Negative Splits in a race...
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This was brought up in another thread by another member who shall remain nameless...cough, cough, Rick, cough , cough.... but I thought it would make a great topic. In a race, who here actually tries to make it a goal of negative splitting the run and why? I don't, my run is at the maximum effort I can manage for the distance and I just try and hold on. My second half times are always slower. I have no idea if I conserve more if I could finish the entire event faster. maybe, but that's not how I race. So, for all you negative splitters out there, why and how and do you think it's an advantage or disadvantage? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() I saw that advice, and it's the first I've seen it anywhere, at least here. I am not a very experienced runner, even less experiened racer, I do not have the experience to know that I can run anything other than a 5K at a "fast as I can" pace and still make it to the finish line. 5K - all out. 10K - start steady and negative each mile if possible. half mary - for sure, I start steady for 8 miles or so, crank it up 9-10 and hammer the 5K. Why? Basically following advice given by Mike Ricci here. Edited by ChrisM 2008-01-29 6:59 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Bob ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This is going to be a good topic and I'm looking forward to reading the responses. I have been a distance swimmer all my life and never negative split a race in my swim career through college. I have always gone out pretty fast, drifted in the middle and brought it back fast but always had the bell curve shape to my splits. I think part of this was not wanting to hold back in the beginning of a race and part was being a bit bull headed and not wanting to listen to my coach who was telling me to hold back. Now almost any distance race I do I negative split. If I do a 6000 yd strait swim I start off at a comfortable pace and get faster with each thousand, in my only marathon I was out in a 1:42 for the first 1/2 and back in a 1:40, in a recent 10K I was out in a 20:30 and back in a 19:31. (The last 5K I will ever do was the opposite, took it out in a 5:45 and my pace at the end was over 8:00!! PAIN!!!!) I think that this comes from being a bit older and wiser when it comes to racing and having a little bit more experience behind me. I'll have to put some more thought into this topic and chime back in after reading some responses. Great topic Bryan!! |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I think Rick mentioned that in order to maximize performance, you want to even split or perhaps very slightly positive split. The problem with this as a race presecription for most athletes, especially in endurance events, is that when you make a pacing error while trying to accomplish this the results can be painful (*cough, cough* see the other memeber's recent IM *cough, cough*). That's OK if you're goal is to do your absolute best or crash, but most people have goals somewhere in bewteen. Most people are better off planning to try to get a modest negative split. Very few actually do because most people still overestimate the pace they can maintain. I know for my first marathon I ran conservatively and had a large negative split. Could I have run faster? Sure. But I ran a solid time and enjoyed passing hordes of people over the second half of the race (a nice mental boost as well). As I get better at knowing what paces I can generally maintain, I'm more comfortable pushing the envelope a bit (though moreso in shorter events for me). But I'm also more comfortable in accepting the consequences of taking the risk. |
![]() ![]() |
Coach ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I used to follow the negative split approach but as I've become more in tune with my body and get more racing experience I don't believe in it anymore. I think when I was getting to gain experience and learn my body I followed a negative split because: 1) I read it everywhere it was the way to go Now heading into a race I always have a very good idea of what effort I should be able to hold for all 3 sports (or for a single sport race) hence as soon as the gun goes off I try to go as fast as my fitness budget allows me to go for each sport and be able to complete the race as fast as possible. And even though you might end up either with a slight positive or slight negative split I think in general a well pace race will give you close splits in particular for the run Talking about a half ironman for example, I know what sort of time I should have for the swim, what sort of power I should be able to hold for the bike and I know that if the previous two were paced correctly I should be able to run the 13.1 miles within 3-5% of my open half-marathon time. (Or at my marathon pace using the Daniels VDOT tables which make things easier). Last season was a tough one for me (due to health/injuries) and I never got the continuity and chance to get a proper baseline, yet most of my runs were in par of the fitness level I had at the time.But if I was going to race anything around 1:30 hrs or less (half marathon, 10K, 40K bike TT, etc) I would follow a simple pacing strategy: go as hard as I can and when it starts hurting just speed up or hang on for my dear life |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() My second half marathon that I did in December, I ended up negative splitting and didn't even mean to. My goal was to go slower at the beginning, and save energy for the end. I did this because at my first half, I ended up going too fast at first and barely finished. So when I conserved, I sped up every mile of the race and didn't try to. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Running Negative splits is a good way to run a safe race and not having to worry as much about blowing up. In my experience I have always ran a good race, but never to my true potential doing negative splits. |
![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() This user's post has been ignored. |
![]() ![]() |
Master![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() amiine - 2008-01-29 5:58 PM I used to follow the negative split approach but as I've become more in tune with my body and get more racing experience I don't believe in it anymore. I think when I was getting to gain experience and learn my body I followed a negative split because: 1) I read it everywhere it was the way to go Now heading into a race I always have a very good idea of what effort I should be able to hold for all 3 sports (or for a single sport race) hence as soon as the gun goes off I try to go as fast as my fitness budget allows me to go for each sport and be able to complete the race as fast as possible. And even though you might end up either with a slight positive or slight negative split I think in general a well pace race will give you close splits in particular for the run Talking about a half ironman for example, I know what sort of time I should have for the swim, what sort of power I should be able to hold for the bike and I know that if the previous two were paced correctly I should be able to run the 13.1 miles within 3-5% of my open half-marathon time. (Or at my marathon pace using the Daniels VDOT tables which make things easier). Last season was a tough one for me (due to health/injuries) and I never got the continuity and chance to get a proper baseline, yet most of my runs were in par of the fitness level I had at the time.But if I was going to race anything around 1:30 hrs or less (half marathon, 10K, 40K bike TT, etc) I would follow a simple pacing strategy: go as hard as I can and when it starts hurting just speed up or hang on for my dear life This is a great post. X2! But I'll add a bit of my own $0.02.. If you're inexperienced, then a negative split approach is a good approach to avoid the pacing errors the plague beginners. It keeps you from going to hard and blowing up ("I had a great half marathon, but walked the last 6 miles.", or "I had a great bike leg, but I run/walked most of the run leg." But what keeps you from going too slow at the start? If you're trying to negative split and reach a PR doing it then you really, really having to think through your race strategy before the race, pay attention during the race, stay on plan, and adjust as needed. As Jorge says, though, as you get more in tune with your body and understand what effor tyou can sustain throughout the race, then "holding back" for a negative split becomes less important. On the other hand, more than once the only thing keeping me going the last few miles of more than one marathon is the promise I made to myself to negative split. If I had given myself permission to slow down, I sure as heck would have. |
![]() ![]() |
Member![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() smilford - 2008-01-29 8:09 PM Running Negative splits is a good way to run a safe race and not having to worry as much about blowing up. In my experience I have always ran a good race, but never to my true potential doing negative splits. I agree with this. My best race was run with negative splits 25:12 for 5 miles. Before I would always push to hard to break 25 minutes for the 5m or 8K and end up around 25:20 to 25:45. (This was 20yrs ago.) I've only run 5k's & sprint triathlons since starting to train for triathon. The run as hard as I can approach has resulted in positive splits for the 5k road runs. I've pretty much blown up every race but my only goal has been to stay in front of the other 40-50yr olds. I think I ran negative splits using the run as hard as I can approach during the run portion of the sprints mainly because my legs & lower back have loosened up after a mile or so. Probably something I will monitor for future races but for now learning how to swim & bike faster is going to help my triathlon times more than any approach I take to the run segment. I have no clue if there is any scientific evidence that negative splits result in a faster time but any coach I've had encouraged trying for the even pace or negative splits. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I think it's a tool more useful to those who aren't yet used to pacing themselves. If you're experienced and have raced a lot, you probably have a better idea of how hard you can push and whether or not you're going to blow up. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Regular![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Here's an experienced racer who didn't understand "going out too fast" or "negative splitting"... http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/01/sports-news-addition.htm... |
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I certailnly can understand the pacing argument in favor of the negative split strategy. What about an athlete who trains and races with a fixed set of variable such as power or HR. I don't race based on PE or pacing, I race soley on HR. So when someone like me starts the run, the only changes I make to effort are towards the second half of the run when I will allow for more HR drift than the first half. It doesn't mean I am going faster, I'm just struggling to stay alive and need to relinquish the limitation of the HR monitor to do that. I would think that it is next to impossible to negative split a race if you adhere to that principal. |
![]() ![]() |
Runner | ![]() tinkerbell57 - 2008-01-30 8:11 AM Here's an experienced racer who didn't understand "going out too fast" or "negative splitting"... http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/01/sports-news-addition.htm... also didn't understand "proper training" either. She was completely unprepared for the marathon, this was her first attempt at it, and she had a bad plan going in to the race. She might have done better if she held with the pack until the last 5-10K, because she most likely would have been able to out-kick all the others. The best description I've seen came from Kevin Hanson: "She didn't train like a Japanese marathoner." Edited by Scout7 2008-01-30 7:44 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tinkerbell57 - 2008-01-30 7:11 AM Here's an experienced racer who didn't understand "going out too fast" or "negative splitting"... http://scienceofsport.blogspot.com/2008/01/sports-news-addition.htm... If you follow that blog regularly then you should be familiar with the different marathon analysis they did from the big 2007 marathons and many of winners showed a slight negative/positive split trend, but the difference between the 1st half and 2nd half was minimal and in some cases caused due to the terrain. IOW most of those races were evenly paced. Some that come to mind are Paula Radcliffe win at NYC and Gebrselassie world record at Berlin. Also when Martin Lel win at NYC would indicate a negative split strategy, the result was more due to how the race unfolded and the dynamics of the pack at that particular race. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() amiine - 2008-01-30 8:56 AM Some that come to mind are Paula Radcliffe win at NYC and Gebrselassie world record at Berlin. Also when Martin Lel win at NYC would indicate a negative split strategy, the result was more due to how the race unfolded and the dynamics of the pack at that particular race. I don't think the typical age-group runner should draw too many conclusions on the smartest way to run their race based on what Radcliffe and Gebrelassie are doing. Being a bit conservative at the start is a smart strategy, especially over longer distances, and it's recommended by many experienced runners and coaches. Personally, all my PRs for distances greater than 10 miles had negative splits in the second half. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() When I race sprints and Olys, I have no idea what my splits are (I don't wear my 625x, nor do I hit the lap button at each mile as I usually miss the mile markers). I just find a pace that seems like something I can hold for the 5K or 10K and just keep going. When I did my HIM, I approached the run with the mentality of going for a negative split. Now, deep down inside, I knew it wouldn't happen, but it allowed me to not start out the run too hard. I was going to take inventory half way through the run, and pick it up a bit if I could. My pace did drop a bit (our timing chip gave us splits 4 times on the run), but it probably would have dropped more if I had started out the run going harder. Not sure if the average pace would have been the same, but the last few miles probably would have been a much greater struggle. I have a problem with losing my competitive edge when I get into a race, and definitely always go a little too conservative. It hurt me at Philly this past year. I am more focused on going long this year, but when I race short-course, I need to have a more competitive mentality on the run. |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() DerekL - 2008-01-30 7:35 AM I think it's a tool more useful to those who aren't yet used to pacing themselves. If you're experienced and have raced a lot, you probably have a better idea of how hard you can push and whether or not you're going to blow up. x2 Also, related to negative slits, what does everyone think about 'cut-downs'? For example, let's say you want to average 6:00 miles for a marathon. Some coaches will suggest a 3 mile, maybe even a 6 mile cut-down, where you start slower than your goal pace and cut-down to your goal pace. It's got the spirt of negative splits about it, but it's not really the same thing in the longer races (the shorter ones there isn't time to cut-down, so essentially you're just negative splitting). This is something I heard about through my running background, and the more I think about it, the less I think it's viable for triathlon, but anyways, thoughts? Edited by davealt 2008-01-30 8:25 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kenail - 2008-01-30 8:06 AM I don't think the typical age-group runner should draw too many conclusions on the smartest way to run their race based on what Radcliffe and Gebrelassie are doing. Being a bit conservative at the start is a smart strategy, especially over longer distances, and it's recommended by many experienced runners and coaches. Personally, all my PRs for distances greater than 10 miles had negative splits in the second half. Yes it is recommended because is the safest way to race for the inexperienced athlete. In fact for someone racing their 1st race I would suggest the same. Although through the training accomplish leading up to the race I should also have a pretty good idea of what sort of effort the athlete should be ale to post throughout the race and the athlete should have a better idea of what he/she can or can’t do, that’s why we do race rehearsal sessions. Base on that I would recommend a pacing strategy. But the better fitness level for the athlete the more I would push him/her to race an even pace race. BTW, why it is ok to emulate what Pros do in some cases but not ok on others? I've seen AGers execute well pace races following an even split strategy; the only difference vs Pros is that they do it at a different speed... If you are fit to run a marathon in 4hr or 3:30hrs then you are fit to run it @ 9:10 or 8 min/mile since mile one. Terrain can influence your pacing and that can result on positive/negative splits but the intensity level should be pretty similar throughout the race. Edited by amiine 2008-01-30 8:40 AM |
![]() ![]() |
Cycling Guru![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Sorry I didn’t start the thread yesterday Bryan …. Was busy with work and wanted to make sure I could devote a little bit of time to the topic so I at least sounded educated and reasonable on the subject! ![]() Now, the context of my post in the other thread was directed more towards a marathon/half marathon stand alone effort. And it also referenced the fact that Pete Pfitzinger and Scott Douglas in Advanced Marathoning recommended that the ideal way to run a race is to not negative split it unless terrain dictated that you could (or you are an elite where your pacing is dictated by the pack before you make a surge to finish everyone off). So here is my take on this ….. there are multiple “scenarios” that really need to be looked at. First, I personally don’t really think that the “don’t negative split” applies to 10k and shorter races as those are often just all out efforts and you do what you can regardless. My typical 5k or 10k race is push the first third hard to be out front, hold on during the second third and give everything left in the last third. If you are in the front in a pack and vying for the lead, then staying with the pack until a late surge comes to put away the competition (like the elite marathoners) makes a negative split a viable solution. Second, and this is where the reference originally came from, looking at a stand alone half marathon or a full it is really not a benefit to negative split. We need to look at it from this stand alone perspective. It is almost always necessary to start off a bit slower in the first mile or two as you are starting longer events cold (or on very limited warm-up with a few strides and light stretching) and often with a large crowd where that crowd dictates what you can run. But after that you should be settling into your planned pace as soon as possible. What P-D was saying is that it is this time where you are feeling good that you want to keep up a realistic effort and focus on staying smooth and getting in your hydration. The “no-man’s land” from 13 – 20 is where almost everyone starts to have a bit of pace drift as they are not close enough to finishing but the effort level is increasing through natural cardiac drift. They emphasize the importance of paying attention to your splits there and keeping them even. If you’ve done this then when the real race begins at 21 or 22 you will still be able to keep up that pace and finish well. Now, just for the HR followers it makes this a no brainer. If you are truly following your pacing based on your zones it will be physically impossible to negative split a flat or rolling course (while you still could a course that finished with a net downhill on the second half). What do I mean by that?? Well, a marathon should be run within about 5 beats of your LT and a half should be run right at the ragged edge (just a hair below) your LT. As long as you stick to that then the natural workings of your body will immediately make the second half slower because as the miles wear on and the cardiac drift everyone experienced kicks in (at the same pace) you will need to back it off a little to stay below your LT and not bonk. There is nothing that you can do about cardiac drift, it happens to everyone regardless of training. Looking at it from an RPE/pacing perspective it is the same thing in my opinion. If you are training for a marathon then you have a specific pace range that not only are you training in (based on your long runs) but an expectation of what you think you can run. And if you go into the race with no idea of what sort of overall you want to run then it is a moot point. Because you really will NOT be able to run to your ability or you run way above your ability and suffer the consequences later in the run. The race starts, you settle into your groove and aim for your splits. I guarantee you that if you are pacing properly for optimum performance that as the race wears on that it will be tougher and tougher to hold that pace. But if you are smart about it then you will not lose too much time over the long haul. Third, working that into a HIM or IM effort is another completely different animal. Devashish Paul from ST (as well as a few coaches) put up some good information and insight in a recent thread we were having about long run pacing during training. The statistics may be slightly off, but somewhere in the range of over 50% of the field in an IM can barely hold their pace through the first 13.1, let alone the whole marathon! If you look at how many people finish their marathon under even 4 hours in an IM you are looking at a rarified crowd. And keep in mind many of those same people are well under 4 in their stand alone, and their run training is well under what their actual race pace ends up being. That is a very telling statistic. It goes without saying that if you are working towards a negative split in a HIM or IM then you are either smoking some good sh-t or are truly delusional about your abilities. What he and the coaches were saying is that it is more important to get the athlete to the point where they even have a chance to worry about running the marathon at all and not what pace they should be focusing on. This means really solid swim and bike pacing and training. What I see as a really unrealistic approach is going into a race specifically trying to negative split it. What that means is you are purposefully holding yourself back in the beginning. So let’s just hypothetically say that you are planning a 3:30 with a 1:47, 1:43 split – no biggie, only a 4 minute difference, right? Well, guess what ….. you are asking your body to suddenly go from an 8:10 pace down to a 7:52 pace ……. That’s :18 per mile, and you are asking your body to do that AFTER already having run for close to 2 hours. That’s not impossible, but the likelihood of you being successful with it are probably a lot lower. But if you are pacing smart and decide to REVERSE that and positive split it with the 1:43 first and then the 1:47 second, you have just given yourself a buffer that as you start to tire, your glycogen starts to get fully depleted and your form breaks down and backing it off that :18 a mile or so can give you the opportunity to back off the pace a little and still maintain the same level of effort. All of this really does hinge on the understanding of what sort of pace you intend to run and your training. You cannot expect to go out and run 7:15’s when all your training has been in the 8:30’s. And there is no way in hell you are going to be able to suddenly turn on the juice and drop 20 – 30 seconds a mile in the second half. After 5 completed stand alone marathons I can definitely say that ain’t gonna happen ……. ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Expert![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() amiine - 2008-01-30 9:32 AM BTW, why it is ok to emulate what Pros do in some cases but not ok on others? Well, if that's directed my way, I don't try to emulate what the pros do. I work with my coach to try to achieve my goals through a plan that'll fit my age, condition, and lifestyle. What works for a pro isn't necessarily going to work for me. Your point re: working with your athletes to develop an even-paced race strategy is perfectly valid as far as I'm concerned. I just don't think the "typical age-group runner" I'm thinking of is going to have that level of support. Better safe than sorry is almost always a smart way to go. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() First, I personally don’t really think that the “don’t negative split” applies to 10k and shorter races as those are often just all out efforts and you do what you can regardless. Not sure why the same principles aren't involved. I believe best results are likely to come from a mostly evenly paced race. I'm pretty sure most WR races are achieved in this manner. This depends on who you are and how fast you are running a marathon or half-marathon. I'll wager that most runners should stay WELL below your HR guidance above. But I'll grant you that it's fairly accurate for the more competitive runners.
It's harder to guage pacing for IMs because the event duration is so long. Small pacing errors get magnified and all of that magnification is evidenced in the marathon (the second half of it if you're lucky). But 'perfect' pacing would still probably have you doing even splits throughout the day (terrain and conditions held constant of course).
I think this very much depends upon how you choose your pacing. I ran my only marathon as 1:49/1:41. Had I run a 1:41 opening half, I can guarantee you that I would have been slower than 3:31. Now perhaps if I had run 1:43 or 1:44, I could have gone 3:28 or something and maximized my potential that day. But I would have been happy at 1:49/1:55 and was far more concerned about something like 1:45/2:30.
It absolutely hinges on understanding your pace which you should know pretty well from training. But you can drop 20-30sec (or more) in the second half. I can definitely say it can happen...... |
![]() ![]() |
Cycling Guru![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() But not by running at your potential it won't ...... Once again, the discussion is really about maximizing your race potential and your abilities. Sounds like you held back in your mary., which then leaves the nagging question of what COULD you have done if you hadn't. I would argue that you did not run your best race. Still a great result, and it was your first, but you could have definitely done better. I'm not advocating going out there and setting a 1/2 mary. PR in the first half and then just holding on to see what happens in the end, just that if you have a reasonable sense of what pacing you can run and a goal in mind that you will be far more likely to be able to hit that goal with even pacing or a little extra effort in the beginning when you are fresh then trying to 'make it up" on the back end. In both my BQ's that is what I did ...... ran smart and even the first 18 or so and then steadily watched my HR drift upwards without the pace dropping off that much. Tim (Scout7) negative split at Baltimore because while we were running even through 20, the only chance he would have had of getting his BQ would be to really push the last 10k, which he tried to do and came really close to getting the time he needed. But course conditions also permit that with much of the last 4 downhill. It does boil down to experience and knowing what you are capable of, but even a beginner can benefit from a bit of understanding of smart pacing. If someone is training well and consistent to run a 3:30, then the best chance they have of that (or better) in my opinion is to not plan on making time up on the back end. If they are running 10 - 15 beats below their LT the first half and then bump it up to 5 below LT on the seconds half, they definitely held off too much and did not optimize their performance. They may still have a good time in their eyes and "happy' with their negative split but I can safely say that had they run the proper pace/HR in the beginning (still within the proper range so as not to blow up later) that they would have a faster time ...... |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Daremo - 2008-01-30 11:04 AM But not by running at your potential it won't ...... Once again, the discussion is really about maximizing your race potential and your abilities. Sounds like you held back in your mary., which then leaves the nagging question of what COULD you have done if you hadn't. I would argue that you did not run your best race. Still a great result, and it was your first, but you could have definitely done better. Absolutely! (Although the question doesn't 'nag' me at all...I was quite happy and frankly surprised with the result at the time.) A big negative split is no way to optimize performance. Then, of course, neither is a big positive split. You have to get very close to that jagged edge if you want to see 'what you've got'. But then you have to be willing to live with the downside of the risk you are taking as well (a performance WELL below potential). If you're truly talking about competitive racing then the answer is easy...roll 'dem bones. |
![]() ![]() |
Not a Coach![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Daremo - 2008-01-30 11:04 AM If they are running 10 - 15 beats below their LT the first half and then bump it up to 5 below LT on the seconds half, they definitely held off too much and did not optimize their performance. They may still have a good time in their eyes and "happy' with their negative split but I can safely say that had they run the proper pace/HR in the beginning (still within the proper range so as not to blow up later) that they would have a faster time ...... Sorry, missed this in my first response. While it's true that they could have had a faster time, I'm not sure I agree that it's very easy to identify that 'safe' zone without having much racing experience. FWIW, I was training to run a 3:40. While I believed I had the capability to go a bit faster, I did not have the confidence to decide whether that meant 3:35, 3:30, 3:25, or some other number. And I would have been happy with a 3:45. So I choose the less risky way and tried to execute a strategy that would end up with a (reasonable) worst case of meeting my more conservative goal. And, also FWIW, I was actually a bit concerned I might have gone out a bit too fast in the first half (said as much to my wife when I saw her just past half-way). Just didn't have the experience to know where I was, especially over a distance like that. Today, I would have a much better idea even though that's still my only stand-alone marry. |
|