C
Charlie Pendejo
Guest
anders wrote:
> Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:
>> Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR
>> start
>> times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
>> their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few
>> more
>> minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.
>
> Did the starter's gun really go off at five to? Or do you mean that
> this time it went off without the customary delay at a NYRR race?
It really went off at four to, by my watch. Perhaps there *is* a customary
four minute delay and I had never realized my watch was that same four
minutes slow; but nearly all my NYRR races have started very close to the
time this same watch thought they ought to.
> More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
> talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
> was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
> than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
> certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
> maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
> the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).
Nah, I truly wasn't the panicked newbie whose portrait you paint here. One
of my thoughts was that I'd be reasonably satisfied to run the remaining 5.2
miles at 40' pace and finish in 40:2x. And also that I had some hills
coming up in the next few miles so if I had any chance at that 40' it would
have to come from a negative split.
So as you say I needed to accelerate by 27"/mi. That's roughly what I
intended and was quite surprised to end up with faster splits than that over
the next couple miles.
Upon reflection (thanks for holding up the mirror!), I suspect my primary
mistake was in taking 6:48 as my *current pace*. In fact I had surely
started slower in the thickest crowds right at the start, and after working
my way past several hundred would-be skirt-wearing sheep-buggering miserly
haggis eaters I had accelerated to perhaps 6:30-6:35 pace. And consequently
required only the slightest boost (and you can call a delta of 27"/mi or
16"/km or 7"/lap "pretty close", but that's a significant difference to me)
to get back on pace.
> there's also another German expression, "der lachende Dritte", which
> could be made to fit here: when one runner starts too fast and dies
> and the other doesn't but still panics and fades, it is the third who
> starts slow and accelerates slowly who passes them both and laughs
> all the way to the finish.
Guilty as charged! I was indeed passed by a grand total of around four
runners, which is vier lechende Dritten too many.
I'll get back to negative/even splitting soon enough. I have long believed,
and continue to, that this is the best pacing strategy for races of any
distance.
OTOH these last couple races, though they've featured some early pacing
errors, have been intentional experiments in more aggressive pacing. For
one thing I've needed to explore the question, "Pendejo, are your evenly
split races the result of absorbing the wisdom of your more experienced
elders on rr and elsewhere, along with just enough patience to execute them;
or do they indicate that you're too chickenshit to really lay it all out
there, to hurt long before the finish but to keep pushing."
> Well, that's OK if none of them were female and/or over sixty.
Aw, did you peek?
Yeah, one was a woman five years my senior. The over-sixty dude didn't
catch me at the end: he had started 23" and finished 19" and ten places
ahead of me but I never caught him in the interim.
> The congrats can and have to wait until the next 10K.
I'll be eager to collect, at long last. There's no chance you'll give it up
for a well-run 4 or 10 mile race before then?
> Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti:
>> Hmmm, that watch has been pretty well synched with all the recent NYRR
>> start
>> times, and clearly dozens if not hundreds of other folks around me taking
>> their time to get to the line seemed to share my belief we'd have a few
>> more
>> minutes. Lesson: always figure they'll start 5:00 early.
>
> Did the starter's gun really go off at five to? Or do you mean that
> this time it went off without the customary delay at a NYRR race?
It really went off at four to, by my watch. Perhaps there *is* a customary
four minute delay and I had never realized my watch was that same four
minutes slow; but nearly all my NYRR races have started very close to the
time this same watch thought they ought to.
> More like 22 s, but anyway: if it hadn't been your back-of-the-mind
> talking, it would've been crystal clear to you that all you had to do
> was run the remainining five miles 5 s, no more and no less, faster
> than your goal pace - and that your current pace was pretty close and
> certainly close enough to the 6:21 required, so you simply had to
> maintain the pace in as relaxed a manner as possible (and to wait for
> the next mile marker before making any hasty moves).
Nah, I truly wasn't the panicked newbie whose portrait you paint here. One
of my thoughts was that I'd be reasonably satisfied to run the remaining 5.2
miles at 40' pace and finish in 40:2x. And also that I had some hills
coming up in the next few miles so if I had any chance at that 40' it would
have to come from a negative split.
So as you say I needed to accelerate by 27"/mi. That's roughly what I
intended and was quite surprised to end up with faster splits than that over
the next couple miles.
Upon reflection (thanks for holding up the mirror!), I suspect my primary
mistake was in taking 6:48 as my *current pace*. In fact I had surely
started slower in the thickest crowds right at the start, and after working
my way past several hundred would-be skirt-wearing sheep-buggering miserly
haggis eaters I had accelerated to perhaps 6:30-6:35 pace. And consequently
required only the slightest boost (and you can call a delta of 27"/mi or
16"/km or 7"/lap "pretty close", but that's a significant difference to me)
to get back on pace.
> there's also another German expression, "der lachende Dritte", which
> could be made to fit here: when one runner starts too fast and dies
> and the other doesn't but still panics and fades, it is the third who
> starts slow and accelerates slowly who passes them both and laughs
> all the way to the finish.
Guilty as charged! I was indeed passed by a grand total of around four
runners, which is vier lechende Dritten too many.
I'll get back to negative/even splitting soon enough. I have long believed,
and continue to, that this is the best pacing strategy for races of any
distance.
OTOH these last couple races, though they've featured some early pacing
errors, have been intentional experiments in more aggressive pacing. For
one thing I've needed to explore the question, "Pendejo, are your evenly
split races the result of absorbing the wisdom of your more experienced
elders on rr and elsewhere, along with just enough patience to execute them;
or do they indicate that you're too chickenshit to really lay it all out
there, to hurt long before the finish but to keep pushing."
> Well, that's OK if none of them were female and/or over sixty.
Aw, did you peek?
Yeah, one was a woman five years my senior. The over-sixty dude didn't
catch me at the end: he had started 23" and finished 19" and ten places
ahead of me but I never caught him in the interim.
> The congrats can and have to wait until the next 10K.
I'll be eager to collect, at long last. There's no chance you'll give it up
for a well-run 4 or 10 mile race before then?