a) Go as fast as you can to gain as large winning buffer as possible?
b) Go only as fast as necessary to maintain a comfortable gap and ensure a win?
c) Get cocky and put on a "show" for the spectators?
I'm guessing your answer will be "it depends" because it depends on so many things, like how hard the course is, the length of race, how long will it take to recover…when is my next race, what are the rewards, what is at stake, motivation and more. At the end of the day they only hand out first prize to the first person across the line, so the consummate professional athlete might look to minimise risks and get the job done…albeit without much spark or pizzaz. It would be a little like watching Roger Federer toy with some hapless qualifier in the early rounds; dour but effective.
However, if I was watching from the sidelines the purist in me would love to see an athlete stretch themselves to demonstrate the range and extent of their capabilities and talent; to put on a show of relative excellence as they clear away from the field. It’s a show of quality rather than a cocky show-off, where spectators can watch, see and appreciate an athlete at the top of their game. Think of someone like the late Sammy Wanjiru clearing away from the field in the Beijing Olympics marathon – all class while going as fast as he can.
Therein lies the contrast between going as fast as your can, or as fast as you need…the scenario will usually dictate which course an athlete ultimately takes. There’s a lot more factors which might contribute to a performance decision which eventually plays out in front of the (paying) public…if not through tickets then through their support of sponsors being promoted by athletes.
The ability to be successful by only going as fast as you need is self-fulfilling…allowing athletes to race frequently, winning prizes and keeping their sponsor’s product(s) front and centre. These athletes learn the art and skill of self-preservation, and it’s all seemingly ideal until the athlete is shown up and put in a situation where they actually do need to go as fast as they can in order to be competitive, which at the very least upsets their routine and more likely is a wake-up call.
Only going as fast as you need can be somewhat of a comfort zone, where the only problem is that these athletes may not reach or achieve the full extent of their talent or abilities. It's a bit like someone who races consistently well but who misses the high peaks of an athlete who sacrifices some performance because of the bigger goal event - and performance - later on, when they do indeed need to race as fast as they can. It takes courage to plan long-term like this where the implied reason is the rewards (and stakes) of the goal event exceed the benefit of multiple "small time" successes.
Case in point is the IM circuit - and to an extent the ITU circuit however the World Championship Series has changed that - where there are literally dozens of IM races around the world...but only one that really counts...Kona. There are multiple athletes capable of winning multiple IM races each year - and some do - which, as mentioned, serves them well in a career as professional athletes who are maximising and protecting their earning capability. The IM circuit has really only become a rough / loose form guide for Kona because there are so many different place getters...some of whom may not even bother with Kona because they know that even to go as fast as they can won't be competitive.
But once you're in Kona racing as a pro, then there are a lot of athletes planning a race strategy to hopefully get them their best placing possible. All these athletes know that the most important time to be leading the race is in Alii Dve, which brings me to analysis of top-10 historical race split times. By analysis I'm not talking averages or standard deviations, but what it shows in terms of when it's most important to be fastest in the race, to go as fast as you can.
The swim is for ego and glamour. None of the top-10 ever fastest men's swim times ever finished in the top-10 overall, a bit like the fun runner who sprints at the start but fizzles by the first corner. The top-10 ever fastest women swim times does includes several top-10 overall finishers, but that is where it ends. The truism stands - you won't win an IM in the swim, but you can lose it.
Onto the bike and the top-10 ever fastest men does include some winners - and podium finishers - although not necessarily in the year they won or placed in the event. This bears out the pattern of uber-bikers trying to set up a winning lead off the bike, but who mostly failed. Notwithstanding that, the fastest bike riders does closely relate to top-10 overall place getters.
The top-10 ever women bike riders almost reads like a winner's roll-call, with only a few exceptions. That is, most of the women who rode top-10 ever bike splits also won the race reflecting a greater level of consistency across the race than the men achieve.
Then we get to the run, where another truism comes to the fore - especially for the men - that the ride is for show, and the run is for dough. Six of the top-10 ever men's run splits won the race. Women's run split patterns are similar but less decisively weighted in run split order. 5 of the top-10 ever women's run splits won the race.
The common element is that the run is no place to be holding back, where you need to go as fast as you can to close out the race.
Having written all this, I'm certainly not meaning to pass judgement on whether or why athletes might only go as fast as they need rather than as fast as they can, or if in fact this is the case. A win is a win, and in a world where you're only as good as your last race, a solid win ranks higher than a sparkle and pop poor result. And there will always be different opinions depending on the perspective you have of what is important. For me, I love witnessing the pursuit and execution of individual perfection, something that I associate with going as fast as you can.
No comments:
Post a Comment