Olympic Marathon Question (Mod Post #20)

Lustrum

Firstly I'm not a runner so apologies if anyone get's offended by this.

I'm watching the Marathon here, and everyone is talking beforehand that realistically it's a shoot-out between the Kenyans and Ethiopians. For everyone else, are they just there to say they've competed? Or are they aiming for PBs or what? If you don't run a PB can it be considered a waste of time?

Call this ridiculous, but what about starting out with the mentality that you're going to give it your best shot - stay on the shoulder of the guy who's leading (even if it's way faster than you normally run) and follow him around until the last 500 yards then go for it. Granted, you might collapse before the end and not finish, but at least you gave it a shot for a medal. And if you do pull it off, you get a medal! Is it worth trying that as this only comes around once every 4 years?

ecoli

Lustrum wrote: »

Firstly I'm not a runner so apologies if anyone get's offended by this.

I'm watching the Marathon here, and everyone is talking beforehand that realistically it's a shoot-out between the Kenyans and Ethiopians. For everyone else, are they just there to say they've competed? Or are they aiming for PBs or what? If you don't run a PB can it be considered a waste of time?

Call this ridiculous, but what about starting out with the mentality that you're going to give it your best shot - stay on the shoulder of the guy who's leading (even if it's way faster than you normally run) and follow him around until the last 500 yards then go for it. Granted, you might collapse before the end and not finish, but at least you gave it a shot for a medal. And if you do pull it off, you get a medal! Is it worth trying that as this only comes around once every 4 years?

Man of these athletes are up to 10 min slower than the East Africans so to go with them is suicide. Some will end going for PBs and some will aim to try finish as far up the field as possible

Some athletes funding is dependent on where they come (either through bonuses with sponsors or the NGB)

While not everyone can challenge for a medal no one wants to DNF in an Olympics

MrCreosote

Some of the other athletes would be an outside shot at a medal. Olympic marathons are often slower than expected because of the lack of pacers and tactics in the race. Although Beijing and now this one will probably be pretty quick!

For lots of them just qualifying is a huge achievement. A PB might be hard to get- the course isn't particularly fast. Look at the crowds! I'd say for any of the athletes it'll be an amazing experience regardless of where they finish.

As for the pacing- those runners dropped off are as unable to stay with the pacesetters as you or I would. It's just too fast to sustain. One thing about the marathon is it gives you plenty of opportunity to royally blow up if you pace wrongly. So the only ones able to sit on the pace until the last 500m are the genuine contenders.

woodchopper

Lustrum wrote: »

Firstly I'm not a runner so apologies if anyone get's offended by this.

I'm watching the Marathon here, and everyone is talking beforehand that realistically it's a shoot-out between the Kenyans and Ethiopians. For everyone else, are they just there to say they've competed? Or are they aiming for PBs or what? If you don't run a PB can it be considered a waste of time?

Call this ridiculous, but what about starting out with the mentality that you're going to give it your best shot - stay on the shoulder of the guy who's leading (even if it's way faster than you normally run) and follow him around until the last 500 yards then go for it. Granted, you might collapse before the end and not finish, but at least you gave it a shot for a medal. And if you do pull it off, you get a medal! Is it worth trying that as this only comes around once every 4 years?

Post of the year!

The marathon is not a movie where the underdog digs deep and outkicks the fancied athlete over the last few hundred meters. You do realize that if your pb is 2.10 which is five minute per mile (something 99.9 percent of the world cannot do for one mile never mind 26 back to back) you cannot keep pace with a 2.03 runner because you will bonk half way through and collapse. Would you like to see 100 DNFs in the race.

huskerdu

Lustrum wrote: »

Firstly I'm not a runner so apologies if anyone get's offended by this.

no-one here is likely to get offended by your opinion, when you clearly know nothing about running marathons or athletics.

I'm watching the Marathon here, and everyone is talking beforehand that realistically it's a shoot-out between the Kenyans and Ethiopians. For everyone else, are they just there to say they've competed? Or are they aiming for PBs or what? If you don't run a PB can it be considered a waste of time?

This is true of all Olympic sports. Many teams and athletes will qualify but their PB is way off the best in the field.

Actually, its also true of the World Cup, the European championship, the All Ireland football and hurling championship and every other sports event.

In answer to your question, yes, everyone is aiming for a PB

Call this ridiculous, but what about starting out with the mentality that you're going to give it your best shot - stay on the shoulder of the guy who's leading (even if it's way faster than you normally run) and follow him around until the last 500 yards then go for it. Granted, you might collapse before the end and not finish, but at least you gave it a shot for a medal. And if you do pull it off, you get a medal! Is it worth trying that as this only comes around once every 4 years?

That is such a ridiculous suggestion that it is not worth responding to.

quarryman

Ah paddy, shure just shtick on yer man's shoulder and boot it for the line at the end, simple!

OP, how do you expect a slower athlete to keep up the fastest? His body is not physically capable of it.

What an idiotic post.

zAbbo

You can extend that strategy to almost all distance races, just stay with the leaders and kick for the last 400m.

Perhaps scrap the 5k, 10k & Marathon and just run 400m races instead?

Answer your question: Everyone else is looking to finish as high as possible, and/or hit a PB. This is why the training is geared to peak for the race.

Athletics is unforgiving in that only the top 3 get medals. If you are only the 20th best in a marathon, no one cares. If you were the 20th best golfer (Ricky Fowler) or tennis player (Andy Roddick) - you're well known worldwide.

riveratom

huskerdu wrote: »

no-one here is likely to get offended by your opinion, when you clearly know nothing about running marathons or athletics.

That is such a ridiculous suggestion that it is not worth responding to.

quarryman wrote: »

What an idiotic post.

Nice one lads, must be great to know it all ay?

He opened by saying he isn't a runner.

Lustrum

Thanks Quarryman, you seem like a sound guy.

What I'm getting at is that for many people, just completing one marathon is the ultimate endurance test - for the 105 (I think it was) guys here, it's just another marathon on top of the hundreds(??) they've done before. While I understand that for many athletes just getting to the Olympics is enough for them, their event is probably way shorter than a marathon - would you be happy training for years, qualifying, then coming 105th but just being there was enough? Why not give it a go rather than settling for just being there before the race even starts!

Do ye think that you could use the follow-the-guy-who's-in-first strategy in shorter races? All this wonder is coming from guys crossing the finish in 40th place, then straight away telling the camera they gave it their all - if they gave it their all they wouldn't have energy to talk to reporters

I'm surprised more sprinters don't think of another obvious ploy.

Stay within a metre of Bolt and then run faster than him over the last 5 metres.

I mean, they all have had a few sprints under their belts. How could the others be happy with being also rans?

I also don't understand why, in football, when a team is losing, they don't send on a sub and instruct him to score 2 or 3 goals. It would seem obvious. yet time and again managers seem to miss this trick.

macinalli

Lustrum wrote: »

What I'm getting at is that for many people, just completing one marathon is the ultimate endurance test - for the 105 (I think it was) guys here, it's just another marathon on top of the hundreds(??) they've done before.

Not true! Running a marathon at race pace really knocks the sh1t out of you, many of these guys won't have run that many. For example, Mark Kenneally was running for Ireland today and I think it was his 3rd marathon. He'll have done hundreds of miles in training, but not at the same intensity that's part of racing a marathon.

rom

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-SxTnqCmLA

<br/>
I think you don't understand that they are actually running fast as from the tv images it looks like they are going slow. The video above will show you want kind of speed they actually are going. They are running 15 mins for 5K and then doing it 8+ times. 15 mins for 5K would win most races.

huskerdu

Lustrum wrote: »

would you be happy training for years, qualifying, then coming 105th but just being there was enough? Why not give it a go rather than settling for just being there before the race even starts!

If you have the mindset that being the best in Ireland is not good enough, because I am not the best in the world then I am not going to bother competing, then you would not put the work into qualifying for the Olympics.

The world may be full of athletes like that, but who knows.

Do ye think that you could use the follow-the-guy-who's-in-first strategy in shorter races? All this wonder is coming from guys crossing the finish in 40th place, then straight away telling the camera they gave it their all - if they gave it their all they wouldn't have energy to talk to reporters

No, its a very, very bad strategy, for any middle and long distance races, from 1500m to the marathon

Every athlete, in every race, is trying to run the distance as fast as they can.

If your PB for 5000m is 16 minutes and you are in a race with guys who can run sub-14 minutes, and you decide to try to keep up with them, you are very likely to run the first half of the race in 7 minutes, run out of steam and run the second half in 10 minutes, which is silly, when your best chance of running better than 16 minutes is to run the first half in 8 minutes and have enough in the tank to run the second half faster.

Lots and lots of people, at all levels from middle aged plodders like me who do road races to top class athletes have tried your strategy and proved again and again that it simply doesn't work

Lustrum

Huskerdu and Macinalli, thanks for your replies and understanding.

Sorry for bothering the rest of you, hopefully I won't ever turn up at your club to ask questions about something I don't know about

RayCun

Lustrum wrote: »

I'm watching the Marathon here, and everyone is talking beforehand that realistically it's a shoot-out between the Kenyans and Ethiopians. For everyone else, are they just there to say they've competed?

No, they're there because sometimes the pundits get it wrong - like today.

And sometimes the winner, or a medallist anyway, is the runner who ran their own race while the lead pack blew themselves up.

RacoonQueen

LOL I'd collapse in a heap a few metres into mile 2 if I went with the leading ladies.

theboyblunder

Some shameful treatment of a visitor to our forum here (S)he indicated that (s)he wasnt a runner and asked a few questions. Not great, insightful questions to be sure, but not worthy of some of the answers it got.

When did we start this arrogant crapola? Dont like to see people's posts called 'idiotic' when the OP is clearly not a troll.

riveratom

Lustrum wrote: »

Huskerdu and Macinalli, thanks for your replies and understanding.

Sorry for bothering the rest of you, hopefully I won't ever turn up at your club to ask questions about something I don't know about

Keep asking questions OP and disregard these kind of running snobs you might 'run' into

walshb

OP, simple: They have a qualifying standard and if you make that you most likely get to run. If only all the best went to the games sure there wouldn't be a competition. Dead heats in all events. Bit silly that.:)

ecoli

Mod: Gentle reminder to be civil. The OP has already said they are not a runner so if you not going to post civilly dont post at all. You have been warned infractions and bans will follow if needs be

Tombo2001

OP,

the way it generally goes in a race is this.....

(and I am no experts, but I doubt if many of the punters here are either)....

For any given distance - take ten miles - a person of a certain capability (which is a function of age, talent, training fitness and conditioning) can run that race in a certain time that can be considered their best time......give or take.......within a margin of error of 2% - 3%.

Say your optimal time for ten miles is 60 minutes, then more less the optimal way you can run that is to do ten 6 minute miles.

So if you are running your optimal time of 60 minutes.....for the 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th miles at 6 minutes a mile you should be comfortable enough, for the 6th to 9th you are getting progresssively more f8&ked as your body gets more tired so maintaining that 6 minute mile pace gets harder and harder - for the last mile you are well and truly wrecked but because you can see the finish line you keep it going. So I suppose that if 60 minutes is your very best time for 10 miles, another way of looking that is you can endure a 6 minute mile pace for 10 miles, but not for 11 miles......

Typically, if you try to do the first five miles in 5.5 minutes.....you might be able to achieve that for five miles......but you wont be able to revert to 6 minute miles, or even to 6.5 minute miles for the second half......typically if you go out too fast, you more than pay for it in the second half of the race.


So that is why for example the Irish runner couldnt just tag on to the leaders. Because if he did, he would have to drop out at mile 16.

On the other hand, it worked the opposite way for Robert Heffernan in the walk yesterday - he went out at his own pace where the leaders went out too quickly, so he spent the second half of the race passing out the drop-outs from the leading group one by one.

Its a pity people were so condescending to you on the thread, the answer to your question was not at all obvious, but to someone who has done a bit of running it might seem obvious.

The irony is that I'd say most of the contributors, if they resemble typical runners, have done exactly the thing that you have suggested....even though they are saying it is "idiotic" and so on......one of the most common mistakes in road running is to go out too fast and then burn out and fade badly in the latter stages of the race. I can think of several notable examples of top Irish athletes doing this in recent years.

pc11

Lustrum wrote: »

Thanks Quarryman, you seem like a sound guy.

What I'm getting at is that for many people, just completing one marathon is the ultimate endurance test - for the 105 (I think it was) guys here, it's just another marathon on top of the hundreds(??) they've done before. While I understand that for many athletes just getting to the Olympics is enough for them, their event is probably way shorter than a marathon - would you be happy training for years, qualifying, then coming 105th but just being there was enough? Why not give it a go rather than settling for just being there before the race even starts!

Do ye think that you could use the follow-the-guy-who's-in-first strategy in shorter races? All this wonder is coming from guys crossing the finish in 40th place, then straight away telling the camera they gave it their all - if they gave it their all they wouldn't have energy to talk to reporters

And they guy who finished 2nd, why didn't he just run faster?

What you don't seem to understand is that for many runners, shooting for 2.12 IS giving it a go. This is not a 1500 where a fast opening just means to finish a bit slower. This is 26 miles, go off too fast and you will be dead, perhaps before halfway.

For many runners, yes they ARE happy to train for years just to qualify or finish top 20 or whatever.

pc11

theboyblunder wrote: »

Some shameful treatment of a visitor to our forum here (S)he indicated that (s)he wasnt a runner and asked a few questions. Not great, insightful questions to be sure, but not worthy of some of the answers it got.

When did we start this arrogant crapola? Dont like to see people's posts called 'idiotic' when the OP is clearly not a troll.

In fairness, the OP persisted long after it had been explained to him. It started to seem like trolling or, worse, asking a question but not listening to the answer.

paulmorro

pc11 wrote: »

theboyblunder wrote: »

Some shameful treatment of a visitor to our forum here (S)he indicated that (s)he wasnt a runner and asked a few questions. Not great, insightful questions to be sure, but not worthy of some of the answers it got.

When did we start this arrogant crapola? Dont like to see people's posts called 'idiotic' when the OP is clearly not a troll.

In fairness, the OP persisted long after it had been explained to him. It started to seem like trolling or, worse, asking a question but not listening to the answer.

I didn't read it like that. But either way the insults started after post one.