|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 18, 2010 15:40:57 GMT -5
Scheibler wasn't a marathoner. That's clear. If he was, he would have gotten away with it. He wouldn't have attempted the marathon unless he thought that he was possibly a marathoner. A guy with his pedigree who is actually a marathoner likely wouldn't be satisfied with a 2:12 in any event so what's the difference if he tries going out fast? The same argument(at slower paces) could apply to anyone I suppose. I certainly don't think going out at 64 minutes was a mistake in his case(unless he didn't do the training). People were also so certain that Jeff "wasn't a marathoner", but I've never understood what made them so sure (and the evidence that he blew up in NYC is post facto). You can't tell simply by looking at people, or by examining their performance profile, how they're going to manage. I mean, look at a Rod Dixon or a Mark Carroll (i.e. fast mid-distance types their whole careers), or a relatively big, heavy guy like Rob Decastella. I actually think, all thing being equal (like proper preparation, number of attempts), that Jeff could have broken the CR. In fact, if he'd been patient and aimed for 2:12-13 in his first one, he might have had more enthusiasm for the event and done a couple more serious ones, enabling him to learn the event. Relative late-starters like Tergat and Geb, after all, took 2-4 attempts to figure out what they were doing in this event. But, in the end, my point in raising Jeff's example was to point out that you can't use your track times as a guide to how you should pace your first marathon (and all Eric really had to go on was a fast track 10 from almost 2 years ago). You guys were arguing that Eric may have been too conservative in his first attempt because an American with similar or slower P.B.s ran 2:10 in his first shot in the same race. I'm arguing that he made the right choice based on consideration of all the variables going in. One variable may have been, as thinskinned pointed out, that he may be a "natural marathoner"; but, I would argue that that's a pretty thin assumption on which to base a pacing strategy first time out. There seems to be only one rock-solid test of marathon potential, and that's actually trying one. And now that Eric has passed it that test, he can show us all what he's really got. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 16:26:19 GMT -5
If there was not much risk to Gotcher to go out at 1:05, then there was certainly not much risk for Scheibler to go out at 1:04 given that his half pb was one minute faster, especially at NY.
As far as Gillis goes, don't think for a minute that I think DST and he made any kind of mistake here but I don't think there is any harm in exploring the issue. Even oldster's own athlete thinks he was being conservative. Without a recent half, there isn't a lot of data(other than the training which would be interesting to see).
|
|
|
|
Post by bdeacon on Jan 18, 2010 16:36:31 GMT -5
Can't say I am all too surprised by this result. I have been tipping him for a good marathon for a couple of years. I think that the event is about to go into a very interesting direction once guys like Gillis, Reid and Bairu take it up seriously. I predict you will have all three running sub 2:12 by the spring of 2011.
He was wise to run conservatively. The trick next time will not be to go out too fast, remembering how fresh he was at the end. He'll be confident enough though to go through in 1:05, and that should put him with a better pack.
It was interesting to see the Lets Run posts on Gotcher. They list the top 30 debuts along with their best to date. It is amazing how many either don't improve or only improve by less than 90 seconds. I think that this points to the fact that it is a tough event and there are so many things that can go wrong in a 2 hour race. Also, a lot of great races are destroyed by ugly weather. Interesting stats....
Don't for a minute think that I am implying that Eric won't improve. He is a quality runner with a bright future at the event.
Way to go, Eric!
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Jan 18, 2010 16:57:40 GMT -5
Can't say I am all too surprised by this result. I have been tipping him for a good marathon for a couple of years. I think that the event is about to go into a very interesting direction once guys like Gillis, Reid and Bairu take it up seriously. I predict you will have all three running sub 2:12 by the spring of 2011. He was wise to run conservatively. The trick next time will not be to go out too fast, remembering how fresh he was at the end. He'll be confident enough though to go through in 1:05, and that should put him with a better pack. It was interesting to see the Lets Run posts on Gotcher. They list the top 30 debuts along with their best to date. It is amazing how many either don't improve or only improve by less than 90 seconds. I think that this points to the fact that it is a tough event and there are so many things that can go wrong in a 2 hour race. Also, a lot of great races are destroyed by ugly weather. Interesting stats.... Don't for a minute think that I am implying that Eric won't improve. He is a quality runner with a bright future at the event. Way to go, Eric! Bruce, what are your thoughts on the decision a lot of talented north american marathoners seem to make to race the event rather infrequently? Given the many things that can go wrong in the event (weather, pacing,etc) is it reasonable for people to think they can 'get it right' in ony 1 or two tries per year? Would there be value in running some marginally slower paced efforts in lower key events occassionally to practice different tactics and better learn the event (as training, no matter how specific, is still training and not racing)? Interesting that though Geb started relatively late and had some (for him) lack-luster races, he kept racing high-quality events 2-3 times a year and mastered the distance. |
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Jan 18, 2010 17:03:08 GMT -5
If there was not much risk to Gotcher to go out at 1:05, then there was certainly not much risk for Scheibler to go out at 1:04 given that his half pb was one minute faster, especially at NY. As far as Gillis goes, don't think for a minute that I think DST and he made any kind of mistake here but I don't think there is any harm in exploring the issue. Even oldster's own athlete thinks he was being conservative. Without a recent half, there isn't a lot of data(other than the training which would be interesting to see). I think you would agree that NY is a much harder course then Houston. Not sure why so many runners choose NY as their debut (other then appearance fees). Smart move on Gillis part to choose a forgiving course and a reasonable pacing strategy for his debut. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 17:11:54 GMT -5
Actually I don't agree but that's just me and know I am in the minority. I specifically sought it out after I got my debut out of the way and wanted to get a decent one under my belt. You can roll there pretty good for 20 miles(how most run it) and then(for me) the crowds take you through the next few rolling hills(where most people crash).
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Jan 18, 2010 18:34:26 GMT -5
If there was not much risk to Gotcher to go out at 1:05... That's another post facto (to steal oldster's fancy wording) conclusion. I'd argue there was a ton of risk in Gotcher going out that fast, as illustrated by the rocky debuts of many, many runners with better credentials than him -- Torres, Ritz, Carney, Bizuneh, etc. etc. The fact that Gotcher pulled it off doesn't mean it wasn't a low-percentage move. I guess I'm sort of stating the obvious, though. For a low-28-minute guy, going out in 1:05 is clearly "higher-risk" than going out in 1:07 -- the question is by how much, and what the risk tolerance of the runner is, and what the rewards are (i.e. if three people are going to Olympics and fourth gets nothing, the risk equation changes). |
|
|
|
Post by bdeacon on Jan 18, 2010 18:37:40 GMT -5
[/quote]
Bruce, what are your thoughts on the decision a lot of talented north american marathoners seem to make to race the event rather infrequently? Given the many things that can go wrong in the event (weather, pacing,etc) is it reasonable for people to think they can 'get it right' in ony 1 or two tries per year? Would there be value in running some marginally slower paced efforts in lower key events occassionally to practice different tactics and better learn the event (as training, no matter how specific, is still training and not racing)?
Interesting that though Geb started relatively late and had some (for him) lack-luster races, he kept racing high-quality events 2-3 times a year and mastered the distance. [/quote]
Everyone is different. I aimed for 5 marathons every 24 months (rolling) and ran into problems when I squeezed in more. Sometimes I would end up doing more because I failed to look at a year as a rolling 12 months vs. a calendar year.
I see no value for using lower key marathons to practice tactics. The marathon has few tactics that you can't practice in a shorter race. I have run some as training efforts, but they were quite a way off race effort...more like a faster than normal long run (i.e., 2:26 when I was running 2:13). This was more for stamina development, and I recovered faster than I have from some hard 10,000s or half marathons.
The premise of your suggestion is that since weather and pacing can ruin a marathon, is it best to better your odds by running more. The short answer is no. The best course of action is to choose reliable European or Asian marathons where weather is generably consistent and friendly and to have a back up plan if things turn ugly.
If they do turn ugly...pull the plug early, regroup and go again in a month. Unless in a championships marathon, or unless you are getting appearance money that is conditional on you finishing, there are no benefits from toughing out a bad marathon. You fail to reach your goals and beat up your body. Of course if you continually pull the plug, then it becomes a problem. The marathons I regret are the ones I should have dropped out of and the ones where I went out too slow. In both these instances, it is a lack of courage.
Cheers,
Bruce
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 18:42:16 GMT -5
If there was not much risk to Gotcher to go out at 1:05... That's another post facto (to steal oldster's fancy wording) conclusion. I'd argue there was a ton of risk in Gotcher going out that fast, as illustrated by the rocky debuts of many, many runners with better credentials than him -- Torres, Ritz, Carney, Bizuneh, etc. etc. The fact that Gotcher pulled it off doesn't mean it wasn't a low-percentage move. I guess I'm sort of stating the obvious, though. For a low-28-minute guy, going out in 1:05 is clearly "higher-risk" than going out in 1:07 -- the question is by how much, and what the risk tolerance of the runner is, and what the rewards are (i.e. if three people are going to Olympics and fourth gets nothing, the risk equation changes). That is oldster's post facto conclusion I am quoting. Take it up with him. In any case, with a 1:02-low in hand, there's not much risk in going 1:05 low for the first half. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 18, 2010 19:01:05 GMT -5
That's another post facto (to steal oldster's fancy wording) conclusion. I'd argue there was a ton of risk in Gotcher going out that fast, as illustrated by the rocky debuts of many, many runners with better credentials than him -- Torres, Ritz, Carney, Bizuneh, etc. etc. The fact that Gotcher pulled it off doesn't mean it wasn't a low-percentage move. I guess I'm sort of stating the obvious, though. For a low-28-minute guy, going out in 1:05 is clearly "higher-risk" than going out in 1:07 -- the question is by how much, and what the risk tolerance of the runner is, and what the rewards are (i.e. if three people are going to Olympics and fourth gets nothing, the risk equation changes). That is oldster's post facto conclusion I am quoting. Take it up with him. In any case, with a 1:02-low in hand, there's not much risk in going 1:05 low for the first half. Whoa there, SI! I only said there was less risk in Gotcher going out in 1:05 than for someone in Eric's position (I should have said not AS MUCH risk). I still think 1:05 was gambling for Gotcher, as was 1:04 for Jeff S. That it paid off for Gotcher and went bust for Jeff only goes to show what a truly risking business pacing is when you're doing your first race. If I'd been Gotcher's coach, I would have told him 1:06ish and try to negative, just like Eric did-- not a huge difference between 1:05 -low and 1:06, but 1:06 would have been basically no risk for Gotcher. And hutch, I also agree that the context is everything. However, that still doesn't mean that going off at a risky pace is ever a good plan in a marathon. Think of all the dramatic come-from-behind top threes you've seen in qualifying and championship marathons, executed by racers who stuck to their own pacing plans. It takes great strength of mind and body to do it this way-- waiting, then pushing hard in the later stages-- but I think it's the highest percentage way to go. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 18, 2010 19:29:26 GMT -5
Jon Brown finished 4th in the Olympic Marathons in both 2000 and 2004. Is anyone able to produce the stats on what place he was in after 5k, 10k, 15k, 21.1k, etc.? I would hazard a guess that he wasn't in the top 4 at any of those split points. That's just a guess...
The only thought I have about Jeff's run was that, after running the fabulous track times that he did, he might have considered the Marathon as an attempt at the Canadian record, and nothing less would suffice. Clearly with a more conservative first 1/2, he was capable of running at least 2:12 something, but maybe that wasn't of interest to him at that point ?
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 19:31:30 GMT -5
Whoa there, SI! I only said there was less risk in Gotcher going out in 1:05 than for someone in Eric's position (I should have said not AS MUCH risk). Go ahead and restate your position if you like but this looks pretty clear to me: In any case, with a 1:02-low in hand, there's not much risk in going 1:05 low for the first half. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 19:33:17 GMT -5
but maybe that wasn't of interest to him at that point ? Exactly what I figure: A guy with his pedigree who is actually a marathoner likely wouldn't be satisfied with a 2:12 in any event so what's the difference if he tries going out fast? |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Jan 18, 2010 19:44:35 GMT -5
Okay, fair enough, it was oldster's initial comment, and he has now clarified his position. Surely we're not seriously arguing that going out in 1:05 for a debut marathon carries a fairly high risk of blow-ups? No Canadian has EVER run 2:10 under any circumstances, and only three Americans in HISTORY (Hall, Salazar and Culpepper) have ever debuted under 2:10. So if you hit the half in 1:05:00 in your debut, you're betting that you belong in some pretty august company. If there was a pre-race betting line, I would have happily put down some money against Gotcher running a good race off a 1:05 half.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 20:09:37 GMT -5
I never said anyone should go out in 1:05. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in oldster's position on Gotcher and his position on Schiebler. As far as the issue at hand, all I said was that I agreed with thinskinned who said that he could have risked it a bit more. Not real declarative and djw agreed.
|
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Jan 18, 2010 20:23:25 GMT -5
No guarantees SI that clicking on this link will not waste another precious 30 seconds of your life which you could have used to patrol this forum, but for everybody else here is the link to Eric's blog post after the race (in all fairness a better read than the twitter posts of Hall and Bairu): www.nishrunner.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 18, 2010 20:41:28 GMT -5
I never said anyone should go out in 1:05. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in oldster's position on Gotcher and his position on Schiebler. As far as the issue at hand, all I said was that I agreed with thinskinned who said that he could have risked it a bit more. Not real declarative and djw agreed. Fair enough, SI. I never should have suggested that Gotcher's strategy involved little or no risk. I think anyone but the very best road guys in the world are taking unnecessary risks in going 1:05 low or faster in their first marathon. When you look at Eric in the big picture, I don't think anything under at most 1:06:45 would have been advisable in a first attempt. I think 1:07-low was always going to be the correct call. I'm just glad Eric had the discipline to stick to that; of course, the fact that the choice was so stark-- go 1:05 or stick with the plan-- would have helped in this department. If there had been a group going 1:06-low, he might have been sorely tempted to take some chances. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 18, 2010 20:43:13 GMT -5
a better read than the twitter posts of Hall and Bairu) Way better. That was a solid course record he set on Boxing Day. |
|
djw
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by djw on Jan 18, 2010 21:09:14 GMT -5
Not that it matters at this point, because I think you guys are done arguing (I mean discussing) the issue, but Gotcher actually went out in 1:04:33. Prior to the race I had actually enquired with a few of his teammates as to his race strategy, with the thinking that him and Gillis, with somewhat similar pedigrees (although Gotcher ebtter ove rhte half and Gillis better over 10k), might want to run the same pace and be able to work together. But, Gotcher's plan all along (leading back to September/October) was to go out in 1:04:30.
I don't know a ton about McMillan Elite (the group that Gotcher trains in), but a few things that I have learned, knowing one it's members (Martin Fagan) quite well, is that Greg (the coach) not only gets these guys in shape to run fast, but gets them to really believe that they can do it. Any time I talked to Martin about his races, there was no doubt in his mind that he should go for the win, no matter who the competition, e.g. he lead Geb through 10km at Pier-City-Pier half-marathon last year. Long story short, its possible Gotcher didn't feel there was much risk in his race plan, having the belief instilled in him that he was going to run 2:09. Obviously this attitude could blow up in your face more times than not, but it seems they've got the training done to back it up most of the time.
But I also think Eric's approach to this race and his career as a marathoner are very admirable. He's known for a while he wanted to at least try the race, and his big goals marathon wise are still at least 12-24 months away. I would have loved for my first marathon to have been one where I tested the waters, so to speak. But, I was doing it on a whim (not that I trained for it whimsically, but I didn't give much thought to a marathon even 4-5 months prior to running one) and in an attempt to meet an actual qualifying time, not just a personal goal time. (Actually I probably would never have gotten into the marathon if it weren't for the lore of being an Olympian.) Anyways, even though I thought Eric's pre-race goals (not his actual race execution) were a bit conservative, I think his performance was fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 18, 2010 21:19:47 GMT -5
To add about Jeff. He never went out for a first time experience. He went out to simply run fast. Unfortunately, botht time he had problems the last handful of miles.
I don't think Schiebler's marathons had anything to do with not being a marathoner (although the Japanese held this view) as in his first he really only blew up the last 2-3 miles on a touhg NY course, but more along the lines that he tried to follow the train like a 10km runner with some long runs and a few longer variations. In this instance he probably needed some more volume as he felt that once he got over 100 miles he had problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 18, 2010 21:38:33 GMT -5
This has turned out to be a very good little thread. Really nice to see Brucie d. taking the time to say a few things about marathoning. Really, who on this board knows more?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 18, 2010 21:49:52 GMT -5
To add about Jeff. He never went out for a first time experience. He went out to simply run fast. Unfortunately, botht time he had problems the last handful of miles. I don't think Schiebler's marathons had anything to do with not being a marathoner (although the Japanese held this view) as in his first he really only blew up the last 2-3 miles on a touhg NY course, but more along the lines that he tried to follow the train like a 10km runner with some long runs and a few longer variations. In this instance he probably needed some more volume as he felt that once he got over 100 miles he had problems. Thanks for that perspective, Bomber... You know Jeff much better than I do, but my perspective from a distance (no pun) would coincide with yours. In spite of the fact that Jeff spent many years training and racing in Japan, I never got the sense that he was doing some of the very long, and somewhat slower training that their marathoners were, and are, doing... and perhaps paid a bit for that, over the last 6 miles +/- of his marathon efforts. Anyways, still a fantastic runner, and one whose 5k and 10K PB's will still look good, many years into the future... |
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 18, 2010 21:49:52 GMT -5
Brucie can't run so he lots of pent up energy....... ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 18, 2010 21:51:27 GMT -5
jessu..i really need to edit and fix my typos......^*%$^%)*^(% 2 finger typing.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bomba on Jan 18, 2010 21:55:25 GMT -5
I'll also add i had a good conversation with Robbie Jonhnston about his 2 marathons. Like Jeff he didn't come close to his track PRS (he only ran 2:15 and had a 27:42 10km PR), but as he also noted he didn't go out to try and run 2:15.
|
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Jan 18, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
natural born marathoner=nbm
Brett Gotcher= not nbm, big risk at going 1:04:30 but as djw states this is greatly tempered by an outstanding marathon specific program
Eric = ndm, virtually zero risk in going 1:07+ but that's they're perogative to choose the zero risk option
Jeff = not nbm , fairly high risk at going 1:04 & I don't think he had the marathon specific program to save him as Gotcher did.
I think the issue was raised by oldster's statement that DST "saved" him by forcing him to run slow. No, he saved him long before that by developing the right program. If Eric had gone faster thru the 1/2 he would have saved himself ( if he needed to) because that's what nbm-ers do.
|
|
|
|
Post by thinskinned on Jan 18, 2010 23:17:50 GMT -5
The marathons I regret are the ones I should have dropped out of and the ones where I went out too slow. In both these instances, it is a lack of courage. Cheers, Bruce [/quote] oh, oh, oh ;D |
|
|
|
Post by bdeacon on Jan 19, 2010 11:32:29 GMT -5
Brucie can't run so he lots of pent up energy....... ;-) Yeah...so don't mess with me cause I'm cranky. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 19, 2010 12:52:11 GMT -5
he saved him long before that by developing the right program. That is what I was getting at when I said this: Without a recent half, there isn't a lot of data(other than the training which would be interesting to see). The most important data point is the training and we have not seen many of those details. There are some on his blog but not enough to make any sort of informed judgement. Presumably most of the Speed River guys or those familiar with them would know best but especially DST, Coolsaet and Gillis. Coolsaet went out in 1:07:16 in his first marathon. I am guessing that they did some of the same workouts in their buildups. If Gillis was some percentage stronger in those workouts, I think that can be extrapolated to a starting pace especially since Gillis had a much longer build-up(if you even want to call Coolsaet's prep a build-up). Coolsaet did slow but not a lot. Dylan admitted himself that he wasn't as prepared as he could have been and went out in 65:58 and paid for it but not spectacularly so. Gillis likely would not have been taking that much of a risk to go out closer to Dylan's pace than only 5 seconds faster than Reid's. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Moulton on Jan 19, 2010 13:23:29 GMT -5
I would encourage everyone to come to our Runners' Brunch this Sunday at 10 am, and you can ask Eric and Dave for an explanation as to why they chose the pacing strategy they did. guelphrunning.ca/events.php?id=25 |
|
