| |
Main
Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:09:44
From: ted
Subject: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
why is that? Any theories about this?
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:22:52
From:
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
its the same in kayak racing and adventure racing. the good adventure
races volunteer in the shorter races. with kayak racing, almost all the
good people choose the longer race so the shorter race is very
uncompetitive.
ted wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > On 2006-09-25, ted <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net> wrote:
> > > I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
> > > usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
> > > actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
> > > why is that? Any theories about this?
>
> > When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
> > the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
> > joggers, walkers and beginners.
>
> That begs the question. The olympic 5K and 10K are also run at the
> same venue, and the 5K (or 1500, 800, etc) cannot be said to attract
> inferior talent. It must be something about the nature of these events
> I participate in being low-key and not very competitive at any
> distance. Sure, the *slowest* people in one of these 5Ks are walkers
> who will take over an hour, and there are few such in the concurrent
> 10K. But the question I'm asking concerns the *fastest* finishers, and
> someone who runs 5K in 19:00 is, after all, hardly a "jogger".
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 03:36:11
From: Dan Stumpus
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
"ted" <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net > wrote
> I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
> usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
> actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
> why is that? Any theories about this?
Back when I was competitive, most of the fast guys (15:30 5k, 32:00 10k),
preferred to run longer races. The effect you note now is pretty much the
way it was back in the 80's.
I was a tad slower than that (about 16:00), and probably only ran 10% of my
races as 5k's -- my goals were fast 10ks, half marathons, and marathons. My
fast friends had the same attitude. I never attempted a 5k pr, always ran
them untapered during training weeks (which I now regret -- I know I coulda
broken 16 if i'd tapered).
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:01:49
From: ted
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2006-09-25, ted <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net> wrote:
> > I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
> > usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
> > actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
> > why is that? Any theories about this?
> When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
> the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
> joggers, walkers and beginners.
That begs the question. The olympic 5K and 10K are also run at the
same venue, and the 5K (or 1500, 800, etc) cannot be said to attract
inferior talent. It must be something about the nature of these events
I participate in being low-key and not very competitive at any
distance. Sure, the *slowest* people in one of these 5Ks are walkers
who will take over an hour, and there are few such in the concurrent
10K. But the question I'm asking concerns the *fastest* finishers, and
someone who runs 5K in 19:00 is, after all, hardly a "jogger".
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 04:58:07
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
On 2006-09-25, ted <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On 2006-09-25, ted <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net> wrote:
>> > I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
>> > usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
>> > actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
>> > why is that? Any theories about this?
>
>> When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
>> the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
>> joggers, walkers and beginners.
>
> That begs the question. The olympic 5K and 10K are also run at the
> same venue, and the 5K (or 1500, 800, etc) cannot be said to attract
> inferior talent.
That's different. The mindset of olympic track athletes is completely different
to that of road racers. You have to be pretty good to even qualify to enter the
olympics (or for that matter, to get into the olympic trials race), so there's
no way the olympics can turn into just a race for people who want to finish or
do a fun run or whatever.
You do get some countries who have their top athletes in one distance as
opposed to another (e.g. Ethiopias best usually do 5k/10k, whereas the two top
USA 10k guys ran the marathon) but because these idiosyncrasies are different
in different countries, it smooths itself out.
> It must be something about the nature of these events
> I participate in being low-key and not very competitive at any
> distance. Sure, the *slowest* people in one of these 5Ks are walkers
> who will take over an hour, and there are few such in the concurrent
> 10K. But the question I'm asking concerns the *fastest* finishers, and
> someone who runs 5K in 19:00 is, after all, hardly a "jogger".
Assuming that there are some open class men in that race, 19:00 is pretty
slow for a winning time. Most competitive local runners are faster than this.
I would say it probably means that most of the competitors in that race are
either beginners or casual runners. The guy who wins is probably a moderately
talented beginner.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 04:41:10
From: Dot
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
ted wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>>On 2006-09-25, ted <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
>>>usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
>>>actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher.
Are you talking simultaneous (same start time) or sequential (different
start times) races? In the xc series here, the competitive (longer race)
and recreational (shorter race) runners start at the same time. (oops -
I see it at the end - "concurrent")
19 min won't get you first in a xc 5k in small-town Alaska (only race) -
or even big-city 5-10k xc race with them both simultaneous.
I'm wondering,
>>>why is that? Any theories about this?
>
>
>>When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
>>the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
>>joggers, walkers and beginners.
>
>
> That begs the question. The olympic 5K and 10K are also run at the
> same venue, and the 5K (or 1500, 800, etc) cannot be said to attract
> inferior talent.
Because they're the olympics. I don't think they're concurrent races.
It must be something about the nature of these events
> I participate in being low-key and not very competitive at any
> distance. Sure, the *slowest* people in one of these 5Ks are walkers
> who will take over an hour, and there are few such in the concurrent
> 10K. But the question I'm asking concerns the *fastest* finishers, and
> someone who runs 5K in 19:00 is, after all, hardly a "jogger".
Are you saying the 1st 10k runner finishes in under 19? Not sure, but I
think that's faster than world record, by a little bit.
FWIW, I do a xc race where the shorter and longer races start at same
time, and I've finished the 5k before many competitive runners finish
the 10k - and I'm typically one of last finishers. IOW, there were many
people that weren't twice as fast as myself. This year, the distances
were closer, and there was a mix of runners finishing times.
Dot
--
"Magic rocks and roots - the ones that trip you but you can never find
afterwards" - Matt Carpenter
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 04:59:43
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
On 2006-09-25, Dot <dot.h@#duh?att.net > wrote:
> Are you saying the 1st 10k runner finishes in under 19? Not sure, but I
> think that's faster than world record, by a little bit.
I would assume he means under 38:00. Most competitive 10k races have someone
faster than that.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 01:25:24
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
On 2006-09-25, ted <strnbrg@trhj.homeunix.net > wrote:
> I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
> usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
> actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
> why is that? Any theories about this?
When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
joggers, walkers and beginners.
It's much less likely that 19:00 will win a 5k that isn't overshadowed by some
other concurrent event. I still have never won a local 5k, and I'm under 17:00
on a good day.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 13:06:05
From: Brian Baresch
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
>When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
>the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
>joggers, walkers and beginners.
Right. I've noticed that around here: With two races run concurrently,
the shorter one has the much softer field. A while back I was still
looking for my first race hardware and cherry-picked a couple of those
races; it worked.
19:00 as a winning time isn't unheard of around here; most weekends
there are a half-dozen 5Ks and maybe some other races as well, so the
fields get spread out. I've even seen some where the winner took 20
minutes. Occasionally a fast woman will show up and beat the entire
field of men, too.
--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading
If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 17:06:10
From: Frank Boettcher
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:06:05 -0500, Brian Baresch
<brian_news2@peacenik.removethisstuff.net > wrote:
>>When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
>>the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
>>joggers, walkers and beginners.
>
>Right. I've noticed that around here: With two races run concurrently,
>the shorter one has the much softer field. A while back I was still
>looking for my first race hardware and cherry-picked a couple of those
>races; it worked.
>
>19:00 as a winning time isn't unheard of around here; most weekends
>there are a half-dozen 5Ks and maybe some other races as well, so the
>fields get spread out. I've even seen some where the winner took 20
>minutes. Occasionally a fast woman will show up and beat the entire
>field of men, too.
19:00 will never get it around here. There is a powerhouse high
school cross country dynasty in the area, (five consecutive state
championships, boys and girls) and if they happen to have a meet and
can't come, 17:00 and change will sometimes hold up, but if they are
off and can come, we be looking at punching into the 15's
I'd have to run in the 19's just to win my AG (55-59).
course there are not that many runs so everyone comes to all of them.
Frank
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 23:36:54
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
On 2006-09-25, Frank Boettcher <fboettcher@comcast.net > wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:06:05 -0500, Brian Baresch
><brian_news2@peacenik.removethisstuff.net> wrote:
>
>>>When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
>>>the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
>>>joggers, walkers and beginners.
>>
>>Right. I've noticed that around here: With two races run concurrently,
>>the shorter one has the much softer field. A while back I was still
>>looking for my first race hardware and cherry-picked a couple of those
>>races; it worked.
>>
>>19:00 as a winning time isn't unheard of around here; most weekends
>>there are a half-dozen 5Ks and maybe some other races as well, so the
>>fields get spread out. I've even seen some where the winner took 20
>>minutes. Occasionally a fast woman will show up and beat the entire
>>field of men, too.
>
>
> 19:00 will never get it around here. There is a powerhouse high
> school cross country dynasty in the area, (five consecutive state
> championships, boys and girls) and if they happen to have a meet and
> can't come, 17:00 and change will sometimes hold up, but if they are
> off and can come, we be looking at punching into the 15's
>
> I'd have to run in the 19's just to win my AG (55-59).
I once trecked out to long island for a 5k race. In Manhattan, I'm used
to being up against a very competitive M30-39 age group. The younger
age groups are much softer. You finish 6th overall and you'll probably
be 4th in age group.
So it was quite a surprise to finish 9th overall and still win my age
group (and I was quite slow for me -- 17 high, I think). There were several
very fast kids and fast dads, but a bit of a void in the 30-39 group.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 15:16:06
From: Kaz Kylheku
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
ted wrote:
> I've noticed that in the more casual races in my area, where 19:00 will
> usually get you first place in the 5K, the top few 10K finishers
> actually run faster than the first-place 5K finisher. I'm wondering,
> why is that? Any theories about this?
It's because the competitive people are effectively running both races
at once. They not only want to place well in the 10 km distance, but
also to have a halfway split which beats as many of the 5 km people as
possible. So this is one way in which competitiveness pushes people do
to the 10.
Conversely, someone who is competitive isn't going to want to be beaten
to the 5km finish line by people doing the full distance. So this is
one way in which competitiveness pushes people away from doing the 5km
distance.
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 13:34:03
From: Ed Prochak
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
Brian Baresch wrote:
> >When there are two races on at the same venue, the serious runners usually do
> >the longer of the two. The shorter one is generally considered a fun event for
> >joggers, walkers and beginners.
>
> Right. I've noticed that around here: With two races run concurrently,
> the shorter one has the much softer field. A while back I was still
> looking for my first race hardware and cherry-picked a couple of those
> races; it worked.
>
> 19:00 as a winning time isn't unheard of around here; most weekends
> there are a half-dozen 5Ks and maybe some other races as well, so the
> fields get spread out. I've even seen some where the winner took 20
> minutes. Occasionally a fast woman will show up and beat the entire
> field of men, too.
> --
> Brian P. Baresch
> Fort Worth, Texas, USA
> Professional editing and proofreading
>
> If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
The most dramatic evidence of this I saw was a Cleveland Classic race
which has a 5K and a half marathon. When I got the race results I
notice the half marathon winner had a faster per mile pace than the
winner of the 5K!
Ed
|
| | |
Date: 27 Sep 2006 11:40:53
From: Brian Baresch
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
>The most dramatic evidence of this I saw was a Cleveland Classic race
>which has a 5K and a half marathon. When I got the race results I
>notice the half marathon winner had a faster per mile pace than the
>winner of the 5K!
>Ed
Wow! I did once see a 5K/10K where they started together and ran 1 and
2 loops of the course, respectively; the 10K leader came through
before the 5K winner.
--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading
If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2006 16:55:01
From: Donovan Rebbechi
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
On 2006-09-27, Brian Baresch <brian_news2@peacenik.removethisstuff.net > wrote:
>>The most dramatic evidence of this I saw was a Cleveland Classic race
>>which has a 5K and a half marathon. When I got the race results I
>>notice the half marathon winner had a faster per mile pace than the
>>winner of the 5K!
>>Ed
>
> Wow! I did once see a 5K/10K where they started together and ran 1 and
> 2 loops of the course, respectively; the 10K leader came through
> before the 5K winner.
I don't think it's uncommon. In Jersey city, the half/5k winning times are
about 1:11/18:30 or about 5:30/6:00 a mile. A 5k accompanied by a half marathon
is usually really soft.
Sometimes you do get a competitive 5k/10k, this usually happens when both events
have prize money.
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Sep 2006 13:06:47
From: Brian Baresch
Subject: Re: Why are casual 10Ks more competitive than 5Ks?
|
>> Wow! I did once see a 5K/10K where they started together and ran 1 and
>> 2 loops of the course, respectively; the 10K leader came through
>> before the 5K winner.
>
>I don't think it's uncommon. In Jersey city, the half/5k winning times are
>about 1:11/18:30 or about 5:30/6:00 a mile. A 5k accompanied by a half marathon
>is usually really soft.
Yeah, that's not uncommon. What's rare is a course configuration where
the leader in the long race goes through the finish area before the
leader in the short one. That's the only time I've seen it. (BTW that
race put me off of 5K/10Ks where the 10K is two loops of the 5K course
forever; dodging 5K walkers three abreast across a bike path is not my
idea of fun.)
--
Brian P. Baresch
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Professional editing and proofreading
If you're going through hell, keep going. --Winston Churchill
|
|
