Hacker News Reader

the part I don't understand is why wouldn't anybody in that 2016 race just run faster at any point? Were they generally thinking "somebody's endurance is better than mine, my only chance is to win a sprint"?

View on HN

Not necessarily! Leading is more tiring, especially at a fast pace. Even if you are the fastest athlete in the field, and know it, you can still lose by wearing yourself out at the front. So for some runners it's as you say, but for the top few athletes it can be more like "my margin of superiority isn't sufficient to pay the cost of leading a fast race". (Some made-up numbers. Suppose you're 1 second faster than the second-best runner under ideal conditions, but you lose 1.5 seconds by leading. Result: you lose by half a second.) Which is in fact why pacemakers are employed at so many non-championship races, it solves the problem of people thinking "if I push the pace at the front I may pull everyone to a faster time (including myself), but sacrifice place" that leads to results like what you saw in 2016.

That doesn't mean everyone played their hand well in 2016 - clearly they didn't. By the way, check out Centrowitz's little shimmy at maybe 450m to go/2:50 in that race - he made sure to be in front when it got going, that's what makes his run brilliant and not just lucky.

For real examples of leading being a cost in a fast race, see the most recent two major championships - worlds 2022 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcRrBYx2XG8 and the Olympic final of 2020/21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us9bM_WGYlY. Both are really fast as championships go, and in both the leader for much of the race loses. Would they still have lost if someone else had been in front? ...Maybe. But I think it would've been closer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com