Most important element of racing well (Aside from training)

A huge amount of racing is mental. Lots of people here put in the same or similar training, but have vastly different results.

hot buttered scones wrote: »

I would agree with some of what ypu said there, but wouldn't 100% agree with the main gist of the paragraph. Most of the races I run I'm chasing a PB, or if that's not on the cards, I'm chasing the guy just in front of me, and I give it all I've got. But I have entered races with the specific aim of gaining race practice without putting in 100% effort in order to be more prepared for my goal race. For example I ran Cork to Cobh mostly to get some miles at MP and practice fueling etc. for Dublin. Entering races like this and leaving a bit in the tank can help to build confidence and nail down strategy for a goal race, so your still gaining experience without jeopardising your main aim. Of course I could have just done a 15 mile long run on my own, but you can't learn control under race conditions like that. Or running the Ballyandreen 5 at PMP because it was the week before the Cork marathon and I wanted to run all the Ballycotton summer series races - not too expensive either at only €5. But yeah, I've probably learned the most from races I've actually raced, even if only to learn what I'm capable of. It's great when you surprise yourself.
And I love the social side of races too, especially the summer evening races. If I'm going to chicken out I'll do it properly and just not bother me hoop showing up.

Yes if you have a goal race which you are 100% doing. But many have a goal race which is always the next one after what they are currently doing, and the goal race never happens, and just becomes another race run easy.

Must disagree with the marathon example snailsong. Part of the reason people's results often vary so greatly from expectations (particularly for novices) is that unless you've raced 26 miles how can you know how it will go? And even if you've done a couple it's still difficult, I find, to gauge what your maximum potential is in advance. A failure to know what you are capable of can only really be corrected by racing (and I would apply that to all distances).

IMO your example of aiming for 4:30 and running 4:18 is the perfect approach. It's a distance that requires a certain amount of caution. Otherwise one could be found back on Boards a few weeks after a marathon "I was in sub-3 shape, but..."

In relation to the topic in general, suffering is huge and I agree hugely with the relaxation aspect. Relaxing in advance (or trying to) has paid dividends for me this year.

Basster wrote: »

Must disagree with the marathon example snailsong. Part of the reason people's results often vary so greatly from expectations (particularly for novices) is that unless you've raced 26 miles how can you know how it will go? And even if you've done a couple it's still difficult, I find, to gauge what your maximum potential is in advance. A failure to know what you are capable of can only really be corrected by racing (and I would apply that to all distances).

IMO your example of aiming for 4:30 and running 4:18 is the perfect approach. It's a distance that requires a certain amount of caution. Otherwise one could be found back on Boards a few weeks after a marathon "I was in sub-3 shape, but..."

In relation to the topic in general, suffering is huge and I agree hugely with the relaxation aspect. Relaxing in advance (or trying to) has paid dividends for me this year.

I think you can get a good idea of what you're capable of from your times over shorter distances, particularly the half.

I'm not talking about sticking to a target and then the wheels come off at 21 miles, it's happened to us all. Likewise, running conservatively, getting negative splits and finishing strong to knock another minute or two off the time. That's a good plan in itself. But if someone has a target and beats it by 12 minutes how does that happen? By running 30 per mile faster than planned from the off? Or going through half way as planned and going 55 seconds per mile faster in the second half? These are the approaches which regularly lead to disaster. If you get away with that sort of pacing then surely the plan was miles off in the first place.

I agree with what Clearlier said below, make a plan and execute the plan.

snailsong wrote: »

I dont have much experience of the pointy end of races but I'll say this. If you want to pass someone then really pass them. Tuck in behind, gather your energy, wait til the time is right and attack. Ideally on an uphill, stride past purposefully, don't even glance at your victim and open a gap immediately. With any luck they won't respond.☺

When I read the bit about not even a glance, it made me think of one of my favourite overtakes (and sporting memories) of all time, totally and utterly breaking this rule to magnificant affect! Total dominance. (Unfotunately I couldn't find the RTE commentary, which really adds the emphasis).

I remember watching that as a young fellow. Fantastic moment in sport.

Re overtaking and reovertaking..?
I was at a 10 k yesterday and experienced both sides of that. I wasn't in line for any prize but hoping for top ten if possible. A lad passed me at 5 k or so and excellerating at that point was not in my plan so I let him off. About 9.5 k and there was a sharp downhill, followed by a sharp, short uphill. I slipped inside him on the down and hit the uphill at max effort, beat him by a few seconds. Meanwhile, the first lady seemed to go off very fast so when I passed her at 6 k or so I thought she was in reverse. However, when she strided past at 8k I had no answer.

Some people might think it's a bit petty battling it out for 9th or 10th place but for me that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of racing.

Sacksian wrote: »

Again, I know, a contrarian view - but the "make the overtake count" thing is also (for me) more magical thinking. Sorry, HelenAnne!

In the example above, Coghlan won because he was able to judge his pace and effort better - it's the last 100m of a track race! Nothing particularly artful, other than rightfully having confidence in a miler's kick. In fact, I'd say Dmitriyev lost out on a medal completely because of the dramatic nature of his earlier surge (which he was obviously trying to make count).

The classic "group hopping" tactic that KU referred to earlier, which I interpret as being about targetting a steady movement from group to group, taking a small time to settle and deciding whether or not to stick or twist each time - not dramatic surges. It's how I race XC.

But if you are surging from group to group in a race (to make an overtake stick), rather than simply maintaining your pace to overtake and drop people, you're either going to seriously damage your race prospects or you should be much further up the road in the first place. It's certainly not going to help you run your best time or achieve your best position.

I have used surges to maintain the lead of a race that I was going to win anyway, or used a couple of surges to improve position in a track race but I'm not going to run away from someone 5s better than me in a 1500m race by sprinting 20m ahead of them at a random point - and almost all of the races I've won have been where I've either let someone else put 20m into me before reeling them back in (in one 1500m race, the leader was possibly 200m ahead!), or sat on their shoulder.

There is a reason why sit-and-kick is the preferred - and almost exclusive - racing strategy in all middle distance and long distance competition. While it might not be as exciting to watch as all the other tactics, in 99% of cases, it is the best option (for everyone). Unless you're a front runner, which really only works for some very special runners, or those who are in a race where they are far ahead of their competition. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.

I can honestly say that someone sprinting past me in the middle of any race is just going to make me think I'll see them further up the road in a bit and I'll go past them by maintaining my pace. If they move past me steadily then that gives me a decision, but I'll know fairly quickly how well they've judged it and whether I need to sit in or let them go.

I think the appropriate tactics are relative to the situation. You are right but these tactics hold true for very experienced athletes who pace well in good terrain and conditions. Tactics will vary depending on the terrain, race distance and distance left to race. The competitors individual strenght's and likely finish position are also important.

The "make the overtake count" example is one that can be both a very good tactic or not the right one. This (as all tactics) are decided simply by the question: will the manouvre help my overall result/goal in this race?

The tactic wont apply to middle distance as you pointed out and most long distance track situations.

If its early in any race its usually not good to surge, it may cost you places. There are exceptions to this usually involving race specific issues. Congestion issues in XC races at the start or on tight/twisty/hilly sections of courses can be aided by surges.
Apart from that its probably a potential tactic for later in races (but not middle distance as you pointed out)

Lets look at late in a road race. You are catching a runner ahead and going to catch them. Is the 'make the overtake count' tactic correct?

Yes if:
-you judge that the tactic will work i.e that the runner is sufficiently fatigued or inexperienced to respond. Do you know this runner (preparation)?
-and....the tactic benefits your race goal: surging passed this runner will not hurt your race goal in anyway: such as curbing your ability to catch other runners further up the road. Is he/she the last runner you can catch? Is beating this runner especially signicant? ...same category? a big rival/scalp?
-and... is the tactic actually necessary anyway. Is the runner so fatigued that you can disregard them? Are you the better finisher?

Basically you need to know if the tactic will work, will be of benefit, and is actually necessary.

Just to look at the group hopping tactic (I use it a lot). Good for XC if you don't have a chance of winning and are looking for a percentage performance. If there is congestion you may lose more time than gained though. The team element can be relevant to individual tactics. If there is a lot of team members then one might feel like having a cut especially if a team medal was possible. That said if there is a minimum of team members you may not be able to afford anyone to bomb and sink the team so a conservative start and group hoping is more beneficial to the team then.

I agree with your points in that they would hold mainly for experienced athletes, in good conditions who always pace well. As these variables change/deteriorate though other tactics can be used successfully.

Edit: I think its almost like a football match. The more advanced and strong the defense you're playing the more intricate the attack tactic needs to be..and vice versa.

demfad wrote: »

Lets look at late in a road race. You are catching a runner ahead and going to catch them. Is the make the overtake count tactic correct?

Yes if:
-you judge that the tactic will work i.e that the runner is sufficiently fatigued or inexperienced to respond. Do you know this runner (preparation)?
-and....the tactic benefits your race goal: surging passed this runner will not hurt your race goal in anyway: such as curbing your ability to catch other runners further up the road. Is he/she the last runner you can catch? Is beating this runner especially signicant? ...same category? a big rival/scalp?
-and... is the tactic actually necessary anyway. Is the runner so fatigued that you can disregard them? Are you the better finisher?

Basically you need to know if the tactic will work, will be of benefit, and is actually necessary.

That all makes sense. Although if it's late in a race, I call it a finishing - not overtaking - tactic and the option is the long or short finish!

I had a chance to think about this some more over my afternoon run and I was a bit bumptious in my earlier comment, so apologies for the tone.

I think it's probably just a question of perspective. The way I see running, racing and overtaking is that you're always looking ahead, not behind you.

Once I'm on someone's shoulder or sitting behind them, whether they're 1st, 59th or 195th, I'm looking up the road or thinking about someone else further ahead and I'm not thinking about the guys behind (nb. not guy's behind).

I either need to stay with this guy ahead or get around him but, after that, they fairly much stop existing, unless I'm struggling. So, that's why the surging thing doesn't really figure in my thinking.

We're ALL right! Just in different ways.

Sacksian wrote: »

That all makes sense. Although if it's late in a race, I call it a finishing - not overtaking - tactic and the option is the long or short finish!

I had a chance to think about this some more over my afternoon run and I was a bit bumptious in my earlier comment, so apologies for the tone.

I think it's probably just a question of perspective. The way I see running, racing and overtaking is that you're always looking ahead, not behind you.

Once I'm on someone's shoulder or sitting behind them, whether they're 1st, 59th or 195th, I'm looking up the road or thinking about someone else further ahead and I'm not thinking about the guys behind (nb. not guy's behind).

I either need to stay with this guy ahead or get around him but, after that, they fairly much stop existing, unless I'm struggling. So, that's why the surging thing doesn't really figure in my thinking.

We're ALL right! Just in different ways.

I actually thought your post was spot on and i think your ideas are correct, just highlighting the exceptions as I saw them. Uneconomical tactics can work against less experienced runners but can and should backfire against experienced runners as yourself and Enduro explained.

I meant to say in the previous post, but I would would extend your kick and finish winning tactic to be optimum in road racing also (as you may have implied). Sit in the group and kick at the end. That said the 'culture' in road racing is that runners should 'take their turn' leading the group. (Road racing etiquette may be worth its own thread). This culture clearly benefits the slow finishers. This means that fast finishers in road races need to show 'moral courage', as Giles would say, by doing feck all in their group and sprinting clear when its business time.

The advantages of group running on roads do influence racing tactics.
A good example is a windy day where the race is likely to break into groups (as a cycle race might) and the advantage of the shelter of a group increased.

Usually caution is advised around wind. Sit in and conserve energy. In actual fact, to achieve the highest finish that may be a bad strategy in the early section of the race.
If you could observe the race from above you'd see it break into groups : the race effectively turning into a series of mini races between group individuals as the gaps between groups opens. The windier the day the bigger the groups as the wind levels the gap between strongest and weakest group runners. But that means you will likely finish ahead of everyone in the group behind but wont catch anyone in the group ahead. This is important for racing tactics as it means that being in the optimum group is most important in these conditions. more so than winning your group which is secondary.

But which is the optimum group? The best group is the fastest group you can survive in on the day. On average the runners in this group will be stronger than you so you need to start hard in order to 'catch' this group. Once the group is formed and the wind kicks in the pace will slow. Obeying road racing culture and taking your turn at the front would obviously by a 6 pointer in disaster here. Now its time to 'sit in' and do zero until close to the end. You might get a shout from one of the stronger group runners toiling in the wind but their issue is simply that they are in the wrong group and would be more contented if they were one or two groups up the road.

snailsong wrote: »

Some people might think it's a bit petty battling it out for 9th or 10th place but for me that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of racing.

Ehh... if that's petty then I don't think there's a word for what I am. I took great pleasure in passing people in the last 200m of Jingle Bells on Saturday and I was in for a 300+ finish.

DubOnHoliday wrote: »

One of the best things about racing with Imra and the BHAA is that each week you end up battling with the same faces. And there's an indicator in itself, if those guys end up ahead of you one week you know you've slipped up, if you're ahead of them you've progressed.... And these battles go on whether people are top 10 to top 150.

Back to the initial question, for me it's the preparation you make before a race, eating clean, getting rest, reccing the course to know where you can attack or hold off, adjusting your training appropriately to give you the best chance to perform.

A couple of sneaky IMRA League race tactics:

Always try to be leading your mini group at the start of narrow climbs or descents.

On climbs: If you are a good climber you need to be leading so there are no runners ahead to block you. If you are a bad climber, you need to be leading so that you can hinder good climbers behind you.

On descents: same as climbs.

Also if a rival is trying to pass you on a climb but is forced to run on poorer ground to do so. Speed up slightly (but dont redline) as they try and pass to force them to stay out in the slodge. Force them to make a really big effort to eventually get passed. Hopefully you'll notice them slow after a little while if so they have redlined and you should be able to get past and drop them without extra effort. Im sure Enduro has a mental book on all this stuff.