|
|
Post by ronb on Jan 19, 2010 13:54:06 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=25Are you paying for my flight, Chris, or do I have to drive ? More seriously, we must be getting close to the point where we can have tele-conference round tables, and discuss training and racing, with video, on the computer. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 19, 2010 14:43:58 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 1:17:16 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. Small correction: Dylan didn't actually say he wasn't well prepared for his first one. He said that, unlike Eric, he hadn't given much thought to being a marathoner before he decided to train for his first one. By race time, he was as physically prepared as he could have been at that time (i.e. without taking undue risks in his training). He did a full cycle of training, which he entered in P.B. HM shape. We choose 1:07 as an opening half in part because the standard was 2:14, and we thought he could negative split off of that, just the way Eric did on Sunday. For reasons that are now moot, he opted to go 1:05:58-- not hugely risky, but, as it happened, just enough to cost him the minute or so he needed to get the job done. Again, just shows what a fine line it is when you're talking about glycogen depletion. |
|
pmac
Junior Member
Posts: 122
|
Post by pmac on Jan 19, 2010 17:31:31 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 1:17:16 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. Bigger correction: Reid split 1:07:16 at the half, not 1:17:16. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 19, 2010 17:34:42 GMT -5
Oops. Pretty good negative split.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Jan 20, 2010 9:58:19 GMT -5
Originally posted this on the wrong thread (Bairu/Hall).
Anyone else remember the long discussion we had before the Beijing team selection, when Gillis was initially left off as a rising star? In that thread there was a whole lot of discussion about Gillis' potential at the marathon distance, and that being one reason why he should have been (and eventually was, on appeal) selected as a rising star. Several people in that discussion were calling Gillis a natural marathoner, for various reasons. His poor showing in Beijing almost made me regret that I had argued in his favour at that time (I'm generally strongly in favour of Canada's tough standards for Olympics and WCs, and don't think I'd ever before argued against ACs selection processes), but this nice solid debut restores my belief that the right decision was made at the time.
I don't personally believe he should have run more aggressively in this race. A very slight negative split like that is as close to optimum as you can possibly get in the maraton. I doubt he could have run any faster in this race.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Jan 20, 2010 10:53:56 GMT -5
pq, I was having similar thoughts. I think if Gillis ends up making the 2011 WC team (and hopefully 2012 too) with A standard, it will be a nice vindication of the Rising Star policy. Not that you can assess the worthiness of a selection policy based on single examples, of course -- but given how high-profile his case was, people (including decision-makers) will certainly be watching the follow-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 21, 2010 8:09:59 GMT -5
Anyone else remember the long discussion we had before the Beijing team selection, when Gillis was initially left off as a rising star? In that thread there was a whole lot of discussion about Gillis' potential at the marathon distance, and that being one reason why he should have been (and eventually was, on appeal) selected as a rising star. Several people in that discussion were calling Gillis a natural marathoner, for various reasons. His poor showing in Beijing almost made me regret that I had argued in his favour at that time (I'm generally strongly in favour of Canada's tough standards for Olympics and WCs, and don't think I'd ever before argued against ACs selection processes), but this nice solid debut restores my belief that the right decision was made at the time. I think this is where it was discussed: tnfnorth.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=3913&page=1 |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 27, 2010 10:34:34 GMT -5
|
|
