Comments on: PAID TO LOSE!

By: Dan Graettinger

Dan Graettinger — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:02:36 +0000

I disagree completely! I have seen far too many distance races where the runners practically jog until the last lap or two and then it becomes an all-out sprint to the finish. If I wanted to see people run one fast lap, I’d watch the 400! This overemphasis on winning/placing works to the detriment of solid performance. We’ve all seen races where a runner with a great kick takes the lead in a race and then deliberately slows the pack down in order to set himself up for his winning kick. This is why so many people appreciated Steve Prefontaine’s style of running. He didn’t respect any win that didn’t involve running as fast as you could. When I was running, I didn’t care about winning. I cared about challenging myself to run better and better. What’s the point of winning if you didn’t push yourself the whole way??!!

By: Jason Mayeroff

Jason Mayeroff — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:55:18 +0000

Pat, you have a lot to say, but yes times do matter. A lot of athletes, such as myself, don’t have a chance to win a championship of any kind, so for myself, I just want to run as fast as possible.

By: hillcruiser

hillcruiser — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:32:43 +0000

I believe there’s a role for rabbits in our sport. While I agree that rabbits in record attempts shouldn’t be allowed, they’re necessary in non-championship and record attempt races to make the ‘racing’ longer than 200m. There were several good examples of this from last weekend’s Pre meet. Yes, I realize Barringer set a collegiate record. Aside from that the rabbits made the races very interesting throughout.

By: Bruce La Belle

Bruce La Belle — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:38:57 +0000

Amby raises good points about what the audience wants. What goes unsaid is why the audience wants what it wants and whether it has changed over the years. Was Bolt’s performance better than Bekele’s or Wanjiru’s? It was much easier for an announcer to cover a 10 second straight-ahead event than the subtle chess game played by the distance stars. Remember the Ryun/Liquori mile duel? Would that get major coverage today? We need announcers who understand the sport and who can excite the audience. Perhaps use a horseracing announcers with their infectious enthusiasm, instead of a major sports announcer who normally cover events that happen in ten second increments. Highlight the subtle surges, the efforts to box in the favorite, a runner patiently relaxing on the rail, or working hard on the outside in order to stay out of trouble, bumping elbows to get out of box or to throw the smooth gliding runner off stride. Post-race articles could do more to dramatize the subtle but effective moves that helped decide the race. A sit-and-kick runner only wins if they are still in contention coming off the last curve.

By: Junior

Junior — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:32:13 +0000

Drop the pacers and let the participants regulate themselves. The idiosyncrasies of the events and diversity of the athletes should be allowed to shine. If someone wants to sit and kick, then someone with Pre’s spirit of running will make him pay and if nobody does then “so be it”. But to regulate it? Watching Pre’s Classic this weekend it did seem a little silly and sophomoric to watch the pace setters hop off the track (I would like to see them at least finish the race, that is a suitable sacrifice), but it also seemed silly that Kiprop’s teammate watched him cheer the last 100m instead of blasting by him. (A personal comment, ie insult about one of the previous posters has been edited out, but the rest of this seems fair comment - Pat)

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:58:52 +0000

To me, its ideal if there was no pacing in races, but it can be tough in some cases to prove that someone was actually paced. As far as the fast-time advantages, even if a 14 minute 5k runner paced me, I would not come anywhere close to that time unless I was picked up and dragged along. In other words, you’ve got to be able to do the pace in order to achieve the time.
Also, if one competitor has a pacer, all other competitors in the field can utilize that pacer and key off of their pace if they so choose. Therefore, I say, don’t make it against the rules to use a pacer.

By: David Black

David Black — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:56:04 +0000

Seems to me that paced races are often real races, not simply time trials. Once the rabbit drops off, the race goes on, after all. And having a rabbit will spread the field, minimize congestion, allow more runners to avoid running extra distance by hugging the rail. I watched the Prefontaine meet, where the women’s 1500 and men’s 3000, both rabbited, were real races and full of excitement for the fans. If these races had gone unrabbited, it’s easy to imagine them diminished. Didn’t the Weltklasse meet experiment recently with going rabbitless, and then backtrack? I think a crucial distinction is between good rabbits and not-so-good rabbits. I enjoy seeing a rabbit hit his/her requested splits on the nose before stepping aside to let the racers through.

By: Al

Al — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:59:19 +0000

Lots of good points, but I don’t think this article addresses the “evil” pacing is intended to address, which are (comparatively) slow jogs for most of a race followed by a kick at the end. Many spectators find this kind of race boring and don’t feel like they are seeing the athletes really exert themselves (which may not necessarily be true, but that’s the perception). Using rabbits is an attempt to force athletes to run harder for the whole race, to put on a better show, and make the spectators feel like they got their money’s worth instead of watching runners punching a time clock and putting in their time at the office. If the result of getting rid of pacing was to create more sit-and-kick races, it would likely further harm the popularity of the sport.

Eric Sontag makes some interesting suggestions, but I would be afraid that spectators would perceive in-race bonuses as gimmicks. Bonuses would be fun every once in a while as a stunt or based on some unique quality of the race (like the Bay to Breakers hill bonus), but its hard to see how it could be a regular rule. For example, I can’t see it working at an amateur (NCAA, etc.) or Olympic level where there isn’t prize money.

By: Marc Bloom

Marc Bloom — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:59:48 +0000

Pat,
I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve been saying the same for years. I think rabbits spoil track and marathon alike, make every race into more of a time trial and record hunt than a true competition, and lead “fans” away from the people running and more on the stopwatch. I was thrilled when Mary W at the NYRR cut rabbits from the NYC Marathon. Also, I think we belittle the great runners we have by saying they are not good enough to handle the pace, they need help from B-level runners to guide them through. The rabbits leaving track make the sport look like so amateurish and contrived. And if our stars want to dally around a slow pace and then just kick home, it will catch up with them: they will lose performance bonuses, some of the best will always get caught napping and realize they have to run differently and maybe won’t be invited back (or get the appearance fees) next time around. This whole thing goes back to TV, and it’s a bit of a nature or nurture argument regarding fan expectation.

By: Jim Gerweck

Jim Gerweck — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:57:35 +0000

Paul-

I agree w/ you entirely. I’ve often maintained that the decline in public interest in T&F coincided w/ the increased emphasis on records & times.

I agree w/ Amby that such an emphasis was what the public wants - or at least wanted. But now that they’ve switched their desire to fast times from great races, they find the chance of satisfying that desire less and less likely, so they tend to lose interest ever faster.

I make the analogy w/ baseball. During the steroid era just (hopefully) past, the emphasis was on home runs and lots of scoring. Now if fans don’t see a 10-9 game they feel cheated. The ability to appreciate a 1-0 pitchers’ duel is virtually nonexistent, and a 5-4 game, even if it’s full of strategic moves like bunts, hit & runs, steals is considered boring by most current-day fans.

There is, sadly, probably no way to turn back the clock to the old days, but I still look forward to championship meets where there’s a huge pack together at the bell with half a dozen men w/ a chance to win rather than a paced record effort w/ only the smallest possibility of achieving its goal.