Specific 2k Pacing (Per 500m)

[RowtheRockies]

Mike,

I am certainly not an ExPhys however I have to agree with Carl and Doug to some extent on the following point:

You know, over the years I’ve gone round-and-round with both coaches and athletes on this very issue. And this attitude floors me every time. If you want to beat someone, will you have a better shot at doing it with your PB time, or a time that’s slower than your PB time? Think about it.

Here is an extreme example but should illustrate how it is possible to win a race using strategy where you might not have won even if you ran a PB. Can't speak for rowing so much but since my background is running I'll give you this answer.

If a 200 Meter specialist were to enter an 800 Meter race (Would never happen) his best chance for winning would be if all the runners jogged the first 600M at a very easy pace and then sprinted the last 200 Meters. The 200 Meter Specialist would, assuming he is a good 200 Meter runner win every time. The 200 Meter specialist could run a much faster overall time (PB) if he ran even splits but would definitely lose the race.

Like I said this is a very extreme example but these kind of tactics happen all the time in Track Distances that are longer than 800 Meters. Each Athlete has his own strenghts. Some have a great finishing Kick while other have very good speed endurance but don't have much of a kick. The athlete with a strong kick hopes the early pace is conservative and the athlete with poor finishing speed wants to take the pace out hard to take the sting out of the kicker's legs.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Rich

[Mike Caviston]

Here is an extreme example but should illustrate how it is possible to win a race using strategy where you might not have won even if you ran a PB.

If it is possible to win a race where you did not get your PB but you would have lost the race if you did get your PB – that is indeed an extreme example.

Some people are apparently eager to prove that you can win races even if you don’t pace yourself fairly evenly. Why go to the trouble? I’ve pointed that out from the beginning, and given many examples. What I’ve been assuming most people are interested in is how an athlete or crew can maximize the probability of giving their best performance. Whether that performance is going to result in a win or a loss will depend on your opponents.

Mike Caviston

[PaulS]

Here is an extreme example but should illustrate how it is possible to win a race using strategy where you might not have won even if you ran a PB.

If it is possible to win a race where you did not get your PB but you would have lost the race if you did get your PB – that is indeed an extreme example.

Some people are apparently eager to prove that you can win races even if you don’t pace yourself fairly evenly. Why go to the trouble? I’ve pointed that out from the beginning, and given many examples. What I’ve been assuming most people are interested in is how an athlete or crew can maximize the probability of giving their best performance. Whether that performance is going to result in a win or a loss will depend on your opponents.

Mike Caviston

Amazing isn't it, how this idea that finishing first was always the result of an "optimal performance"? As strange as it will sound, I think this is one of the reasons for the relative lack of improvement in OTW Rowing over the Last 20 years. Some country adopts a style and has good results that may or may not be due to that style (CAN layback for instance), but then others mistakenly think that it will help them too and go about making the modifications, which takes time to change, and may or may not get the desired result in the end. In watching World Championship and Olympic finals, which are going to include generally very good rowers, most all the time the winners have a number of technical issues that could improve their performance. Why they still win generally has to do with spectacular levels of fitness.

Next time I go through these races I'm going to keep track of the leader at 110m and how they finish. My guess is that such an early lead nearly guarantees not getting the gold medal, but it's just a guess at this point.

Some of the most spectacular finishes, where the commentators are screaming "look at them speeding through" is anything but that; rather the leaders are fading and slowing, the "speeding" boat is simply holding steady. Or it can be a combination of both.

[NavigationHazard]

Some of the most spectacular finishes, where the commentators are screaming "look at them speeding through" is anything but that; rather the leaders are fading and slowing, the "speeding" boat is simply holding steady. Or it can be a combination of both.

One of the best-known examples of this illusion is track runner Dave Wottle's gold-medal performance in the 800m final of the Munich Olympics. He went from dead last on the last lap backstretch to first in what looked like one of the greatest kicks ever.

In fact he ran almost exactly even splits -- it was the rest of the field slowing down that made him look like he had kicked it into overdrive. His 200m splits were 26.4 / 26.9 / 26.4 / 26.2.

Of course, there have been genuine 'kickers' as well. See for example Ethiopia's Miruts "The Shifter" Yifter, who was known in the 70s and 80s for destroying opponents on the last lap.

[hjs]

Some of the most spectacular finishes, where the commentators are screaming "look at them speeding through" is anything but that; rather the leaders are fading and slowing, the "speeding" boat is simply holding steady. Or it can be a combination of both.

One of the best-known examples of this illusion is track runner Dave Wottle's gold-medal performance in the 800m final of the Munich Olympics. He went from dead last on the last lap backstretch to first in what looked like one of the greatest kicks ever.

In fact he ran almost exactly even splits -- it was the rest of the field slowing down that made him look like he had kicked it into overdrive. His 200m splits were 26.4 / 26.9 / 26.4 / 26.2.


In track and field almost al races from 100 to 1500 are won this way. The winner can hold his pace , the losers are fading.
Of course, there have been genuine 'kickers' as well. See for example Ethiopia's Miruts "The Shifter" Yifter, who was known in the 70s and 80s for destroying opponents on the last lap.

[RowtheRockies]

NavigationHazard,

Yifter is probably the most famous end of race kicker of all time. I would have to add that one of the most incredible single kicks of all time that I have witnessed (video not in person) came from Billy Mills in the 1964 Olympics. If you have not seen it, it's worth 1:20 minutes of your time to watch it. I get chills every time I hear the announcer at the end. You can see it here http://youtube.com/watch?v=n4JrHICbyUQ& ... ly%20mills

There are no such thing as "Kickers" in distances 800M and below as the runners are always decelerating at the end of a race. The best way to race any distance 800M and below is to do a controlled "fly and die." In the 100M, max speed is reached somewhere between 50 and 60 M then the runner is slowing. Announcers were always talking about Carl Lewis' strong acceleration in the 100M when in fact, he reached top speed later than the other athletes and was able to hold it longer than other 100M runners but was still decelerating at the end just not as much.

Once you get to the 1500M and above you start seeing runners able to accelerate the last 200 meters or so.

[PaulS]

Once you get to the 1500M and above you start seeing runners able to accelerate the last 200 meters or so.

Not if they went out too fast early. I don't think the strong finish is being disputed, in fact the discussion is about how to improve your odds of it. I suppose there are probably instances of an athlete going for a very long and early lead and never being reeled back in, in fact the womens marathon winner in the 2004 Olympics (which I watched nearly the whole damn thing live, since they had said there was going to be rowing in the same broadcast time, of which about 3 minutes were shown. As we all know how exciting a marathon is in comparison. ) did just that. Much to the current WR holders doom and final resignation from the race altogether.

[NavigationHazard]

Once you get to the 1500M and above you start seeing runners able to accelerate the last 200 meters or so.

Not if they went out too fast early. I don't think the strong finish is being disputed, in fact the discussion is about how to improve your odds of it. I suppose there are probably instances of an athlete going for a very long and early lead and never being reeled back in, in fact the womens marathon winner in the 2004 Olympics (which I watched nearly the whole damn thing live, since they had said there was going to be rowing in the same broadcast time, of which about 3 minutes were shown. As we all know how exciting a marathon is in comparison. ) did just that. Much to the current WR holders doom and final resignation from the race altogether.

Certainly one of the most famous front-runners in track history was Russia's Vladimir Kuts, the anti-Zatopek of the mid-50s. His strategy was basically to get to the front in sub-WR pace and then stay there, running the kick out of his rivals. Mostly it worked. On a couple of occasions British runners with superior kicks (Chris Chataway in a 5k in 1954; Gordon Pirie in a 10k in 1956) were able to hang close enough to outsprint Kuts. But he refined his tactics to include surges, breaking with them Pirie in the 1956 Olympic 10k final and repeating the performance in the 5k.

Closer to my own era, miler Filbert Bayi also comes to mind....

[lunchmeat]

Wow.... I'd just like to say thanks to all the guys (esp Mike Caviston) for all the info on this thread. It's much appreciated and of great value!

[JimR]

Here is another set of stats from international rowing races: the average opening 500m of all crews that finished 1st was 102.8% of final speed. The opening 500m of 2nd-place crews was 102.3%; 3rd was 102.4%; 4th was 102.6%; 5th was 103.1%; 6th was 103.7%; and 7th was 104.3%. So the general trend was that slower crews’ relative starts were faster (the exception being the first-place crews, who started a little faster than the trend predicts. I have a theory that some of the winners distort the picture because they aren’t pushed to full extent; faster final times would reduce the relative % of the first 500m. But we’ll never know.).
Mike Caviston

Mike ... a curious question ...

If you took all the race data you have and assigned each a "score" that reflected how close the race was and then calculated your percentages for the closest 10-25% of the races do you think you would get different numbers?

Your thinking about how the teams with a very big lead would coast at the end and skew your numbers might be addressed by using races where the leader was challanged at the finish ... that if they slacked off they would lose.

JimR

[Mike Caviston]

If you took all the race data you have and assigned each a "score" that reflected how close the race was and then calculated your percentages for the closest 10-25% of the races do you think you would get different numbers?

Good question. It shouldn’t be too hard to determine the % difference in speed across places for each race. The author of the study I modeled my analysis on did something similar, and tossed out races he felt were not closely contested. He utilized heats & semis as well as finals; I analyzed only finals to minimize the chances of athletes or crews not giving best efforts. Unfortunately there’s no precise way to measure how hard everybody “tried” while they were racing. The decision to eliminate winning crews that finished a certain % ahead of their nearest competitors would have to be arbitrary. Still, you’ve got me curious, so when I get a chance I’ll tinker and see what shakes out. Maybe there’ll be a clear separation between “close” races and “blowouts”.* If not, maybe there’ll at least be one more useless statistic I can bore people with.

Mike Caviston

*One rowing-specific euphemism I’ve heard for a good old fashioned butt-whuppin’ is “horizon job”. Anybody got any others?

[dougsurf]

*One rowing-specific euphemism I’ve heard for a good old fashioned butt-whuppin’ is “horizon job”. Anybody got any others?

Ah yes, as in "they became specs on the horizon".

It wasn't long ago I heard of the unenviable position known as BCB. It is related to and often equivalent to DFL. More descriptive of a DFL in progress, one may say. Stands for "Behind the Chase Boat".

[Mike Caviston]

Your thinking about how the teams with a very big lead would coast at the end and skew your numbers might be addressed by using races where the leader was challanged at the finish ... that if they slacked off they would lose.

Okay… I determined the % difference in velocity (m/s) for each place for each of the 191 races in my data. Then I ranked all races based on the % difference in velocity between the 1st and 2nd place crews. I found that for the races with the 10 biggest margins of victory, the winning crew had a 1st 500m that was 103.2% of final speed, and the 2nd place crew had an opening 500m that was 102.3% of final speed. For the races with the 10 smallest margins of victory, the winning crew opened at 102.8% of final speed, and the 2nd place crew opened at 102.7%. So that doesn’t contradict my theory (i.e., that crews that win by large margins actually have a little unused speed, and might have gone faster, thereby reducing the relative % of 1st 500m speed and bringing it more in line with the pacing trends of the 2-6 place crews). But dividing all 191 races in various proportions (closest 10%, 20%, 30% etc.), I couldn’t get the winning crews’ relative starts to be slower than the other crews. But it’s worth noting that none of the comparisons between adjacent places (1st-2nd, 2nd-3rd, 3rd-4th, etc.) reached statistical significance, anyway. The only statistically significant comparison was between places 1-3 vs. 4-6. Eventually, adding more races to the data pool may make the distinction between adjacent places clearer.

I made tables summarizing the 10 biggest margins of victory as well as the 10 smallest margins. The largest margin was the Canadian women’s pair over the Romanians at the 1997 World Champs. The closest race was the women’s singles at the 2000 Olympics, where Karsten Ekaterina of Belarus beat Neykova Roumiana of Bulgaria by .01 second! Imagine being the 2nd place crew in one of these races decided by less than a tenth of a second. You’d be second-guessing every aspect of your race – not only the pacing, but every portion of every stroke, every touch of the rudder, every blink of the eye!

[JimR]

Imagine being the 2nd place crew in one of these races decided by less than a tenth of a second. You’d be second-guessing every aspect of your race – not only the pacing, but every portion of every stroke, every touch of the rudder, every blink of the eye!

I think that the statement you made above is exactly the big learning I'm getting out of all this information ... that the pacing/race starategy a team uses can have a significant impact on performance. When the boats you are looking at are at the starting line I'm not sure how many teams really believe they can win without close to 100% performance.

The "best" anything in racing is whatever allows you to do your absolute best in that race. Whether that results in winning or losing is as much a function of the competition as anything else.

Thanks for a fantastic analysis on the subject of pacing!

JimR

[Mike Caviston]

Just for kicks, since most of the work was already done, I made a list of the 10 races with the largest margins between 6th place and the rest of the field (i.e., 10 biggest DFLs). See the table below. These all showcase pretty extreme fly-and-die efforts; note how the paces fade steadily and often extremely from the first to the last 500m. Interestingly, in only one case (the Egyptian in the ’97 WC men’s singles race) did the eventual 6th-place finisher lead the field at the 500m-mark. In all other cases, the eventual 6th-place finisher was already in 5th or 6th place by 500m. In other words, in absolute terms, the Big Losers* don’t appear to start recklessly. However, in relative terms, the Big Losers started extremely fast. The 6th-place crews in this sample took the first 500m at an average of 106.2% of final speed (range: 102.9-109.2%), compared to an average of 102.2% for the 5th-place crews. Philosophically, one might argue that these 6th-place crews were overmatched and saw the handwriting on the wall, and felt they had nothing to lose by going out hard. But again, the important point is that the way to maximize the probability of maintaining any contact with the rest of the field would be to start more conservatively and come on strong at the end.

*Bear in mind the term “Big Loser” is relative; these crews all made the finals at the World Champs or Olympics!