to the finish and still have something left for the final 200 which makes or breaks a runner in the end.

[26mi235]

And, of course, most athletes probably overestimate their own strategic cleverness vis-a-vis everyone else's.

Bingo! It must be an occupational hazard: everyone in the field is convinced he or she has the best kick. (This is most evident on the European Circuit.)

In my view this is an incorrect inference or [more likely] a mis-stated one. Specifically, runners do not have to think that they have the BEST kick, just that they have a better chance of winning/placing well that way compared to an alternative strategy, such as leading everyone else around the track.

Often, the alternative is not to have a hard pace that someone else sets but to have a hard pace that they set, which puts the leader at a big physical disadvantage?

[George P.]

And, of course, most athletes probably overestimate their own strategic cleverness vis-a-vis everyone else's.

Bingo! It must be an occupational hazard: everyone in the field is convinced he or she has the best kick. (This is most evident on the European Circuit.)

In my view this is CLEARLY either an incorrect inference or [more charitably by also more likely] a mis-stated one. Specifically, runners do NOT have to think that they have the BEST kick, just that they have a BETTER chance of winning/placing well that way compared to an ALTERNATIVE strategy, such as leading everyone else around the track.

Why is it so hard for people to figure out that the alternative is not to have a hard pace that someone else sets but to have a hard pace that THEY set, which puts the leader at a big physical disadvantage?

When one tries to sum up, concisely, complicated strategies among individuals of varying talents and motivations, one always gets hammered. Fair enough, but does it really have to be so brutal and so ... personal?

[EPelle]

And, of course, most athletes probably overestimate their own strategic cleverness vis-a-vis everyone else's.

Bingo! It must be an occupational hazard: everyone in the field is convinced he or she has the best kick. (This is most evident on the European Circuit.)

Yep. Look again at the NCAA 5.000m thread and at the finalist's 1.500m PB's. Most of them were under 3.47 in the 1.500m, with a good handful between 3.39-3.43. No one's leading a beast like this race -- everyone's waiting to pounce at the end.