By Bryan Green

"Running from the front requires more energy.  But then again, so does catching up to the leader."

I wish I knew where I first heard that quote, but it always sticks with me when I watch championship racing.  If you could pick one place to be in the final lap, it would be 2nd place, one stride back from the leader, on the outside of lane 1 (preferably without Imane Merga slapping your arm and pushing you outside).  You're not in the front, but you're at the front, and you have to work the least to catch the leader.

You know who is always in that position?  Bernard Lagat.

Bernard Lagat just won a medal in his 6th outdoor championship, dating back to 2001 (and he likely would have medaled in 2003 and 2005 had he not been forced to sit out).  Obviously, Lagat is one of the most talented runners to ever lace up a pair of spikes.  But the fact that he continues to place so well against the world's best at age 36 is a matter of more than just talent.  He's no longer the best runner in the world, but he's arguably the best tactician.

All you can aim to do in a race is give yourself the best chance at placing as high as possible.  Lagat always puts himself in that position.  In fact, the art of executing perfect race tactics should just be named after him at this point.  We should all agree to call perfectly run races "Bernards" and to describe the right move at the right time as "Lagatesque".  Shouldn't we?

Why is it that Lagat can always run this way and others can't?  

To Mix It Up, Or Not To Mix It Up

Johnny Gray's shins were never touched by a competitor's spikes.

We first need to look at racing styles.  In general, there are three distinct race styles, and athletes tend to fall into one of the following: front-runners, big kickers, or mixer-upers.

Front-runners are a rare breed.  They go for it at the gun and challenge you to beat them.  Front-running, especially in championship settings, requires a unique combination of outstanding ability and what we might call delusional confidence.  Pre's myth centers around his front-running approach.  Another classic front-runner was Johnny Gray, who never met a race he didn't need to lead.  I think we can fairly assume his shins were the least spiked in history.  Charles Jock may be the next Johnny Gray.

Big kickers are the opposite of front-runners.  They hang as far back as possible--often dangerously far back--and rely on a huge kick to catch everyone as late as possible.  These guys are equally one-dimensional, albeit more thrilling to watch than front-runners.  The big problem for big kickers is that at some point, someone else in the race will have the same big kick and if you're at the back when the race really starts, you'll probably lose.  Nick Symmonds appears to be learning this, to his credit.  Maggie Vessey, Andrew Wheating, Robby Andrews, there are a lot of young American athletes who continue to use this approach exclusively to devastating success...and failure.

Mixer-upers are the guys who change their tactics for every race.  They mix it up with everyone, fight for position, aim to be in the right place at the right time, and are always trying to manufacture the perfect race.  Mixer-upers need to be constantly aware and reacting to the dynamic changes taking place mid-race.  This leaves them susceptible to other problems, like getting boxed in, kicked in the shins, tripped up, etc.  But when it works, these athletes are most likely to put themselves where you really want to be at the bell: 2nd place, one stride back, outside of lane 1.  

Most athletes are mixer-upers, if only because they don't have the necessary kick and/or they aren't delusional.  But most are not capable of consistently running ideal races in a championship setting.  Bernard Lagat is an exception, a mixer-uper who thrives in championships.  Have you noticed that Bernard Lagat never loses to big kickers?  That's because a) he has a pretty damn good kick, and b) when the kicking starts, he's always in better position than the big kicker.

If you're going to beat Bernard Lagat, you're going to have to both mix it up with him and be better than him.  A pretty hard task, as very few combine the consistently superior tactics with the finishing kick needed.  Mo Farah did, and he won the men's 5000m as a result.  But no one else did.

Bernard Lagat on the last lap in Daegu - right where he wants to be.

Can Lagatesque Tactics be Taught?

Are superior race tactics a skill that can be taught, or is the answer simply, "Some people get it and others don't"?  

I think Lagat's approach can be taught, for the most part.  The challenge is in maintaining the composure to execute it.  The first step is to simply understand what it is he does.  Luckily, Bernard Lagat has been running the same race for the past decade.  It is so predictable as to be boring.  

A "Bernard" can be summed up in 6 parts:

1.  Stay out of trouble early-mid race.  If possible, stay on the outside of lane 1.  If you have good position mid-race, don't give it up.  It's better to start at the back and move up on the outside than get trapped on the rail mid-race.

2.  Be in the top 3 by the last lap.  Sacrifice position early to have the freedom to move up by the last lap.  Aim to be on the outside of lane 1.

3.  Don't take the lead.  You should only take the lead once, when you are sure nobody can catch you.  For Bernard that's usually with about 100m to go.

4.  Don't go at the bell.  Everybody goes at the bell.  Too hard and too fast usually.  If you're aiming to win, you need to go just enough to keep contact with the leaders.  But you don't need to be right with them.  Most races are won in the final 100m, not the backstretch.

5.  Don't give up.  How many times have we seen someone open up a big lead from the bell to the final straight, only to get reeled in by the strongest finisher in the last 100m?  People who go early almost always come back.  So stay close enough to not lose faith.

6.  Have a good finish.  The first five don't matter if you don't have it at the end.  

It's simple but devastatingly effective.  Of course the X-factor is number 6.  Take Galen Rupp in both of his races.  He ran very good tactical races but didn't have it at the end.  So it goes.

A couple other Americans did have good finishes, however, and came home with medals as a result.  Jennifer Simpson took a page out of Lagat's book to win the women's 1500m gold, and Matt Centrowitz surpassed all expectations and snuck a bronze in the men's 1500m.



Simpson is a world-class steeplechaser who chose to run in on "off-event", the 1500m.  She has a 3:59 PR in the event, so it's not as though she had no credentials heading into the meet, but she was far from the favorite.  Still, she's a tenacious competitor, and is always mixing it up with the lead pack.  The final in Daegu was no different.  She stayed right near the front, didn't respond when everyone went too hard too soon at the bell, got to the outside and then picked people off down the homestretch to take the title.  

And Centrowitz was an even bigger surprise.  A 21-year old senior at the University of Oregon, he won the NCAA title (not a surprise) and then the US title (kind of a surprise), but if he'd been eliminated in the semis in Daegu everyone would have considered the experience a success.  Instead he controlled and won his semi (a race in which reigning champ Yusuf Saad Kamel failed to qualify), ran in perfect position at the front throughout the final, maintained his poise as the crowd jumped him at the bell, and kicked home faster than a slough of veterans to take bronze.  It wasn't just a Lagatesque final, it was a Lagatesque season.

What did Jennifer Simpson and Matt Centrowitz have in common with Bernard Lagat?  They executed a simple plan.  They always got themselves into the position they wanted to be in.  When they had good position, they didn't give it up easily.  They didn't get excited and go too early.  Even when they were gapped, they maintained enough connection to stay competitive.  And of course, they finished.

That's the part that can be taught.  In order to do it, however, they had to stay composed and disciplined as each round and each lap of the final heated up.  They couldn't get caught up in the moment and make a mistake.  You don't know if someone has that ability until they show it.  

Tweet

By Bryan Green

Sammy was a fearless runner from the start, dominating the Japanese high school scene.

I recently started reading a book called What Is Your Dangerous Idea?  The book is a collection of short essays by prominent thinkers about "unthinkable ideas", ideas that, if true, would shake the foundation of their respective field or even society as a whole.  These are questions like, "What if humans have no souls?", "Would society be better off if all drugs were legalized?" and "What if you had to have a license to become a parent?" as well as 100 or so more on topics of physics, psychology, sociology, economics and philosophy.

There are a lot of dangerous ideas that relate to track and field.  Ideas that are hard to write about because they challenge the core of our beliefs: "What if we could exactly determine an individual's potential?" "What if injuries are 100% avoidable?" "What if differences in talent are not physical, but purely mental?"  "What if Africans are genetically superior athletes?"  

These ideas are dangerous because they are hard (even impossible) to empirically test and because the answers could challenge decades of accepted truths about ourselves and our sport.  Other dangerous ideas are less controversial to write about.  In his book Born to Run, Christopher McDougall posits his own dangerous idea (for shoe companies, at least): "What if running shoes are actually the cause of many of our injuries?"

Then there are dangerous ideas that are expressed through execution.  These are ideas that challenge the accepted norm but are not scientific or philosophical in nature.  They can only be asked by the athletes or coaches themselves.  I think of Dick Fosbury (and presumably his coach) wondering if there wasn't a better way to go over that high jump bar.  
Since hearing about Sammy Wanjiru's death last Monday I've been thinking about the impact he had on the sport and how he will be remembered.  Articulating what I was feeling didn't come easily, however.  I'd been watching him since he was a high schooler in Japan.  I felt like Sammy was more special than a discussion of his times or his talent could express.

Then it finally hit me.  What Sammy was for me was the embodiment of a dangerous idea: what if we ran the marathon with no fear?

Throughout the last century, the marathon was the one distance that demanded conservatism. In sports, conservatism is the child of fear.  NFL teams play the "prevent" defense because they fear the big play.  Pitchers intentionally walk power hitters because they fear the home run.  Golfers play for the fairway instead of the green because they fear the sand and water traps.

And marathon runners don't go out too hard in marathons, because they fear what will happen in the final miles if they do.

This fear is rational.  It's sane.  It's healthy.  And it was shared by everyone and corroborated by years of collective experience.  You don't have to be told to fear the marathon, you just do.

Sammy had another idea.  He didn't get caught up in pace and splits and times.  Perhaps it was his limited background on the track, having trained and developed in a Japanese system that emphasized road racing.  Perhaps it was just his personality, that of a boxer in a marathoner's body.  Perhaps he was, like Daniel Komen before him, simply so good that he didn't understand that he should be sharing others' fear of the race.

He gave lip-service to taking Haile Gebrselassie's world record, but I never took it to be more than that.  Had he truly cared he would have entered a race with pace-setters and actually conserved some energy in the beginning.  But he never did that.  He preferred beating people to clocks. 

Sammy's Beijing performance was Bannister-esque in significance.

In Beijing 2008 he attacked the race in a way that nobody thought possible given the conditions.  He was fearless and indomitable, and left the rest of the marathon world scratching their heads in disbelief.  I would argue that until that race, the marathon held a mystique equivalent to the 4:00 barrier in the 1950s.  And like Bannister's great run, Sammy's performance shattered the marathon's mystique.  It made the unthinkable thinkable.  

The following year two unheralded runners, Duncan Kibet and James Kwambai, would run 2:04:27 in Rotterdam.  Abel Kirui then gave a Wanjiru-esque 2:06 performance at the World Championships in Berlin.  And most recently, Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop threw caution to the wind (tailwind, more specifically) and ran absurd 2:03 lows in Boston.  

It's hard to argue that any of these performances would have happened without Sammy's amazing run in Berlin.  It remains to be seen whether Len Johnson is right that we will see a return to conservatism in marathoning.  I think that assumes Sammy's contribution was merely a shift in marathon strategy.  I disagree.  I think it was the shattering of a mental barrier.  And shattered barriers aren't rebuilt.  Once they're gone, they're gone.  

Alas, so is Sammy Wanjiru.  The marathon will never be the same. 

Tweet



By Bryan Green

There's an old Irish blessing that starts: "May the road rise to meet you; May the wind be always at your back."  Must have been some blessing the Boston Marathon received this year...

I'm not sure where the tailwind at the Boston Marathon this weekend will rank amongst history's most influential winds, but it's got to be up there after today's performances.  Was it as influential as the typhoon that wiped out the Mongol advance on Japan in 1281, creating the word "kamikaze" or "Divine Wind".  No, probably not.  Words don't get much cooler than kamikaze.  But it's at least on par with the wind that caused this for sheer "Wait, is this real?  This can't be real, can it?"

I have no idea how much Boston's Divine Tailwind was worth time-wise, but I do know it's changed the Boston Marathon, and more than a few lives, for all-time.  Here are the top 5 things this tailwind brought with it as it passed through Boston:

5. Great debates

How much time was that tailwind worth to Geoffrey Mutai (2:03:02) and Moses Mosop (2:03:06)?  Two minutes?  Three?  They obviously ran an all-time great race, but where *should* it rank amongst the all-time list?  And what kind of shape is Ryan Hall really in?  He just ran the 15th fastest performance ever, and yet he couldn't run that pace for half marathon just a few weeks ago.  

There won't ever again be a discussion of great marathons that doesn't include Boston 2011.  Think about it: how fast would Haile Gebrselassie ca Berlin 2008 have run today?  Or Sammy Wanjiru ca Beijing 2008?  

4.  Skewed expectations

Up through two years ago, the goal at Boston was to save your legs in the first half, power home through the second half, and try to run a mid-2:08, which was usually enough for victory.  Then last year Robert K Cheruiyot blasted a 2:05:52 and the consensus was it was one of the great performances of all-time.  A time that fast was unthinkable on Boston's course.

Today two guys ran almost three minutes faster.  Record-eligible times or no, that is insane.  The typical winner of the Boston Marathon would have finished 10th today, and still had a mile to go when Geoffrey Mutai crossed the line.

I wonder what this does to expectations for the Boston course now.  How disappointed are we going to be when next year's winner runs *just* 2:06:45?  Make no mistake, the Boston course is still slow.  We're due to revert back closer to "normal" next year.

3.  Untouchable records

We know these performances aren't eligible for official records.  I'll get into that more below.  Here I want to talk about the records that I think should count.  Here's three:

Boston Course Record: This one has to be official.  The course is the course, regardless of the conditions.  And the chances of anyone beating this record are now somewhere on the none side of slim.

Debut Marathon Record: Apparently, this was Moses Mosop's debut marathon.  He ran 2:03:06.  Umm...I'm going to go ahead and call that one a lock.  And no, the tailwind does not matter in this case.  He raced the full distance for the first time and that was his time.  

Fastest 2nd Place Finish:  Moses Mosop gets another record.  Before this race, the fastest 2nd place time ever was James Kwambai's 2:04:26 from Rotterdam in 2009 (full list here).  And that was insane.  Mosop's performance is not only 1:20 faster than that, it is 53 seconds faster than Haile Gebrselassie ever ran!  And he still lost!


2.  Vindication

If there's one person whose erratic behavior over the past few months has just been vindicated, it's Ryan Hall.  Since last Boston, he's done the following: won at Bix 7 (32:55); 13th at Philadelphia Half (63:56); DNS at Chicago Marathon; left his longtime coach Terrence Mahon to train himself; 2nd at Houston Half (62:20); 21st at NYC Half (63:53); and of course 4th at Boston Marathon in a smokin' 2:04:58.

He's both America's greatest road-racer and it's biggest enigma (with apologies to Webb).  He looked like a runner who had lost his way and was letting his insecurities lead him farther off the path he needed to be on.  The vast majority of his followers (myself included) questioned his ability to train himself after leaving Mahon and wondered if he wasn't setting himself up for a stretch of races where he underperformed relative to his potential.

And then an insane Boston tailwind happened and, whether those doubts should be wiped away or not, the majority of people will now assume he's made the right choices.  And fair enough.  Regardless of what the 2:04:58 *really* converts to, it's a smokin' fast time and a sign that things are far from a disaster for our top marathoner. 

1.  The Mother of All Asterisks

I've always been fascinated with asterisks in sports.  For most sports, asterisks are hypothetical.  They are something fans use to discount a performance, like Roger Maris's 61 home runs (the "he played 8 more games than Ruth" asterisk) or the Lakers victory over the Kings in Game 6 of the 2002 Western Conference Playoffs (the "Tim Donaghy was ref for that game" asterisk).  When you look at the actual record books, there are no asterisks.  The asterisks just exist in our collective memory.

Track and road running are different.  We put that asterisk on a performance that doesn't meet our criteria.  Run a 100m race with a 2.1 mps tailwind: asterisk.  Run a race on a course that happens to be net downhill: asterisk.  We slap that sucker on anything that even hints at being "unofficial" or, worse, "assisted".

In many cases, it doesn't matter.  Every Boston marathon performance since we made the rule about no net downhill point-to-point courses being eligible has had an asterisk.  It didn't matter since the course was so slow.  But uh oh.  Now the two fastest times ever run were just put up on the Boston course.  The very same course that was always too slow to matter if it had an asterisk.  Which means now that asterisk is going to stick out like a sore thumb.  The fastest marathon ever run is officially NOT the world record. Check out the asterisk.



Honestly, that's probably as it should be.  It's exactly the type of race that the asterisk was designed for.  Without it, my daughter would grow up and look at Desiree Davila's time and not understand how freakishly unusual the conditions were.  In track and road running, times are just too important to view them without context, especially the outliers.  So gimme the asterisk, officially.  And make it a big one.  Big enough to represent the Divine Boston Tailwind and the most amazing marathon ever run.

By Bryan Green

We've seen a lot of records fall this season, and a number of other fast times.  David Rudisha just took down Wilson Kipketer's 800m world record, Ryan Gregson surpassed Simon Doyle's old 1500m Australian record, and Chris Solinsky and Bernard Lagat set new American Records in the 10000m and 5000m, respectively.  And we've seen Wheating and Manzano put up surprising personal bests in the 1500m and 800m, respectively.



Where records fall, debates rise up to take their place.  Is Rudisha's 2010 season better than Kipketer's 1997 campaign?  How does Gregson compare to Doyle?  Who had the better season, Solinsky or Lagat?  Who is the best middle distance runner in the US, Wheating or Manzano?  The great thing about all of these questions is that there's no easy answer.  Depending on the athlete, some arguments are stronger and others weaker.  And some are just plain dumb.

By my count, there are 12 arguments people make when debating runners' seasons and/or careers.  A good message board thread will usually have all of these come up at some point:

The Hardware Argument:  How many championships did they win?  The basis of this argument is that there is only one thing that matters, and that's winning.  In track, this argument is usually diluted to include the top three, but only when it can't be settled by gold medals.  

In perhaps the greatest debate settling race I can remember, Hicham El Guerrouj outkicks Kenenisa Bekele for gold medal #2 in Athens, earning major Hardware and Scoreboard points in the debate for "greatest distance runner of their era".

 
The Record Books Argument:  Where do they rank all-time?  This argument assumes the best put up the best marks.  Faster, farther and higher = superior.  For young runners, this argument is often modified to be relative to age.  This is the one argument that tends to hold some weight against the Hardware Argument.  Especially when somebody is still the reigning record holder.

The Scoreboard Argument:  How did they fare head-to-head with other athletes?  It don't mean a thing unless it came at the other guy's expense.  This is similar to the Hardware Argument, except that it pertains to all races, not just championships.  Unfortunately, this argument can only be used between two athletes in the same era.

The Dominance Argument:  How much better were they than their competition?  This is related to the Scoreboard Argument, only it measures the quality of the victories.  Winning big is superior to just winning.  The scale ranges from Haile G outkicking Tergat "barely dominant" to Usain Bolt celebrating his 100m victory and winning by two strides "completely dominant".  And yes, this argument can be applied to careers by looking at winning streaks.

The "You had to be there" Argument:  How can you appreciate something that can't be captured in statistics?  You see this more in other sports than in running, but it often comes up when you debate with old people about "who would have won head-to-head" between athletes from two different eras.  If your family was anything like mine, your dad probably used this to end the discussion when you tried to tell him how great your favorite player is.

The Historian Argument:  How good was the person given the historical context of the period in which he ran?  This argument can be spun in many ways.  It can be used to include Paavo Nurmi and Emil Zatopek in the same discussion with Haile G and Kenenisa Bekele.  It's also used to argue that champions from "fast" eras were better than those from "slow" eras.  Some people even extrapolate this to argue that if runners from previous eras were given our present-day knowledge and training methods they would (or would not) be just as fast.  The Historian Argument can get quite creative.

The Socio-economic Argument:  How many advantages or disadvantages did the person face?  This is an argument that gets abused way too much.  Many people want to give bonus points to athletes who ran themselves out of poverty or deduct credit for those who had "excessive" resources at their disposal (i.e. Alter-G treadmills).  Maybe...maybe...it can be used as a tie-breaker when two athletes seem relatively equal, but it's usually just someone confusing the issue in an effort to be PC.  

Even at 35, Lagat is still the best in the world when he's on.

The Longevity Argument:  How long was the person good?  There is something to be said for success over a long period of time.  It's amazing when someone can retain their abilities despite advancing in age.  With that said, this argument never usually comes out until a younger runner achieves something the older runner never did.

The Consistency Argument:  How predictable was the athlete's performance?  Some athletes range from very bad to brilliant, whereas others seem to always be very good.  People making this argument often approach the debate from a "who would I pick on my team if I were the team captain?" approach.  There's value to knowing what you're going to get.

The Peak Argument:  How good were they when they were at their best?  This is the obvious counter-argument to the Longevity Argument.  Who cares how long someone kept competing, tell me how good they were for their best 3 or 5 years.  This argument assumes that motivation to keep going isn't relevant to a discussion of greatness.

The "If Only..." Argument (aka The Prefontaine Argument):  What would have happened if only {whatever happened} hadn't actually happened?  This argument always gets used when discussing careers cut short due to death, illness, injury, or even early retirement, as in the case of Herb Elliott (surely he would have kept winning had he kept running, no?).  A lot of people like to give athletes bonus points for what they wanted them to achieve.

The Trendsetter Argument (aka The Fosbury Argument):  How much did the person do for their sport/event?  This argument gives a high amount of credit to anyone who changed the way the sport/event was played.  It could be explicit, like being the first to flop a certain way or implicit, like racing with a certain style or approach.  This argument is particularly common when debating coaches.

And a couple you see way too much from anonymous trolls on message boards:

Troll #1: The "What have you done for me lately?" Argument:  How fast did the person run their last race?  You hear this occasionally when a person gets injured or runs a bad race and some hoser declares that they suck.  I've honestly never heard this argument made in a real life conversation before, but it's the first weapon in a message board troll's arsenal.

Troll #2: The "Must Be Drugs" Argument:  How likely is it that the person's marks are the result of PEDs or other extenuating circumstances?  This is the cynic's anti-argument.  It allows the debator to avoid acknowledging the arguments of the other side, by casting suspicion on them entirely.  BALCO made this argument much more common (and more plausible, sadly), but it's been around for ages (Lasse Viren comes to mind).

Let the Debates Begin

It's possible I missed a few, and if so I hope you'll tell me in the comments.  And since I'm talking about debates, I thought I'd make some observations about some of the accomplishments I noted at the top.  Note: I don't feel qualified to debate Gregson vs Doyle, however, so I'm going to leave that for someone with a little more expertise on the subject, perhaps you, in the comments.

Rudisha vs Kipketer:  Two years ago, Kaki looked poised to dominate the 800m for the foreseeable future.  Today, he's the clear #2 behind David Rudisha.  That debate seems settled.  It also seems premature to compare Rudisha's career with Kipketer's, as the latter competed for many years and Rudisha is just getting started.  Will he match Kipketer's three World Championship golds or win the elusive Olympic gold that neither Coe nor Kipketer could attain?

What we can debate, however, is whether Rudisha's 2010 is superior to Kipketer's 1997. In 1997, Kipketer tied Seb Coe's world record in July, and then broke it twice in August.  All three times continue to rank 2nd, 3rd, and T-5th all-time.  Oh yeah, he also won both the Indoor and Outdoor World Championship titles.  That's some major Hardware.

Rudisha has had an amazing year, and it's not necessarily over.  Even if he doesn't compete again, though, he's broken the world record and run the 1st, 4th, and 10th fastest times ever.  Even if we take away Kipketer's Hardware on the basis that Rudisha didn't compete in any WC meets, the nod to "greatest 800m season ever" still has to go to Kipketer, albeit barely.  It's too bad Rudisha didn't run World Indoors this year...

Lagat is 6-0 lifetime against Solinsky, and 1-0 this year.  But Solinsky is getting closer and closer.

Solinsky vs Lagat:  These two athletes rewrote the US record books this season by breaking the 10k and 5k records, respectively.  But who had the better season?  

Let's start with Solinsky.  First he blew everyone away by smashing Meb's 10k AR.  He then proceeded to run three of the top five times ever by an American at 5k.  His worst race, a 13:08 at Pre, would have ranked him 6th all-time on the US list.  And yet.

And yet Bernard Lagat has had another Lagatian season.  He won the World Indoors 3000m and the USA 5000m title (a meet Solinsky skipped).  He then set the AR for 5000m both indoor (13:11.50) and outdoor (12:54.12) and ran 3:32 and 7:32 in various European races.  In their one head-to-head race, Lagat beat Solinsky (his AR 5000m performance).

Given the advantage in Hardware, Record Books and Scoreboard arguments, Lagat has had the better season.  But it isn't over, and I believe Solinsky has a chance to make up some ground.  That's because he's been as consistent as any athlete in the world up to this point.  His three European 5000m races have all been between 12:55.5 and 12:56.6.

To me, that's a clear sign that there's more left in the tank.  Someone can run a perfect race once, and maybe even twice.  But there's no way he's run three perfect races this season.  What this means is that 12:56 is more in the range of "very good" for Solinsky, and if he can pop a great race, that time could come down quite a bit.  

Would it be enough to tip the scales in his season's favor?  That's hard to say.  It probably depends on whether Bernard Lagat is still crossing the line while Solinsky is celebrating.

Wheating vs Manzano:  If you had told me earlier this summer that Wheating's 1500m time would be faster than Manzano's, but Manzano would equal Wheating's 800m time, I would have scoffed at you.  Yet that's where we find ourselves now.  Both Manzano and Wheating have run 1:44.56 for 800m, and Wheating's smokin' 3:30.90 is much faster than Manzano's 3:33.51 1500m or 3:50.64 mile.

Wheating is leading the head-to-head matchup 2-1, having run his two best races (Pre and Monaco) when Manzano ran his two biggest stinkers (and they were indeed stinkers).  But Manzano beat Wheating at his own event at the Stockholm 800m. 

And there's still time for Lopez Lomong to reinsert himself in the discussion.  He was the USA Outdoor champ over Manzano--in a race Wheating skipped--and ran 3:32.20 earlier in the season.  He was behind Wheating in both of his best races, however, and hasn't shown much range outside the mile.  I never would have thought it going into the spring but based on his Consistency, his Scoreboard, and his amazing times, Andrew Wheating is now the best middle distance runner in the US.

 

Can anyone live up to the standard Mr. Solinsky set this year?

By Bryan Green

"Happiness is reality minus expectations."
--Tom Magliozzi

"I am so bored by this result."
--Anonymous LetsRun message board poster, following Galen Rupp's 13:10.05 PR in Gateshead

Galen Rupp ran another PR on Saturday.  His 13:10.05 at Gateshead moved him up to 8th on the US all-time list, just .05 seconds away from Adam Goucher--the man once thought to be America's next great hope at 5000m--and yet the performance was met with little of the fanfare we might have expected just two years ago.

As a fan of US distance running, I can't help but feel I've been spoiled these past couple years.  I've seen my countrymen medal at the Olympic Games (Flanagan) and World Championships (Lagat, Rowbury, Johnson), break American Records (Flanagan, Barringer, Ritzenhein, Solinsky, Lagat), and rewrite many of the US all-time lists.

On the women's side, our middle distance runners have developed into arguably the best group in the world.  We now have six active 800m runners going sub-2:00 and four who are sub-4:00 (or super close, in Rowbury's case).  On the men's side, our long distance runners continue to rewrite the US all-time lists.  Five of the top 10 performers on both the 5000m and 10000m lists set their bests between 2008 and now.

And then there is the new crop of young runners, athletes like Phoebe Wright, Angela Bizzarri, Lisa Koll, Andrew Wheating, Robbie Andrews, German Fernandez, Chris Derrick, and (I never thought I'd write this) A.J. Acosta (!) who all appear to be on the cusp of joining the US elite.  Yes, I can't say it enough, it's a very fun time to be a fan of US distance running.

Some memorable expectation-defying performances German Fernandez #1 (2008): HS distance double 4:00/8:34 German Fernandez #2 (2009): 3:56.5 debut indoor mile for WJR Jenny Barringer (2009): sub-4 near victory in Pre Classic 1500 Maggie Vessey (2009): drops a world leading 1:57 after 12 races w/o breaking 2:00 Dathan Ritzenhein (2009): 12:56 5000m AR is 20 second PR Dan Huling (2009): 8:14 steeple PR to go from unknown to mostly unknown Meb Keflezighi (2009): wins NYC marathon against stacked field Alysia Johnson (2010): wins World Indoors after 2 years w/o breaking 2:00 Lisa Koll (2010): solo 31:18 to get CR at Stanford and become #6 US Chris Solinsky (2010): debut 10k is sub-27 AR, followed by 16 sec PR at 5k for #4 US all-time Phoebe Wright (2010): 1:58.22 huge PR at Pre Classic

But it's also a dangerous time.  That's because US runners haven't just run fast times; they have put up such a consistent run of unbelievable performances that fans are losing their sense of perspective when it comes to judging their performances.  We're like a power hitter on a hot streak...we think every swing is going to be a home run, and we're a little disappointed when it's just a single.

When I grew up, the advice I got playing baseball was not to try to hit home runs, but to just hit the ball hard.  Put the ball in play and good things happen.  Great hitters get lots of hits, not necessarily home runs.

This isn't so different from my former coach Bob Larsen's advice for becoming a great runner: Put yourself in position to have a good race every race (just hit the ball).  Great runners don't run great and then run terribly, they consistently run well (hit the ball hard every time).  Once in a while they may really hit one and get a PR (home runs aren't the goal, they just happen).

Maybe today's runners didn't play baseball.  Or maybe they did.  I don't think many of them are swinging for the fences.  I think they are simply trying to hit the ball hard, and for whatever reason that's led to a bunch of grand slams of late.  So many that it's almost begun to seem normal.  

But it's not normal.  It's fantastic, it's awesome, and it's a bit mind-blowing but it's so not normal.

We've seen so many out-of-nowhere great performances that when Galen Rupp runs 13:10 in his European opener, it doesn't even get bold font on the LetsRun homepage.  Two years ago it would have been a lead item and the forum might have gone down.  But today it gets one of two responses: a shrug or a hyper-critical analysis of why it wasn't good enough!  What a difference two years makes! 

And I'm not being critical of LetsRun here.  I wouldn't have done anything different.  In fact, despite the fact the anonymous poster I quoted above was probably trolling, the truth is that I felt pretty much the same.  I nodded my head and thought, "Not bad."  Not bad?!  In reality, I should have been ecstatic for him, but it's hard when your expectations are set way too high. 

Galen Rupp is right on track.  He's hitting the ball hard every time out there.  In baseball it can be hard to get excited about a routine single, but when a batter starts stringing a bunch of them together, good things happen. Maybe one of these hits will be a home run.  Maybe not.  But ultimately that won't matter.

If he can continue to smack out performances like these, we'll look up and wonder why we weren't more excited about Galen Rupp's breaking all the American Records.  And the only answer will be that we were too busy watching other people hit home runs, and he just didn't do it with a big enough swing.

By Bryan Green

Sometimes its amazing what we forget.

Chris Solinsky was one of the best we'd ever seen...how did we forget?

Back in 2002, Chris Solinsky won the Foot Locker Cross Country Championships by 20 seconds, tying Dathan Ritzenhein for the largest margin of victory ever.  He was just four seconds off the Balboa Park course record, and only two Olympians had ever run faster.  He was as dominant a high school athlete could be that season.

In an amazing coincidence, four of the athletes from that field would share the track with him at Payton Jordan, where he ran 26:59.60 to break Meb Keflezighi's nine year-old AR in the 10,000 meters and become the first non-African to go sub-27...in his debut!  Check out that Foot Locker field:

*Chris Solinsky - 1st (26:59.60, American Record)
*Galen Rupp - DNF (27:10.74, #2 all-time US)
*Tim Nelson - 18th (27:31.56, #10 all-time US)
*Robert Curtis - 3rd (27:33.38, #11 all-time US)
Garrett Heath - 6th (3:37/2010 IAAF World Indoors 1500m finalist)
Mohamed Trafeh - 7th (#3 all-time US half-marathon)
Stephen Pifer - 14th (3:57/13:33)
Neftalem Araia - 4th (13:44/2nd NCAA XC)
Matt Debole - 5th (13:36)

Four of the top 11 10,000 meter runners in US history were all in the same race together 8 years ago!  And look who still came out on top?

When you look at Chris Solinsky, it's hard to reconcile his solid physique with the times he's continued to put up along the way.  In high school he basically matched Ritz over 3200m, running 8:43.  In college he put up 3:37, 7:36.9, and 13:12.2, as good as any American collegiate runner ever.  And in his two years as a pro he's run 3:55 and improved from 5th to 2nd in the USA Outdoors 5000m.

When I wrote my Trade Values column I put Solinsky #41 (sigh) and wrote the following:

Some of you are probably saying, "What? Solinsky and Jager #40 and 41?!"  That's right.  It's not that they aren't fantastic, it's that they're not fantastic enough.  They are essentially 5k runners in a country that has Lagat, Ritz, and Teg ahead of them, and Rupp, Chris Derrick and German Fernandez all gaining fast.  Despite their amazing PR's, how can you rank them higher?

As usual the joke is on me.  I should have known better.  I should have looked at his past and realized Chris Solinsky has been the best at every level he's competed.  The funny thing is nobody called me out on it.  We all simply forgot.

Maybe it's because he came after the Class of 2001, which had the amazing trio of Ritz, Alan Webb and Ryan Hall.  Few athletes were as dynamic as Webb, who broke Jim Ryun's mile record, and Ritz set the standard for high school cross country runners with his two Foot Locker victories and his 3rd at World Junior Cross Country.  You could forgive fans for paying most of their attention to those three.

And it didn't help that Galen Rupp, the high school record breaker with the famous coach, came right after him, either.  Rupp would go on to set five high school and junior American Records, and seemed to create controversy and strong opinions due to his training situation.  More recently, and despite Solinsky's amazing performances, we've been enamored with German Fernandez, Chris Derrick, Evan Jager, Andrew Wheating and now Robby Andrews, our 'phenoms du jour', if you will.  

One person has done more to keep Chris Solinsky out of the spotlight than any other, however, and that's his training partner and former college teammate, Matt Tegenkamp.  For the past two and a half years Chris Solinsky has trained and raced against Teg, and Teg has simply had his number.  Like many fans, I got sucked into thinking of Chris Solinsky as being "not quite as good as Teg" and not "on an upward path and gaining on Teg".  

Chris Solinsky will always be remembered as the first non-African to go sub-27.

Something tells me nobody will be making that mistake again.  If there was ever any doubt before, Chris Solinsky must surely know that he is every bit as good as Teg (or Ritz, or Rupp, or (gasp), Lagat?).  We also know that, should they remain healthy and run the right races, we could see an amazing summer of distance running in this non-championship year.

Galen Rupp can surely run sub-27 in a race in which he doesn't lead much of the second half.  Ritz showed with his 12:56 that he can also break 27 on the right day.  And one has to suspect that Teg could approach 27 minutes as well should he ever choose to run the 10,000 meters.  (I know, I know, but a guy can dream, right?)  Even a healthy Abdi could no doubt challenge Solinsky's time.  

(And I'm just going to put this out there: would you really be that surprised if Ryan Hall did some speedwork and then ripped a monster 10,000 meters this summer?  With his insane base?  I certainly wouldn't be.)

The same can also be said for the 5,000 meters.  We may get to see a nice battle in this event sooner rather than later at the Prefontaine Classic.  Solinsky has said that he is training specifically for that 5000 meter race, and there is little doubt that a healthy Rupp would have just the extra motivation after this race to potentially let loose something fierce in front of his home crowd.  Who do you bet on, the guy coming in off the AR performance or the guy who effectively rabbited that performance and had his thunder stolen as a result?

I don't know what to expect from that race or the rest of the year, but one thing's for certain, I'll never forget Chris Solinsky's finish in that race at Payton Jordan.  I don't think we can call him the forgotten phenom any more.

Track and Field Videos on Flotrack

By Bryan Green

Last year when I wrote my 2009 NCAA Indoor Preview, I highlighted some of the records that went down during the indoor season and then wrote the following paragraph:

Then there's the quantity of fast times being run.  I took a look at the qualifying times for all events and saw an amazing statistic.  In field events, there were an average of 5.7 automatic qualifiers per event.  In sprints, there were only 4.0 autos, on average.  In the distance events, however, there were on average 9.2 auto qualifying marks per event, with an amazing 27 auto marks in the DMRs (which is the best indication for overall middle-distance strength).  And another 24 marks were within one second of the qualifiers.  And I didn't count anyone not entered in a race, like Fernandez and Rupp in the mile.  This is very much the result of so many races being run at the University of Washington and Notre Dame, which have large, fast tracks beneficial to distance runners.  But it's also likely the result of a general rise in the quality of distance running in the NCAA.

This year was even more impressive.  Field events saw an average of 7.1 auto qualifiers, sprints 4.6, and distances 7.0 based on this year's standards.  That's despite the fact that many standards were raised this year, including faster times in both DMRs, both miles, the women's 3000m, and the men's 60m, as well as tougher qualifiers in the women's long jump, pole vault, and pentathlon.  When last year's times are used instead of this year's, those numbers change to 7.6 for field, 5.1 for sprints, and 8.9 for distances.  And this year, there were 34 athletes within one second of the auto qualifier in the distances!

Average Auto-Qualifiers by Events (using '09 standards)

	2009	2010	Y/Y Change
Field	5.7	7.6	+33%
Sprints	4.0	5.1	+28%
Distances	9.2	8.9	-3%
Distance athletes +1 sec	24	34	+42%

As the table above shows, the overall quality in the NCAA continues to increase.  In the field events, the women's pole vault continues to improve, as well as men's and women's long jumps.  On the distance side, the slight decline is probably due to a number of teams qualifying last year in the DMR under questionable circumstances at the Notre Dame Invitational (only 10 ran sub-9:34 this year, as opposed to 27 last year, despite our glut of sub-4 milers).  All things considered, though, even the distances seem to have improved slightly this year. 

Before I get into the actual events, there are five questions I'll have in mind as I watch the meet this weekend:

Can anyone top Wheating?  Despite missing the fall due to injury, he opened with a smokin' 1:46.36 800m and followed it up with a dominant 3:58 mile.  The 2008 Olympic qualifier and reigning NCAA Outdoor 800m champ, it's hard to imagine anyone beating him.  With that said, he does tend to save it until the last possible moment to go for the win, and that could set him up for disappointment.  Similarly, it'll be interesting to see what he can do if he's anchoring the DMR for Oregon.  A big performance this weekend will solidify his status as the premiere talent in the NCAAs.

Can an Aussie win a title?  There are two very good possibilities in David McNeill and Ryan Foster.  Neither can be considered the favorite, despite McNeill's having the top times in both the 3000m and 5000m this season.  That's because he'll be facing Sam Chelanga (13:18i/27:28/NCAA XC champ last year) in the 5000m and a loaded field in the 3000m.  Foster has the unenviable task of trying to beat Andrew Wheating and a bunch of young upstarts (Greer, Mellon, Andrews) who didn't get the memo that running 1:47 isn't an easy thing to do.  I'd say the chances are about 33% that Australia takes home a title this weekend.

Can a freshman win a distance title?  I thought last year's freshman crop was amazing, but this year's might actually be stronger, at least in the middle distances.  With Rupp, Barringer and Kipyego running last year, there was little hope for a freshman to sneak a title, but Lacey Cramer managed to do it in the 800m.  This year, there are some stud middle distance freshman who just might have a chance.  Mac Fleet and Elijah Greer are ranked top-3 in the mile and 800m, respectively, for Oregon, as is Jordan Hasay in the mile (she's also entered in the 3000m).  In the 800m, we also have Robby Andrews of Virginia and Zach Mellon of Wisconsin.  It's unlikely any of them will end up atop the podium, but maybe they can surpass the total distance points earned by last year's freshmen (35, DMRs not included).

Bizzarri or Koll?  Bizzarri is the darling of the NCAA, having won the NCAA Outdoor 5000m, finished 3rd at the USATF Championships in the 5000m, and then somehow snuck a victory at the NCAA Cross Country Championships when Barringer and Kuijken faltered.  Her times aren't that impressive, but she always finds a way to win.  Koll had a down year last year due to injury, but is the American Collegiate 10000m record holder (32:11) and has run some smokin' fast times this season (8:56/15:29), both of which are much faster than Bizzarri's (or anyone else in the field's) personal bests.

Can UCLA win a DMR title?  Back in 1999, UCLA entered the NCAA Indoors with an unheralded team.  Jess Strutzel and Michael Granville were top 800 meter runners, and Mark Hauser was a 4-minute miler, so they were quite good.  But everybody was talking about Stanford and Arkansas.  Nobody gave Hauser much of a chance to hang on against the likes of Seneca Lassiter (Arkansas) or Michael Stember (Stanford) on the anchor.  They went on to set a then American Record 9:33.17 in the event.  This year's squad features a couple solid 800m guys (Cory Primm, Scott Crawford) and an unheralded 4-minute miler (Marlon Patterson) and they've already run faster than that 1999 squad ever did.  Could this be the year they rewrite history?

Now let's get to the events!

Women's 800m 

Top Returner:  Lacey Cramer, BYU (1st place)
Fastest Qualifier:  Phoebe Wright, Tennessee (2:01.47)
Favorite:  Phoebe Wright (2009 indoor runner-up, #1 qualifying time)
Other Notables:  LaTavia Thomas, LSU (2008 indoor champ), Chanelle Price, Tennessee (2:01 in high school)
Darkhorse:  Lea Wallace, Sacramento State (coached by my friend Scott Abbott, I'm pulling for Wallace or teammate Renisha Robinson!)
Did you know?  Phoebe Wright finished 3rd at USATF's last year but couldn't get the qualifying time to go to Berlin.

Prediction:  I think Wright is due for a big win.  She's been very good for a couple years, but hasn't put it all together on the right day.  This time she will.  Wright, Cramer, Beckwith, Thomas.

Men's 800m 

Top Returner:  Andrew Wheating, Oregon (2nd)
Fastest Qualifier:  Andrew Wheating (1:46.36)
Favorite:  Andrew Wheating (far and away)
Other Notables:  Ryan Foster, Penn State (8th outdoors, #2 qualifier), Chris Gowell (4th outdoors), Elijah Greer, Oregon (freshman is #3 qualifier, 1:47.33)
Darkhorse:  Robby Andrews, Virginia (the kid has a stellar kick, so hopefully he'll be within striking range)
Did you know?  Penn State qualified four men in the 800 meters!  That's nuts!

Prediction:  Wheating runs away with 200m to go.  Andrews, Foster and Greer both finish well, with freshmen taking tons of points in this event.  Wheating, Andrews, Foster, Greer.

Women's mile

Top Returner:  Pilar McShine, Florida State (4th)
Fastest Qualifier:  Charlotte Browning, Florida (4:31.24)
Favorite:  Charlotte Browning (the senior is 3 seconds faster than the #2 qualifier this year)
Other Notables:  Jordan Hasay, Oregon (frosh phenom, #3 qualifier), 
Darkhorse:  Nicole Schappert, Villanova (she'll be dangerous if she's got any more of that cross country mojo left from last year)
Did you know?  Charlotte Browning finished 8th at last year's indoor meet, and is the #2 returner behind FSU's McShine.

Prediction: Last year, I didn't believe Hasay would win her first NCAA title as a freshman (unless it was a DMR).  But this race is lining up well for her.  I think she's going to take the title.  McShine, Browning and Follett in 2nd through 4th, respectively.

Men's mile

Top Returner:  Lee Emanuel, New Mexico (1st)
Fastest Qualifier:  Lee Emanuel (3:57.62)
Favorite:  Lee Emanuel (do you really want to bet against a 25 year-old returning champion and #1 qualifier?)
Other Notables:  Mac Fleet, Oregon (frosh phenom, #2 qualifier), A.J. Acosta, Oregon (footlocker champ, 3:58), Jeff See, Ohio State (8th outdoors)
Darkhorse:  Ben Blankenship, Minnesota (he's young, sub-3:58, and won the Big 10)
Did you know?  22 men broke the 4-minute barrier this year indoors, but only 16 of them entered in the mile at NCAAs.  Notables who didn't enter the mile include Wheating, Dorian Ulrey (Arkansas), and Craig Miller (Wisconsin).

Prediction: Last year Emanuel ran away with the race from 600m out.  This year, he'll try to do that again, but he won't break away and it'll be a struggle to the end.  His experience will win out, however, and Emanuel will repeat as champion.  Following him will be See, Blankenship, and Fleet.

Women's 3000m 

Top Returner:  Angela Bizzarri, Illinois (4th)
Fastest Qualifier:  Lisa Koll, Iowa State (8:56.09)
Favorite:  Angela Bizzarri (but only because Koll is entered in the 5000m the night before)
Other Notables:  Sheila Reid, Villanova (#2 qualifier, 9:04.65); Bridget Franek, Penn State and Nicole Blood, Oregon (perennial NCAA scorers); Jordan Hasay (frosh phenom)
Darkhorse:  Marie Lawrence, Washington (known as a steepler, she has run well of late and could surprise)
Did you know?  This is my race of the meet.  I think it's 50/50 between Bizzarri and Koll, and there are a few other ladies plenty talented enough to sneak a victory.

Prediction: Koll tries to run away with it, but Bizzarri holds on and takes her third NCAA title.  Nicole Blood and Sheila Reid eat up Koll in the last lap and finish in that order.

Men's 3000m 

Top Returner:  Michael Coe, California (2nd)
Fastest Qualifier:  David McNeill, Northern Arizona (7:47.52)
Favorite:  David McNeill (he's got the resume and the time to warrant being favorite)
Other Notables:  Lee Emanuel (2009 mile champ); Dorian Ulrey, Arkansas (3:35 1500m); Craig Miller, Wisconsin (#2 returning miler, #2 qualifier); Brandon Bethke, Arizona State (sub-13:30)
Darkhorse:  Brandon Bethke (nobody talks about him, but he's been one of the top collegiate runners the past two years -- 3:59/7:51/13:27)
Did you know?  German Fernandez ran 7:51 indoors this year and was set to run in this race before twisting his ankle at his conference championships and having to withdraw.

Prediction:  This one's the hardest to predict (says the guy who no doubt failed to predict any of them correctly!).  I think McNeill will be hurting after his 5000m battle with Chelanga, opening the door for Coe to take it.  Miller will finish strong for 2nd, Bethke 3rd, and Ulrey a dissapointed 4th.  The times will all be within one second of each other.

Women's 5000m 

Top Returner:  Bridget Franek, Penn State (4th)
Fastest Qualifier:  Lisa Koll, Iowa State (15:29.65)
Favorite:  Lisa Koll (she's far and away the fastest in the field, and she'll be running fresh)
Other Notables:  Nicole Blood, Oregon (15:38 PR)
Darkhorse:  Janet Jesang, Western Kentucky (7th last year)
Did you know?  Lisa Koll's qualifying time is 22 seconds faster than any other athlete's in the field, and 9 seconds faster than Nicole Blood's personal best.  This is Koll's race to lose.

Prediction: A slow first half, before Koll gets impatient and throws the hammer down.  The top runners go with her, but she's too much for them, winning by half a lap.  Blood, Jesang, Franek take the next spots.

Men's 5000m 

Top Returner:  Sam Chelanga, Liberty (2nd)
Fastest Qualifier:  David McNeill, NAU (13:39.32)
Favorite:  Sam Chelanga (the guy ran 13:18/27:28 last year...he's the favorite)
Other Notables:  a lot of sophomores: Colby Lowe, Oklahoma State (#3 qualifier), Ryan Collins, Virginia (#4 qualifier), Elliott Heath, Stanford (#5 qualifier), Luke Puskedra, Oregon (6th last year as a freshman)
Darkhorse:  Colby Lowe (this kid is really really good, but runs under the exceedingly large shadow of German Fernandez at Oklahoma State)
Did you know?  Sam Chelanga has never won an NCAA track title.  Last year, Jenny Barringer finally won her first Big 12 title, because until last year Sally Kipyego dominated all of their races.  Chelanga has been in that same boat with athletes like Galen Rupp.  We'll see if this is the year he does it.

Prediction: This is my one big "darkhorse for the victory" prediction.  I think Chelanga and McNeill will size each other up for most of the race, allowing a few guys with less top-end speed to hang around.  Colby Lowe will be one of them, and he'll hang on just long enough to take down both McNeill and Chelanga in a helluva last lap.  Lowe, McNeill, Chelanga, Heath.

Women's Distance Medley Relay 

Top Returner:  Tennessee (1st, in World Record time)
Fastest Qualifier:  Oregon (10:59.64)
Favorite:  Oregon (but I don't think Tennessee or Villanova are that far off)
Other Notables:  Villanova (#2 qualifier), Georgetown (#4 qualifier)
Darkhorse:  BYU (they only qualified with an 11:10, but they could have an NCAA 800m champ anchoring them...they just need to stay close)
Did you know?  Tennessee lost their superstar anchor, Sarah Bowman, who graduated last year.  They have the top two 800m qualifiers (Wright and Price), but their team isn't nearly as strong on paper this year.

Prediction: The top three teams--Oregon, Villanova and Tennessee--are very strong on both the front and back ends of this relay.  They should be able to gain some separation from the rest of the pack.  Then it all comes down to who anchors.  If it's Wright, I think Tennessee wins.  If it's not, I think Reid has the best shot to take down the field.  Should be a great race.  I'm going with Tennessee, Villanova, Oregon as my top three, with BYU sneaking up for 4th.

Men's Distance Medley Relay 

Top Returner:  Oregon (1st)
Fastest Qualifier:  Oregon (9:29.82)
Favorite:  Oregon (they have so many middle distance runners it's scary)
Other Notables:  Arkansas (2nd last year, Ulrey anchoring), California (3rd last year, Coe anchoring), Stanford (#2 qualifier)
Darkhorse:  UCLA (#3 qualifier flying completely under the radar)
Did you know?  The top 5 qualifiers are all from the Pac 10 conference.  

Prediction: It's so hard to know what team Oregon will actually put out there.  If Wheating anchors, I think Oregon wins.  Oregon, Arkansas, Cal, UCLA.  If Wheating doesn't anchor, I'm going to go with Ulrey or Coe taking their teams to victory in a big last lap.  Arkansas, Cal, Oregon, UCLA.

By Bryan Green

If there's one thing I really like about Doug Logan, CEO of USATF, it's that he writes a pretty consistent blog and isn't afraid to address the major issues.  His latest post tackles the issue of capturing "the moment" at a live sporting event.  He defines a "moment" as "that point in the contest that you experience a catch in your breath, a pure emotional reaction, a feeling you are blessed to be there to bear witness, or, in the case of a television viewer, a regret that you weren't there."  That's the same thing I felt was lacking when I wrote that there were no "bona fide scream-out-loud-while-you-watch-your-TV moments" in track and field. 

Of course, capturing "the moment" at a football game is much easier than doing so at a track meet.  In most sports, you essentially follow the ball.  I'd bet that 90% of "moments" in sports occur within a close proximity to the ball.  Track is like a three-ring circus, though.  If you're watching the track, it's hard to follow the jumps and throws, and vice versa.  That's part of what makes it great.  But capturing that for a live audience, let alone a television audience, is no easy task.

But that's not to say it can't be done.  Scott Davis, longtime announcer at the Mt. SAC invitational and UCLA home meets has an uncanny knack for making every event at a track meet feel like the most important event of the year.  And while it might just be their accents, I feel like British commentators elevate the quality of a TV broadcast the way Americans don't. 

Even in Britain, however, the broadcasts have their issues.  Logan himself called out a short list of deficiencies in track and field television coverage:

"We are locked into a television "look and feel" that is archaic and flat, leaving many of our broadcasts looking like a piece of evidentiary documentation rather than a live drama. There is way too much superfluous talking during our broadcasts. We have incidences where we miss the "moment" completely, or it is masticated by an editor in the production of an event that is tape-delayed. The emotional reaction of the live crowd is rarely conveyed to the viewer."

As a distance running fan, this reminds me of the many times I've been brought into a distance race for the last lap (or worse, long after the race has been decided), given a cursory acknowledgment of the key runners in the field, and then been expected to appreciate the performance of the winner.  Then again, I don't have much to complain about compared to the throws and jumps fans.  They really get screwed on TV.

The best thing about Logan's article, actually, are the many comments he received.  I thought I'd sift through them and rank order them based on my own personal prioritization.  Not all will directly lead to capturing "the moment", but they'll improve the broadcasts as a whole.  On that note, Logan mentions that "how much [money] we can and should commit is under consideration."  Hopefully this article (and any comments our great readers provide) will assist to that end.

The Top TV Broadcast Improvements as Suggested by USATF Commenters

1.  Split-screens (by Alan)

My #1 wish.  I've been arguing for this forever.  The technology has been around for ages (hello 1960s), and with today's HD 3D 1080p uber-TVs, the small screen would probably be bigger and clearer than the TV I grew up with.  Let's just get this done already.

2.  Real-time leaderboard results and splits/paces (by Brad):

I've written often about my desire for real-time results and splits.  The ability to translate those into paces is a great idea, too. 

The real-time leaderboard could be a huge value-add, too.  Right now I'm picturing a little sidebar that pops out on the right of the screen that provides updates on every event.  It can be 400m splits in the case of a running event, or an update on rankings based on each round of a field event.  It could be a ticker that never leaves, or it could come out every 10 minutes or so with updates.  It might not capture any "moments", but it certainly would help keep fans in the loop on what's going on.

3.  Show all finishers, not just the winner and then the winner kissing the track (by Tom):

I love this one.  The best battles are often for 2nd and 3rd, let alone 5th.  If there's some secret group of fans who want to see winners kissing tracks, well, that sounds like a great use for a split-screen!

4.  Reduce inane and superfluous commentary by broadcasters (by Tom & Ken):

We can call this "The Carol Lewis Solution".  It's hard to capture a "moment" when the announcers are too busy yapping on about inane topics or giving the kind of fluffy generic commentary that even casual fans take for granted ("Running an 800 meters really takes it all out of you."  Yeah, no shit.).  If you can set the right stage, the event can sell itself.  The major quality missing in most of our broadcasts is the ability of commentators to "understate" the event.  To set it up and then just let it play out.

I'm reminded of the Vancouver Olympics, an event that is designed with the sole purpose of creating and broadcasting "moments".  During the women's figure skating long program, Kim Yu Na entered the rink with everything to lose.  She went out and performed a flawless routine that was simply stunning.  The best part, though?  The announcers just let us watch, only giving a few, "triple triple combination coming up" comments.  It wasn't until her final spin, the cherry on top of her giant "moment" sundae, that any actual commentary was added.  And it was this: "That may have been the best performance I have ever seen in an Olympic Games."

Thank goodness they didn't ruin it by talking over it.

5.  Field events need to show more than top 2-3 athletes and their top marks (by Mark):

I totally agree with this, but in reality, the problem is in the events themselves, not the TV coverage.  It can take all day for a pole vault competition to end.  This screams out for a split-screen solution, so that jumps/throws are constantly being shown, even if not on the main picture.  I would add that instead of just showing the jumps, showing one jump overlayed on another would give some interesting perspective on the difference in form, the relative height each athlete gets, etc.  Again, the technology is out there.

6.  Don't interview athletes just after they've finished competing (by Randy & Tom): 

Doesn't this just annoy you?  It bothers me to no end.  Even on their best days, there are only three or four athletes with any personality anyway.  Now you want them to answer questions while their brains are recovering from oxygen debt?  It's no wonder nobody's said anything interesting in one of these interviews since ... um ... never?

7.  Drop metric measurements.  It's like having a German speaking announcer (by Don):

This obviously isn't directed at the track.  Nobody wants to be told we're watching the 109.36 yard dash.  But I totally agree that the field events need to consistently and frequently refer to the distances in terms of feet and inches for all jumps and throws.  I'm a track fan and I still need it.

I listed a few other ideas in my Ten TV Tips for Track article: using side angles for jumps, using augmented reality technology to show throw trajectories and field distances, showing more comprehensive results and using graphics better, and doing away with some of the build-up for sprints (I'd argue it's okay to do that build-up, but the TV should be showing field events with the sprinter introductions happening in the split screen), and the really big one: pronouncing people's names correctly.  There are at least 10-20 improvements that can be made to the TV presentation, and what can't be shown there could always be shown at a later date on the Internet.  We're long past the time for excuses.

***************

There were many other great ideas offered in the comments.  Creating teams with salary caps, creating a North American series of meets, allowing athletes to have logos on their uniforms a la NASCAR, and focusing more money on general promotion than on the broadcasts themselves.  There were also comments that echoed Logan's with regard to the need for better technology, better lighting, more cameras, etc, at the venues themselves.  These are all issues for a separate column, however, and may or may not have a viable place in USATF's future.

I'll end by saying I'm glad that Logan and the USATF are taking this seriously.  We do need to do a much better job of capturing track and field's "moments".  I believe we'll get there.  As with any problem, the first step is admitting it's there.  Now that USATF's done that, I hope the next step is making some changes.

By Bryan Green

People are easily distracted.  Sometimes these distractions are convenient, like when we have writer's block and the Olympics are on.  Sometimes we see something irrelevant but simply can't take our eyes off it, like the annoying haircuts on the men's ice dancers.  And other times we get taught to focus on something that simply doesn't matter as much as we make it seem.

When it comes to talent, many of us fall victim to this last type of distraction.  We spend our time and energy wondering, evaluating, and debating how much talent an individual has.  Threads like this German vs Dathan thread at LetsRun attract an inordinate amount of passionate arguments.  It doesn't help that we don't have clear definitions, we use multiple words with multiple meanings, and that our attempts at measuring talent are stuck using proxies.

I think everyone intuitively understands the idea of "talent".  It's natural, it's innate, it's genetic (if you're East African, etc)...you know, either you have it or you don't.  But there are three other aspects of how we view talent that create problems for us.  First, talent is understood to be the key defining factor that enables someone to be the best in the world.  If we assume that others are working just as hard as Bekele, then the only thing that can be separating him is his talent.  Let's just say that's a big assumption.

Second, we associate talent with being a purely physical quality.  It's very rare that someone includes such factors as toughness, pain tolerance, discipline, passion, commitment, and coolness under pressure in a discussion about talent.  Yet the ability to get up and train everyday at an elite level for years and years while staying motivated and committed is surely harder for some than it is for others. 

(We also don't talk about durability in most discussions of talent.  Talent takes on a meaning equivalent to: potential to run a given time.  But isn't the ability to do the necessary training in the first place a factor?  We don't talk about this or mental stuff because it's fluffy, it's intangible, we can't measure it.  But that leads me to the third problem.)

We don't have any foolproof way of measuring talent, either mental or physical.  The only real approach we have is to look at the subset of people who've achieved at an extremely high level and then label them "talented".  This creates its own issues:

• we miss out on anyone who hasn't achieved enough to show up on our radars;
• we can't compare people at different stages in their careers;
• we (usually) can't compare what two athletes have done to achieve their marks;
• and the big one, we can never assume that what they have achieved is what they are capable of achieving.

In the first case, it probably doesn't matter.  There might be 100 other Germans and Dathans out there.  I don't believe there's some Outliers-esque selection bias happening in running.  We may miss out on a few, but I think we're probably identifying much of our top talent.  The other three problems are more relevant, in my opinion. 

Ritz and German are separated by about a decade.  You would think this fact alone would stop people from comparing Ritz's 12:56 with German's 13:25 or 3:55.  But a lot of people confuse talent with ability.  Ability changes over time, based on your years of training.  Yes, 12:56 tells us something about Ritz's talent, that at a minimum, Ritz can reach that level.  And German's 13:25 and 3:55 tell us that, at a minimum, German can achieve those marks.  But that's it, and that's not much.

Even if we try to compare two athletes when they were in high school, we (usually) don't have enough information to make our case.  In some cases, two great runners have come from the same program and can be more or less compared.  But how can we compare Ritz's experience in Michigan to German's in California (or to another favorite, Alan Webb's in Virginia, or soon, Lukas Verzbicas's in Illinois)?  They weren't doing the same workload, workouts, or afterschool work. 

Finally, races and PRs are not measurements of potential.  They may give us some clues, but they are ultimately just indications of progress at any specific point in time.  My PR today may become my lifetime PR, or it may just reflect how good I was on that day in that year.  Even after an athlete retires, their PRs won't necessarily have reflected their potential.  There's no way to know. 

The whole discussion is a distraction.  It's a distraction because there's no substance.  It's irrelevant.

Psychologist Bernard Weiner identified four broad categories to which we can attribute our success (or failure).  These are talent, effort, the difficulty of the task, and luck.  As you can see in the diagram they can be classified by whether they are internal or external, and whether they are constant or variable. 

Talent is internal and constant, it never changes.  Effort is internal and variable, it can be increased or decreased at any given time.  Task difficulty is external and constant, a mile is always a mile, a workout is a workout, and you don't usually get to choose who is in your race.  And luck is external and variable, it changes at random.

There is one more factor that matters, however.  That is what we can call "controllability".  Do you have any control over the attribute and if so, in what way?  Of the four, the only one we have direct control over is our effort (in blue).  You can't control something that doesn't change, so talent and task difficulty are what they are.  And while there are benefits to understanding your task difficulty, those are only realized through focused effort, and so should be attributed there.  As for luck, with apologies to Louis Pasteur, we don't really have any control over that either. 

What this means is that when we focus on talent, we are focusing on something that's internal, constant and out of our control.  And not only that, it can't be measured and it's only part of the equation that results in becoming an elite athlete.  So why do we focus on talent instead of effort?  Why is it so easy to get caught up in the talent distraction?

First of all, talent is equated with destiny.  If you are talented, and you pursue that talent to its extreme, you are living a narrative that many people naturally relate to.  German and Dathan may be great at other things, but they were born to run.  We like that and it turns their stories into dramas.  Will they fulfill their God-given promise?  Or will the story be a tragedy?

The second reason we focus on talent rather than effort is that effort is so opaque.  Runners do different mileage, different workouts, in different environments, with different teammates and different coaches, in different eras, and none of them share that information in a clear, easy to understand way.  Perhaps this will change someday with the advent of some new technologies and incentive structures, but probably not.  How much would Bekele have to be paid to have his every workout inputted and analyzed by this mythical service?

Ultimately, as it stands, debating about an athlete's effort is just as speculative as debating their talent.  Personally, though, I'd rather see us debate effort--specifically training methods, lifestyle choices and decision-making--as there is an opportunity to learn something from the debate. 

I'm not sure that will ever catch on, though.  I think this is one distraction many fans just aren't looking to lose. 

 

 

Share on Facebook
 

 

 

'Hills are speedword in disguise '
Frank Shorter