What does it take to win the marathon?

Watching the 50K race yesterday was an eye-opener. The top 20 were
within a minute of the winner, and the top 45 (more than half) were
within 3:30. In marathon running, there is a much more marked
difference between finishers, so that one can believe that the
finishing order is determined largely by fitness on the day. And in
open loppets, there is also a significant distribution of finishing
times. Obviously, in these top-tier races, we are dealing with true
elites--virtually everyone is extremely fit. But it does seem strange
that the x-c marathon, indeed, seemingly EVERY x-c race, appears to be
determined by sprinting power, with the length of the race determining
only the degree of exhaustion before the sprint begins.

Is this because in skating perhaps more than classic, drafting is such
a big factor? How often in ski marathons does someone win by breaking
away with more than 5 k to go?

Onno Oerlemans

I only know a little, but I'll try a bit of an answer anyway!

First, the close finishes are why WC skiers often don't like mass start
events.

Your observations are accurate---but really only for the mass start
events. The standard elite event interval starts DON'T end up with a
sprint, but they do often end up with small gaps. OK, maybe sometimes
they're won at the end, as coaches let skiers know they're just a
second behind, etc. But my impression is that tiny bits of time can be
gained anywhere on the course then held onto. True ski buffs (and even
bike buffs) seem to prefer the time-trial/interval start format which
brings out true skills/fitness---no drafting. Beginner fans/racers
consider TT's to be boring but really they're not---it is harder to
follow things though. You need to track gaps.

Anyway, what often seems to happen with WC mass start
events---including the relay---is that the front skiers somewhat do a
soft-pedal. They don't mind a big group cruising up to the crux point,
which is often the sprint for the finish---if they have a good sprint.

My impression from reports of yesterday's 50k was that it was hard
skiing---maybe harder than most mass starts---but apparently "mass
mooching" was still doable. Drafting and marking is significant but I
also think that the main players just aren't making the biggest
efforts, are saving it---they're stressing things but not making big
moves. (Maybe it was something like Tour de France stages which these
days are often max-effort from the start yet a big pack still sticks
together.)

As regards the World Loppets they also seem to have fair-sized packs
near the end, but then they don't include the WC top dogs in those
events, so the various packs and trains are smaller and get spread out
a bit more. Probably the first dozen finishers are close to WC talent
then the talent drops off and the gaps go up, but they still tend to be
in groups. And quite a few WL's are longer than 50k.

Also, even interval events sometimes get little groups formed in XC.
Bridging up to lower numbers and working with them can help a skier get
a good ride. Conversely, sometimes lower-ranked skiers get pride from
having a star catch them then being able to hang with the star and work
with them---sure, they lose to them because they got caught but if they
can then hang with them they at least know they've matched pace for
that period.

--JP outyourbackdoor.com

It takes a fair amount of energy to stay near the front, and a lot of
energy to be in the top 5 or so with a few km left to go. So getting
from 15th to 5th during the last climb is very difficult both from
finding room to pass (part of the battle) and actually skiing faster
than the pack. I think the various athletes were willing to battle for
position, but weren't willing to go hard with 10 or 15 km left to go
because there certainly is a drafting advantage. It's also easier
mentally to chase than it is to lead (in my opinion).

It would have been interesting if two skiers were willing to go hard at
say 35-40 km, string out the pack and then die in the last 5 km. That
might have given non-sprinters a chance.

Jay (lets hear it for the nonsprinters) Wenner

So one summary might be that even if the 50k Oly marathon looked like a
moochfest the best guys still were rewarded. It's not like the
sprinters can steal a race. If one of the top 5 has a good sprint,
well, he may well win but he's still a top 5 guy. The first 30 guys
might've finished close together and the first 10 looked like a
dead-sprint, but probably the 10th guy in that group really wasn't in
the same class as the first few---unless he'd tried some major lead-out
move. As Jay says, those in, say, 10th thru 30th might've finished on
the tails of the first few but they truly didn't have what it took. It
wasn't like one big almost-tie. There was probably a lot of battling
and challenging going on in even the last, what, 20k for those front
positions and if you didn't have the fitness there was no way someone
could continuously "mooch" in such a position. --JP

PS: Jay, that was a GREAT and hilarious story of yours in the new
Silent Sports! My story fit kinda nicely after it. The guy behind The
Crash---what infamy! : )

wrote:


True ski buffs (and even
bike buffs) seem to prefer the time-trial/interval start format which
brings out true skills/fitness---no drafting. Beginner fans/racers
consider TT's to be boring but really they're not---it is harder to
follow things though. You need to track gaps.

I disagree with this. I am a "true ski buff" (having skied and watched
races for 30+ years). Although I'm not a successful racer, I do race a
little. Mass start races are much preferable all around. They are the
most common format for every type of race from physical to cars and
horses, etc. Pure fitness (or in the case of machines, pure speed), is
only one component of racing. Race strategy is as much of real racing
as pure fitness - in fact I'd say it is more the essence of racing for
both the racer as well as the spectator. Fitness comes into play in
pushing or relaxing on the pace in whatever way you think is best
strategically to beat the people you're racing against. To me interval
races are much less true races.

To me the best, maybe the only, reason for interval races or timed "one
at a time" races is if the track being used can only be used by one
person at a time. Example: slalom ski race. I believe that the reason
interval starts are a tradition in XC skiing is that traditional
striding skiing involved narrow trails cut through the woods and tracks
set on those trails. It was more practical to have a simple, single
set of tracks and therefore interval starts.

Anyway, what often seems to happen with WC mass start
events---including the relay---is that the front skiers somewhat do a
soft-pedal. They don't mind a big group cruising up to the crux point,
which is often the sprint for the finish---if they have a good sprint.


See, I believe that this is really the essence of racing as opposed to
"mere" fitness. Strategy PLUS fitness is what wins and what should
win. That and luck of course. Luck is always a factor regardless of
the format.

JMHO, of course, but there ya go!

What I dont like with the 50K mass in the Olympics/World cup, is that
its too hard to breakaway, so you know its always gonna come down to a
sprint, which makes most of the race meaningless.

The only strategy in the 50K on Sunday was when to time the sprint, cos
you cant breakaway. If thats all there is to it, Ill just watch the
sprints and save myself ~2 hours of watching 48K (not like Id be able
to do that on NBC anyway)

the 30K double pursuit is just the same, except now the classic part is
meaningless, cos the race strongly favors skaters..

shane wrote:
What I dont like with the 50K mass in the Olympics/World cup, is that
its too hard to breakaway, so you know its always gonna come down to a
sprint, which makes most of the race meaningless.

The only strategy in the 50K on Sunday was when to time the sprint, cos
you cant breakaway. If thats all there is to it, Ill just watch the
sprints and save myself ~2 hours of watching 48K (not like Id be able
to do that on NBC anyway)

the 30K double pursuit is just the same, except now the classic part is
meaningless, cos the race strongly favors skaters..

So how is this different than any other sport where competitors race
*against each other* instead of against the clock? A race should be
(IMHO) against other racers, not against the clock.

Theres a huge difference..

The difference is, that in World cup XC, the race will ALWAYS end in a
sprint (at least it has since 2002, when they started with the format.)
This is not the case in the other forms of distance racing. I think
this is a problem, because the race becomes one dimensional.

The only guy who has even attempted to break, was Johan Muelhegg in
Soldier hollow, and we know what happened to him.

Im not againt mass starts, I just think world cup XC should address
this, whether by increasing the distance, or doing point to point, or
ending uphill or something...

This is why Id rather watch biathlon now, the shooting just provides
more drama in terms of lead changes, etc..



So how is this different than any other sport where competitors race
*against each other* instead of against the clock? A race should be
(IMHO) against other racers, not against the clock.

You make a good point. It's like pro basketball or football, where
games are very often decided in the last two minutes. Why watch the
rest? I'd hate to see ski racing become that way.

OTOH, for at least those of us who stride, many mass start races
become like interval starts, since we're out there alone or maybe with
one or two people.

Gene

"shane" wrote:

Theres a huge difference..

The difference is, that in World cup XC, the race will ALWAYS end in a
sprint (at least it has since 2002, when they started with the
format.) This is not the case in the other forms of distance racing.
I think this is a problem, because the race becomes one dimensional.

The only guy who has even attempted to break, was Johan Muelhegg in
Soldier hollow, and we know what happened to him.

Im not againt mass starts, I just think world cup XC should address
this, whether by increasing the distance, or doing point to point, or
ending uphill or something...

This is why Id rather watch biathlon now, the shooting just provides
more drama in terms of lead changes, etc..

To Shane: Why is it really inevitable that the races come down to the
last few minutes? Why don't running races of similar duration end up
like this so consistently? I'm curious - although I don't really care
because that sort of finish is part of what I consider to be true
person vs. person competition as opposed to person vs. clock. But why
skiing and not running races? I agree with you that it seems like a
solid trend, but why I wonder, and is it going to always be the case.

Gene: I understand your point about similarity to last minute b-ball
and football games. BUT, geeze, that's the part of the game I love -
the constant back and forth, keeping up, etc. during the game and
seeing who pulls it out at the end. AND, in all cases from the skiing
to the ball sports, all competitors must challenge the opposition, and
the opposition must meet the challenges and keep pace in order to be in
contention at the end. In long distance skiing this means handling the
charges, knowing when to charge, knowing when to conserve; maybe
outthinking the other guy - setting him up for something you do at the
end; maybe being able to do something to that person at the end because
you've been smarter and more efficient the rest of the time; being as
efficient as possible on transitions to not only keep up but to
conserve as much as possible for the final push. All this stuff has
similartities to the way the ball games play out during the game and at
the end. This is true in any person vs. person sport and is more pure
competition than racing against the clock. Just mho again, of course.