Optimal Training

Running the Rounds: Small thoughts about Big stories

This past week has been filled with big stories, so I took a look at what I consider to be five of the more interesting ones in my recent column for Runner's Tribe, Running the Rounds.  Which five stories did I cover?

1. Really, does Tyson Gay stand a chance?
2. Multiple drug busts in Russia (of course)...but Jamaica, too?
3. Anna Willard chooses 1500m over steeple?
4. Geb, Wanjiru and Hall are running...where?
5. Alan Webb ends his season?

Hidden within I make the case that athletes not competing head-to-head isn't all that bad, that one athlete is the best in the US right now (and you might be surprised who it is), and that the difference between medaling in the 1500m and steeple is kind of a paradox.

Read more here.

Another look at the Pre Classic women's 1500m

I'm a little late in catching this article about Jenny Barringer in the USA Today.  As you know, I ranked her as the most valuable distance runner in the US prior to the outdoor season, and she most certainly did not disappoint.  She broke six collegiate records, won a US championship, and has to be considered a threat to medal at the World Championships.

She lost only one race during the year--the 1500m at the Pre Classic--but it was such a breakthrough and took place on such a big stage that it will always be the race that defined her senior season.  I was as amazed as anyone that she broke the 4-minute barrier--she clocked 3:59.90--and gave Gelete Burka a run for her money, but I think it was clear even before the race that she'd be equal to her American counterparts, all of whom broke 4:04.

So why did Barringer, an athlete who I don't believe is any more tough or talented than Anna Willard, Shannon Rowbury and Christin Wurth-Thomas, leave them in the dust in that race?  I'd argue it was her mindset going into the race, which was wholy about competing and not about time.  As she says in the USA Today article:

I went to a place of competition within myself that needed to be found and needed to come out. I just totally let go of splits and was competitive.

When you rewatch the race (embedded below), take a look at where each athlete positioned themselves during the race.  What you see is Jenny Barringer moving up to 4th at 800m and staying close to the front on that third lap--splits be damned--while Willard seemed to take a look at the clock and hold back, saving something for her kick.  (It should be noted that Rowbury ran a great race, but simply didn't have it at the finish.)  I noticed this during the race as my friend Scott and I both thought she was running a pretty risky race.

Neither Willard nor Wurth-Thomas ran poorly.  They just ran safe.  They had an idea of how fast they could run, of what they could split, and they constantly measured their performances throughout the race.  Barringer didn't do that.  She blasted through 800m close to her personal best, and simply willed herself to stay in contention.  A lot of that must be due to the confidence she'd gained throughout the year. But another part of it is the willingness to fail, to go for it without guarantee of success. 

Maybe I'm oversimplifying the race, but you can't tell me there was any difference between Willard and Barringer that day in terms of fitness, confidence or race-sharpness.  The difference was that Willard raced the clock and her competitors, while Barringer simply raced her competitors.  The irony is that it's often by ignoring the clock entirely that you beat it most soundly.

The Bias of Now

Roger Federer's 15th grand slam title inspired my most recent article at Runner's Tribe.  I take a look at record breaking performances, and explain why I think we overvalue them when compared with great performances of the past.  A snippet:

Records are made to be broken.  But not only are they always broken, they are always broken Now.  And the immediacy of such an event makes it hyper-relevant to us, and consequently renders past records that much less relevant.

I call this the Bias of Now.  It's easy to watch an athlete do something that we've never seen before and get the feeling that it couldn't have been done before.  Roger Federer's success is one example, but every sport has them.  Tiger Woods, LeBron James, Joey Chestnut.  Same thing goes for running.  The day Alan Webb broke Steve Scott's AR for the mile, Scott's legacy became a little blurrier.  Not fair, but it's just the way it is.  Alan Webb was Now.  The new Now  appears to be German Fernandez.

Look at how gaga people are going--myself included, I admit--over German Fernandez.  German has broken a number of records in his young career, and with each one his pedestal as the "next greatest runner" is lifted ever higher.  But when you look back at those records, all we can remember is the act of his breaking them.  While we live and breathe his performance, the one he surpassed has become little more than a stat on a sheet.  We simply don't remember just how special those past performances were now that they aren't "the best ever". 

Of course, the problem of "best ever" never really goes away.  I just don't think it's something that can really be determined.  So in it's place, I propose a new qualification.  Read more about it here.

Fam and "Win/Win" racing

An interesting blog post by Anthony Famiglietti is stirring up quite the discussion about both him and his racing tactics.  You'll remember he led the first half of the USATF Championships 5000m, and ran a big sprint to move from 8th to 1st mid-race, before ultimately finishing out of contention and not making the USA team.  I've included the video of the race below.

I looked at the race this way.  Fam came in with the top time.  He likes to run from the front and he felt he would be strong enough to hold off enough competitors to qualify for Berlin whether he led or not.  Ultimately, however, the wind took its toll, he struggled, and he didn't qualify.

Fam says he took the approach because it is a "win/win".  He describes it like so:

Coming into the US championships this year with complete freedom and this philosophy in mind I decided to attack the race this year with a win-win approach. I had been training all year at a very high level setting myself up with races and workouts that would lend to a front running style to put me in a position to push from the front of a race and run a great time. I knew the other side of the coin to this strategy would be if their was heavy wind slowing my pace and the field came with me I'd drag the race to a faster time and give the other athletes a chance to kick off my pace making it more competitive. I would become a pace maker for the race so to speak. Unfortunately I personally did not fully achieve what I was aiming for. However, those in the race did run closer to the A standard time on a windy day, one athlete set a junior 5k record and I'm sure there were some nice PRs across the board. It was win-win. I did my part in raising U.S. running a bit. It's a start and I hope others take the cue to do the same from time to time and challenge each other in this way. We'll all benefit as a whole and US running will raise to a new standard of excellence and performance. Hopefully gone are the days of guys chasing A standards and falling short by seconds. I think the future will hold many athletes running well below A standard times here in the US as competition and expectations are raised to a new standard.

I think the post was written on the wrong side of the race, unfortunately.  Had he written something similar prior to the race, he might not be taking so much flack. Genuine or not, his analysis comes off more like a rationalization than a clear-cut motivation.  However, let's take him at his word, because I do believe Fam has been a predominately genuine individual throughout his career.  He puts himself out there, and that's why I enjoy watching him race and why his successes and failures can seem so acute.

I think Fam's overall message is spot-on.  He is a two-time Olympian racing in an off-event, and he felt it was worth the risk to try and do it "his" way.  There's nothing wrong with this at all.  The fact that he didn't qualify might bother his sponsor and it might bother his most passionate supporters (both of whom are no doubt frustrated by his tactics), but success can be about more than just how you perform relative to your competition.  How you performed relative to your own abilities is a perfectly valid measurement of your performance.  I wrote about norm-referenced and self-referenced success at length in The Long and Short of Excellence.

Ultimately, Fam isn't content to settle for norm-referenced excellence (winning races, making teams, etc.).  He's after something more elusive: self-referenced success (running PRs, executing perfectly, realizing his potential, etc.).  Guys like Rupp and Teg are still focused on the former, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It's the stage they're at in their careers.  Guys like Pre focused on the latter, but were fortunate to have the norm-referenced success to legitimize their approach in our norm-referenced society.  Fam will no doubt be kicking himself for his poor execution, but I doubt he'll ever seriously question the actual approach.  Good for him.

As for raising the level of US distance running, I'm torn.  He certainly raised the entertainment factor for the fans, which is appreciated.  And he definitely made the race a little more honest.  But I'm not sure athletes are ever going to follow his lead and run pedal-to-the-metal from the gun at championship races.  And I'm not sure they should.  I'll settle for seeing more athletes take more risks in general, however.  I'm tired of seeing people who can't win kicker's races not going earlier, for example.  The ironic thing about Fam doing it is that he's one of the few guys who doesn't need to. 

Fam is still learning.  It's no doubt a big reason he's approached this season the way he has.  It's a journey of self-discovery.  But just because that journey brings out his flaws for all to see, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a valid lesson to teach us all: that losing isn't usually the worst thing that can happen to you.  That would be lying awake at night second-guessing why you didn't give it your all.

Ten Tips for Track and Field Coverage on TV

From my most recent article published at Runner's Tribe:

I realized something about track and field on Sunday.  There are no bona fide scream-out-loud-while-you-watch-your-TV moments.

Contrast that with nearly any other championship sporting event and you see the problem.  People watch sports because it's the most authentic form of entertainment on television.  It's unscripted.  Anything can happen at any time.  Track isn't exactly different in this respect, but the way it's presented doesn't capture that aspect of the sport .  Case in point: When Jenny Barringer made her big move in the women's steeplechase, we were in commercial.  Outside of a neck-and-neck sprint finish, when the athletes choose to make their moves in a distance race is the whole distance race !  Instead we saw an infomercial.

Jesse Squire at The Track and Field Superblog nailed it when he said, "It's like they finish every meet saying 'Thank God that's over' instead of 'What could we do better?'"  It's sad because it's true.

Well, here are ten tips on what television broadcasts could do better.  I'm sure I'm scraping the surface here, but I think the following changes would dramatically increase track and field's entertainment factor.  And the great thing is, where the suggestions are technology based, it all pretty much exists in other sports.

For my ten tips and their explanations, click here!