healthy wrote:
You've made a very long post.
(snip)
I think there is a miscommunication on the first part - I never said Derrick wasn't better in track. I specifically said that Fout has never been healthy during track. So I'm not sure why you're comparing Derrick's track times to Fout's. What I did respond to was where you said "HSers often improve by leaps and bounds during the year and I think GF/Derrick took it to the next level in the spring" ... to which I said Derrick didn't improve by leaps and bounds (I'd say he was probably in 14:00-14:05 shape in cross).
Once again: It's pointless to discuss Fout's track times, because HE WAS NEVER HEALTHY DURING TRACK IN HIGH SCHOOL. Post-HS, he once again had a few injuries and sat out some seasons. But when we're talking about strong high school classes, I'm talking about what they do in high school... because honestly, I don't follow what the vast majority of runners do in college and beyond.
Puskedra's pacing: Yes, he paced himself well in that race. He also paced himself well enough in his 8:46y at Prefontaine, if I remember correctly. But are you really going to sit there and say that Puskedra wasn't a notoriously way-too-fast starter (both in terms of running fast during the season, and running fast at the start of the races)? If you want to cherry-pick races that were recorded and posted on the internet... I was going to direct you to a race that showed the exact opposite, but it seems the Footlockercc website won't load the video of the race anymore. And with Dyestat having lost most of it's archive of meet coverage, the only source left that I can find is milespit's recap:
http://oh.milesplit.com/articles/16211Take note, Puskedra opened up the first half mile in 2:10. And as they note, that kind of reckless frontrunning style "defined much of his racing all season", because that's simply how he ran. And I'm pretty sure he did the same thing most of the time in track as well (can't say, since most of his races weren't recorded on video for the rest of the nation to see, and I only saw him race once in person that year).
And in case you are wondering, no, running 2:10 for the first half mile at Balboa and against that field was not the optimal race strategy.
Your noting my extremes in the "how to run a 5k" segment: I used the 5k because, once again, Puskedra is a 10k+ type runner who was so "good" because of what he did in cross country, not specifically because of what he did on the track. Likewise, Saarel certainly seems like more of a 3k-5k guy than a miler as well, which makes the comparisons valid. And in the comparisons between those two runners: Puskedra typically opened up too fast for his own good, while Saarel typically run a savvy race and closed hard at the end. The reason why I said you should try opening up a 5k in 2:00 versus 2:40 is because I have no idea what kind of runner you are, but opening up a 5k in 2:00 is generally going to be too fast for anyone not All-World Professional caliber, while 2:40 is slow for a typical national-caliber high schooler (and given that I have no idea if you're in high school, college, or post-collegiate, I figured that was a nice median assumption to make). The point that I was making was that, if you trying going out much too fast for your own good, versus trying to go out conservative and then close hard with a significant negative split, you won't run the best possible time because both are quite inefficient. In other words, I'm asking you what is better: running significant negative splits or (equally) significant positive splits for a distance race (whether 2 mile or 5k)? I think you'll find significant negative splitting as being more conducive to running fast, but isn't near as optimal as even splits.
So, to bring it back to the overarching point: Puskedra and Saarel ran similar times with very different approaches. And that includes most of their PR's (definitely true for Puskedra in cross country, and for the most part true for Saarel in cross country; NBN and Prefontaine, and probably his mile, were better paced for Puskedra and it's impossible to say what Saarel could have run off of a more even pace -- but what we can say is that Puskedra ran 8:46.41y at Prefontaine, 8:47.06y at NON, 8:54.40 for 3200m at altitude at UT State, 8:56.71 for 3200m at altitude at BYU, and 4:06.60y at NON. In cross country, he ran 14:49 at Bob Firman, 14:54.6 at Utah State and 15:15 at Footlocker Nationals. Saarel has run 8:45.74 for 3200m at Arcadia and 8:55.27 for 3200m at semi-altitude at Pine View, and 4:08.55y at Mt. SAC. In cross, he ran 15:08.26 at Bob Firman, 14:56.7 at Utah State, and 15:13.0 at Footlocker Nationals. The ONE race/event where Saarel ran better was the most famous example of Puskedra running far too hard far too early in the race, which any rational person would agree cost him a few seconds - at least, and the difference there was only 2 seconds.
So, to this point, who has been better? Puskedra, clearly, though Saarel has run close at most every event and race. If Saarel runs 8:46.41y or 4:06.60y, or the equivalent 8:43.3 or 4:05.1, then we can start talking about which has been better. But until that time, Puskedra was faster, while Saarel has shown to be a more savvy racer.
By the way, once again, I wasn't specificying specific races in regards to "what is better, running so hard so early that you die off or running so savvy that you're closing much faster than you start"... I was referring to generalized race tactics that both runners have often employed to date (though, as mentioned, Saarel was a more even-paced runner in cross, and both have probably had cases of running smarter races - Puskedra's NON race and Prefontaine).
As for the "Puskedra could/couldn't win a national championship most years" discussion ... to be clear, since you didn't specify a specific event, I was talking about Footlocker Nationals/cross country.
As for the "you must have seen him run live, and therefore think he's the best ever syndrome" comment... yes, I saw him run live twice (at Bob Firman invite in cross country in both 2006 and 2007). But I'm not sure your point would hold if you knew all of the runners I've seen race... I've been to the NXN-Northwest meet a few times, the NTN/NXN National meet almost every year, most of the Washington State meet (both cross country and large-class track) for the past ten years, and some of the strongest (boys) invitational meets in the country.
The runners that stood out the most?
1. Edward Cheserek
2. Lukas Verzbicas
3. Chris Derrick
4. Luke Puskedra
5. Colby Lowe
But I've also spent a whole lot of time over the last ten years looking at what kids have been running in track and various cross country courses. And the 2007 XC/2008 Track fields sits among the best ever. It wasn't a case of "outside of Derrick and Fernandez there was nothing special about that class", and "puskedra/lowe types come every year" is just wrong. Perhaps your views are tainted by the last couple years, with the 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012 and now 2013 classes all being so strong. But guys like Puskedra and Lowe (and Fout, Fernandez and Derrick) were all good enough to compete for the win if not win outright the vast majority of years in some national championship (whether in cross country, or one of the track events). They were all that good.
By the way, I didn't graduate in 2008. I'm not saying my class was the best ever (I graduated in 2005).