Two Oceans Marathon

Two Oceans Marathon Recap: Paying the price for poor pacing

As promised, a brief recap of the Two Oceans Marathon is the topic of today's post. Many of you may have run the race (or the 21km), and are hopefully enjoying a well deserved day off work and off your feet today.

There are few more beautiful races in the world, as I'm sure anyone who ran will testify. The Cape Town weather played along this year, providing a cloudless sky and ideal conditions for running, although those who are coming out of a winter (northern hemisphere visitors, that is) would have found it warmer than they'd hoped. You can read the race report here - my post is more of a commentary on the tactics and the standard of running, as highlighted by the results.

The elite races produced two very different stories. In the men's race, the pre-race favourite was Marko Mambo of Zimbabwe, the defending champion and a winner of the race back in 2004 and 2005 as well. He was heavily favoured to win this year, mostly because the local runners are now so poor over the marathon that they would have to run a miracle to feature.

What Mambo didn't bargain on was a Kenyan - John Wachira. Kenyans have never really turned their attention to our races here in SA, and I don't expect Wachira's performance to start a trend (more on that later). But Wachira, a security guard who is now based in Johannesburg, seized upon a racing error by Mambo and took the title in a time of 3:10:06.

How it unfolded

The race went pretty much according to script for the first 54km (at least for Mambo, that is). The men's pack started pretty conservatively, and at times resembled a cycling peloton with small attacks coming off the front, with the main contenders sitting in and waiting. Those attacks were all by runners who lacked any credentials, so the main pack was content to let the jousting continue. For example, at one stage, two local athletes with marathon bests of 2:24 and 2:26 went off the front.

Consider that at the pace they were running, the marathon mark would be reached in about 2:21, and you realise that when a 2:26 man heads off the front, you'd be a fool to chase him. He'd have to run a PB by 5 minutes and then continue for another 14km. Little wonder that the South African men struggle to compete, given that a 2:20 marathon is now seen as "fast" by many in this country. Sadly, it's fast enough to win prize money in many races, and therein lies our problem.

The jousting continued up to the bottom of Chapmans Peak, at around 28km. The halfway mark was reached in 1:33, relatively slow. It was at this stage that some of the main contenders started to appear at the front. A small pack of about 10 athletes formed, including all the main protagonists. The surging continued, but this time, with a difference - the big names were now tracking those attacks.

It was a remarkable period of racing, considering that the finish line was still 27 km away. Imagine the elite field of London throwing in surges after 15km of the marathon and you get the idea. Moses Njodzi, himself a former Zimbabwean winner, was one of the first big names to throw in a surge, and he was immediately tracked by Mambo. Mambo then went straight by, and drove the pace on over the top of Chapmans Peak. That little surge-countersurge exchange reduced the size of the lead group to two - Mambo and Njodzi. Amazingly, the elite field had been trimmed with more than a half marathon to go. I'm told that the pace coming over Chapman's Peak was around 2:50 per kilometer, which partly explains why this would happen.

At the time, I remember being surprised at how early this was happening and how easily the race had been trimmed. Sitting in the commentary booth, I was assured that Mambo was in superb shape and was not making an error in judgement. And given that he'd won three times, it certainly seemed to be the decisive break.

However, as anyone will tell you, the Two Oceans race only really starts on the climb of Constantia Nek, a steep and winding climb just after the marathon mark. Perhaps it's the combination of the timing with the steepness, but this is a brutal climb, and it was here that the first signs of weakness appeared for Mambo. He looked laboured, but was by this stage well clear of second place. Just how far clear is impossible to say, because no time splits were being provided.

He crested the climb and began the long descent towards the finish line looking tired but with a large lead. The second man on the road by this stage was John Wachira, a 2:11 marathon runner who was looking far stronger. However, in the absence of time gaps, it was difficult to anticipate how secure Mambo was.

As it would transpire, very insecure. With 5km to go, we received our first time split of 1:21, which meant Mambo had 15 seconds per kilometer in the bank. With 3km to go, it was reported as 55 seconds, and it seemed as though Mambo had done enough to claim his fourth title.

However, as it turned out, that split was incorrect, much to everyone's surprise, including the TV commentators at the time, who declared that Mambo had a secure lead only seconds before he was caught by a fast finishing Wachira! With just under 2km to go, the lead changed hands and Mambo was gone. So dominant was Wachira's finish that he built a lead of 46 seconds in those final 2km.

Mambo therefore paid the price for his earlier efforts, over-commiting to the race over Chapmans Peak when he might have been a little more prudent. Wachira becomes the first Kenyan to win the race, only a day after I wrote that I didn't think that the best Kenyans would run here. I stand by that, by the way, because to me, a Kenyan with a 2:11 marathon is not the "best" Kenyan (given that most of their top men are running 2:07 these days). Wachira is a Johannesburg-based security guard who probably lacks the pure speed to feature in global marathons, but his 2:11 marathon makes him the class of the field in South Africa. Sadly, the size of our pond is shrinking and the bigger fish from elsewhere are moving in...

Women's race - a procession as normal for the Nurgalieva twins

Speaking of small ponds, South African women's running is in dire straits. Twenty five years ago, Helen Lucre, who was commentating with me, ran 3:52 to win the race. In those 25 years, the women's record in the marathon has plummeted by 10 minutes, training methods have improved, and yet South African women are now SLOWER than they were then. In the late 1980s, we had Frith van der Merwe, who ran a 2:27 marathon and a Two Oceans record of 3:30.

On Saturday, the best South African woman finished fourth, in a time of 3:59. Little wonder then that the Russian Nurgalieva twins, Elana and Olesya, have come to South Africa to bank their cheques for the last five or six years. Between Comrades and Two Oceans, the Nurgalieva twins have reduced local athletes to extras in their timed training runs. On Saturday, so dominant were they that they held hands over the finish line with a lead of 16 minutes, and effectively dead-heated the race. Rules don't allow dead heats, and so Elana was given the win ahead of Olesya, but it really was academic.

Third went to a Zimbabwean, Samukeliso Moyo, fully 16 minutes back, with South Africa's first finisher, Farwa Mentoor, a further minute down in fourth.

The sad dilemma for the race and the future of SA running

Sadly, this dominance by international runners does little for the appeal of the elite race to locals, as does the dominance of the men's race by non South Africans. In the absence of local interest, media interest dwindles and neutrals will never be attracted to the race. Most South African running people know who the Nurgalieva twins are, but very few care. So low was the media interest this year that the press truck that carries journalists on the route was cancelled.

Against this backdrop, the governing body for the sport in this country have remain unchanged and continue oversee a dramatic decline in our standards. They are quick to remind us that athletics provided South Africa's only medal in Beijing, as though this justifies their existence (and salaries). No change, no implementation of grand ideas, and meanwhile our races continue to support the GDP of our African neighbours. If that seems harsh, bear in mind that in the 1980s and 1990s, we had about half a dozen men running the Half Marathon in 61 minutes, and have produced winners in New York, the Olympics, Fukuoka, as well as three or four men ranked top 10 in the world lists.

What then should be done? Well, talk is cheap, to begin with, and much has been said by those in charge about their grand plans. Usually, they say the right things. Those involved in the sport will tell you that nothing is being done though. The biggest problem we face is that we have supported and rewarded mediocrity among our runners. When a man wins a marathon in 2:18, he is NOT fast. He is in fact very poor compared to global standards. Yet he's now fast enough to win locally, and so given the incentive to make money off running, we have succeeded in incentivizing mediocrity.

Our athletes race almost every weekend, and there is no long-term development strategy. This should commence with juniors, and a ten-year plan should be put in place to manage the athletes better. This begins in schools, but should be focused on what is, in South Africa, a very well developed club running scene. Unfortunately, given the abysmal quality of our coaches, we have reaped what we have sown, and expecting it to change with the same people involved is a day-dream. So for now, I am resigned to saying the same things for another generation at least.

Until the governing body, the clubs and the athlete's coaches recognize that we must benchmark against global standards, and then realize that changing the incentives is the only way to change behaviour, races like Two Oceans will continue to be money-machines for international athletes.

Apologies for the doom-and-gloom review of the race, but it's impossible, as a South African (especially one who coaches and is involved in the problem) to discuss local running without pointing out the problem. The saddest part of all is that every year, we produce hundreds of men who run 2:20 for the marathon, and can't turn a single one into a world class marathon runner. Only fifteen years ago, we had some of the best in the world. Much like the stocks of GM, Chrysler and Ford, SA athletics is in freefall, and now worth very little. Unlike those companies, we will have the same leadership for years...

My own Two Oceans from the commentary box

In the interests of finishing off positively, I had a good Two Oceans from behind a microphone making my commentary "debut". I'm sure there is room for improvement, but I did get to explain some of the research that was being done at the race, and hopefully dispel a few myths about dehydration, heatstroke and muscle cramps during my stints. I would have liked to do more race-specific commentary, but perhaps in the future, that will happen. My role instead was to comment on related aspects of physiology, like the heat, cramping athletes, physiology of running etc.

And like every other commentator, I was fooled by the provision of the split times in the elite men's race, and had pretty much given the race to Mambo, only to be proved incorrect!

But that not withstanding, it was a good experience and hopefully added some value to the broadcast and the race! Like this post, I hope!

Ross

Easter Weekend musings

Two Oceans, two extra-ordinary marathons, two tournaments to go

If it's Easter weekend, then it must be the Two Oceans Marathon. For those not in the know, the Two Oceans Marathon is one of South Africa's biggest running events, a 56 km ultra-marathon and a half-marathon around the Cape Peninsula. You can read my post about the race from last year here, including a profile of the course, and some comments. I won't do the same this year, other than to say we're in for a beautiful autumn day, perhaps a little warm for super-fast times, but a good day out for most.

The race has been dominated by Zimbabweans for the last few years, defending champion Marcus Mambo going for a fourth win. The Zimbabwean runners flood south over the border to claim what is, in their terms, enormous prize money (R150,000 for the winner, or about $15,000), and have had the better of the locals for a long time. Added to this is the fact that they don't race as much as our athletes do, and the combination of incentive and preparation is usually enough to relegate local runners to the minor placings.

Compared to international marathons, Oceans is a "minor" race, however, with regards to prize money. Consider that the big marathons offer six figures (dollar amounts) appearance fees plus prize money and you see what we're up against. For SA, the problem is exchange rates as well - a weak currency compared to the dollar, pound and euro. Many people have in the past said that the Kenyans will one day come down here and dominate as well, but given that a second level Kenyan can make twice as much money winning a B-level marathon in Europe, that's unlikely.

I'll be commentating this year's race for the local television broadcast, which should be fun. I am on-board as a 'technical' analyst, so I'll be brought in to discuss, among other things, performance limits, causes of fatigue, hydration and fuel strategies, and other physiology issues that might (hopefully) add a bit of value for the viewers. I'm looking forward to it, we'll have to see how it goes.

The marathon world looks back to days of old

Meanwhile, while South Africans are basking the glory of "fast" 2:18 marathon times (seriously, the media are reporting that the top local MALE runners are in great shape because they ran 2:18 marathons recently), the rest of world is now racing competitively at sub-2:05 pace!

Last weekend, in a momentous day for marathon running, 13 Kenyan men broke 2:09 on a single day (only 6 Americans have ever done it, according to LetsRun.com). The Paris Marathon saw 11 sub-2:09 clockings, a record for a single race, with a winning time of 2:05:47. The Rotterdam Marathon, while not as deep, was even more spectacular, with two men running 2:04:27.

That's right, a sprint for the line, and a victory margin of less than a second in a marathon run in 2:04:27. Duncan Kibet and James Kwambai were 1 and 2, and they ran the third and fourth fastest marathons in history that day.

It was, for marathon running, a definitive statement that a new era has arrived. A lot of people, including a coach on the LetsRun.com boards, are proclaiming that this was a weekend that changed the marathon world, the start of a new era. A revolution, certainly, but it is a change that started a long time ago. And so it is not so much that we are seeing a new era, it's just that the era which began three or four years ago is now so obvious that it's starting to punch us between the eyes.

Looking back, Rotterdam and Paris were spectacular, but predictable. It's easy to look back in hindsight, but the ripple effect of what happened on the track in the 1990s, driven by Gebrselassie, was bound to reach the marathon (once again, it was Geb who has played a key role). It is actually not dissimilar to what happened in the 5,000m event in the mid-1990s. In 1994, the world record stood at 12:58 (Said Aouita). That year, Gebrselassie broke his record for the first time, taking it down to 12:56. Moses Kiptanui "borrowed" it in early 1995, before Gebrselassie produced what might be one of the greatest runs of all time, to take almost 11 seconds off the record when he ran 12:44.39 in Zurich.

What happened next is that the rest of the world was "pulled" into faster times. Where before 1995, it was remarkable to break 13 minutes, it suddenly became commonplace. Sub 12:50 was the new standard, and by 1997, Gebrselassie's "untouchable" world record had fallen to Daniel Komen, and easily half a dozen men were running 12:50 times each year.

The same has now happened in the marathon. One year ago, only one man had ever run under 2:05. Last weekend, four men did it on one day (once again, credit to LetsRun for the stat). Yet the signs were there. Elite half marathons that are NOT won in sub-60 minutes are now deemed "SLOW", because so many men are running 59-something for that distance. Gebrselassie, Tergat and other men with 59-credentials are translating that speed (and their obvious track speed) into 2:04 marathons, and the rest of the world is following suit. To me, the key moment came in 2003, when Paul Tergat and Sammy Korir raced to a world record of 2:04:55 in Berlin. That was the start of the current era, in my opinion, and Kibet and Kwambai are the next step in the evolution of the race, the steps now being taken more and more frequently.

Added to this, the huge money on offer provides an enormous incentive (as for the Zimbabweans in Two Oceans, though it's all relative), and the rest, as they say, is history and a race for 2:04:27 "photo finish" in the marathon.

Best of all, there are still two big marathons to go. First is Boston, which probably won't produce those kinds of times thanks to the tougher course, but should give us a great race between American favourite Ryan Hall (who is apparently in awesome training shape) and defending champion Robert Cheruiyot, who won last year's race in brutal, dominant fashion.

Then the week after is the big one - London. Last year, London produced six sub-2:07 clockings, which is a record that was matched in Paris last weekend. This year's London race promises to be even better - Lel vs Wanjiru vs Goumri vs Gharib vs Tadese. There are world champions, Olympic Champions, World Series Champions, debutants with magnificent half-marathon credentials. It promises to be an extra-ordinary race.

Closer to the time, for both Boston and London, we'll recap our analysis from last year and look forward. And then obviously, on race day, I'll be doing my "real time" splits and race commentary, as has become custom here at The Science of Sport.

Sevens rugby: Two to go, as we near the end of the season

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the Sevens Tournament in Adelaide, seeing as how I've been updating you on the tournaments in Dubai and Hong Kong.

We won Adelaide (huge celebrations), and are now within striking distance of claiming the overall World Series title. That was of course the big goal for the year and so we approach that with the chance to wrap it up in London at the end of May (followed by Edinburgh a week later).

The Adelaide tournament was really just a war of attrition. It was the 5th tournament in 9 weeks, and came only a week after a tough Hong Kong tournament. Players were battered, bruised and fatigued, and it was always going to be a survival of the fittest contest.

In the end, I have little doubt that we won because of superior fitness, for which the coaching staff and fitness and conditioning staff (Allan Temple-Jones, to be specific) must take a bow. We had injuries, as did the other teams, but our intensity remained closer to normal than anyone else's throughout both Hong Kong and Adelaide, and that made a difference, along with the other changes made after the Dubai trip.

So a successful trip, with one to go, which I'll hopefully report good news on in due course!

Enjoy Easter, have a wonderful break, and join us for more next week!

Ross

2009 Fortis Rotterdam Marathon

Kibet and Kwambai have now arrived

Rotterdam has always been a fast course, and since its inception in 1981 it has produced two WRs and the winning time is always around 2:07-2:08. However due to its place on the racing calendar---very close to London---and also due to London's seemingly bottomless budget and insistence on attracting the most incredible fields, Rotterdam has always been that "other" marathon, and instead of being a premier event where the big guns of road running come out to play, it has instead served more as a proving ground for those wanting to show they can challenge the already established stars of the road. That was definitely the case this year as two up-and-coming marathon stars hammered each other after the pacers dropped out to produce an amazing race and the third fastest time ever.

Last year the organizers splurged and forked out to bring in the best of the rest (the "rest" were all running London on the same weekend!). The result was nothing too earth-shattering, but nevertheless William Kipsang ran 2:05:49 (a new course record) and Daniel Rono jogged in about one minute later (2:06:58) as both men ran sub-2:07. The organizers, ever hopeful, were holding out for a new WR because both of those men had good credentials and might just have had a miracle race in them. In the end all they got was a new course record, but that did not stop them from bringing in fresh (and fast) new talent for this year.

The life of Kwambai: Part I

Some of you may (or may not) recall Kwambai from last year in Berlin. He tried heroically to challenge Gebreselassie. . .until Geb made the final move with five km to go on his way to a 2:03:59 and kind of overshadowed what was a significant run by Kwambai. Kwambai tanked the last five km and although he finished over 90 s back from Geb, he still crossed the line in a very fast 2:05:36---nearly seven minutes faster than his previous best time! So this year in Rotterdam he proved that he is not a one-hit wonder as he clearly has moved from being a 2:10 runner down to a serious contendor when he nearly won yesterday in 2:04:27.

The life of Kibet: Part I

Kibet debuted in Milano at the end of last year without much fanfare, winning that race in 2:07:53. That is fast, to be sure, especially given the condition which were apparently pretty cold, but plenty of runners on the circuit are running 2:08. Even more, Kibet has run five half-marathons with a best time of "only" 60:22, so he is fast to be sure, but several runners out there have sub-59s to their credit. So for Kibet to eke out a 2:04:27 in Rotterdam yesterday means he really ran out of his skin. Needless to say he also shattered his PB, taking nearly 3.5 min off his debut time in Milano.

Part II: The duel of Kibet vs. Kwambai

On paper it was half-marathon speedster Patrick Makau who was meant to steal the show as he has a 58:56 half to his credit. However it was his debut, and although impressive at 2:06:14 he was off the back when the racing started after 30 km. Before that there was a field of at least eight runners. The last pacer dropped out at 32 km, and that is when you started to see significant surges by Kwambai who really looked like he had the legs to systematically drop the others one by one. Makau was already seven seconds back at 35 km, but eventual third placer Abel Kirui was hanging in there and stayed with Kwambai's attacks until he was 20 s off the pace at 40 km.

Kwambai put in what he must have hoped would be his final attack after 40 km, and dropped Kibet with less than two km to go. He had a gap of maybe 20 m or so and Kibet was not looking like he could reel Kwambai back in. In fact down the finishing stretch Kwambai looked confident about the move he just made and was zeroing in on the tape when Kibet came storming back:



It was not quite as close as Ramaala and Tergat in NYC 2005, or Ivuti and Gharib in Chicago 2007, but it was fantastic racing by these two runners who now have clearly arrived on the scene. Having produced the third fastest time ever---and only by one second as Gebreselassie's 2nd fastest time stands at 2:04:26---they have let everyone know they have the legs to contend on a flat course.

Their time was the result of a quick pace right from the start, and their split at halfway was 62:35---compared to 62:03 for Geb when he set his record last year in Berlin---although it was not a pure time trial as Kwambai really dropped the hammer and attacked the remaining bunch and the Kibet when he was the only one left running with him. In fact their pacing and splits deserves a further analysis to see exactly what the difference was between their 2:04:27 and Geb's 2:03:59. But in any case both Kibet and Kwambai have increased their worth in a major way. If they can maintain their training without injury we should expect to see them in a big city race at the end of this year or next spring. Is London calling yet guys?

Jonathan

The responsibility of sporting greatness

How much do we expect from our sporting heroes?

We are avid readers at The Science of Sport, and as is often the case our reading material provides inspiration for posts. So today we will have a look at the "Social Science of Sport" because I have just finished "A People's History of Sports in the United States," by Dave Zirin. It takes the format of the "People's History of. . ." books, mostly by Howard Zinn. Zirin's book is a pretty fast read and encompasses all the sports and many different aspects of them over the last few hundred years in the USA.

Much of the section on the 20th century examines how athletes, especially those of color, had to choose whether of not to be part of the struggle for civil rights. For many of the great non-white athletes it was very much a case of choosing sides, because there was very real pressure for them to take the up the struggle and promote the cause of civil rights. Failure to do so often brought criticism from civil rights leaders and advocates because the athletes had most certainly been on the receiving end of discrimination as they made their way up to the professional ranks.

The athletes had a fine line to walk, though, because their livelihood as an athlete could just as easily be taken away if they were seen to be too vocal about the fact the their league was not hiring more non-white athletes. So it was a catch 22 as they had to decide either to stand up and be vocal about discrimination and hiring practices, yet risk their own job, or quietly play ball but be criticized for not taking more advantage of their position of prominence in society. Adding to their difficulties was the fact that, were they to be released by their sport, the chances of them getting a job doing anything meaningful were slim---this was in the height of discrimination in America, so there were no coaching jobs after retirement, no cushy commentating positions offered by the networks.

So we have a tendency to expect more from our sporting heroes, be it more performance on the field or more social responsibility. Presently those expectations are probably as high as ever because the athletes earn incredible amounts of money both from salaries and endorsement deals, and so we expect them to do something more since deep down it probably seems ridiculous to us that a person can earn 10+ million a year for throwing/catching/kicking a ball around a field or court!

What's an athlete to do?

One thing the high-paid athletes can do is take up a cause and try to give back to some community somewhere, be it their own neighborhood where they grew up, or a foundation for a disease that effects one of their family members, or something else entirely. It is kind of like an opinion I heard on nepotism once: everyone knows you got the job because your dad owns the company, but the one thing you can do is work your butt off to show people you deserve to be there. The parallel in sports is for athletes to take up charitable causes, and as such we see athletes who endorse things like the Big Brothers/Sisters program, and lend their name and image to other public service announcements. One interesting part of the book was how Zirin pointed out that one particular athlete has so much yet did so little with it socially. It might surprise you know that the athlete is Michael Jordan. His airness did not take up the mantle of any cause in spite of earning over $30 million per year in salary alone during his last two years in the NBA.

A present-day case in point is of course Lance Armstrong and his Lance Armstrong Foundation. Few can argue against his contributions to the fight against cancer, and even fewer can argue that any other athlete has done more for a given cause. The really interesting thing about this, however----and this is where the Social Science of Sport intersects with The Science of Sport----is that many fans will say, "Who cares if he is doped? Look at what he has done for cancer! Look at the hope he gives to all cancer patients!" Indeed they are right, he has inspired hope and raised awareness, but if you buy into this argument then you must agree that the ends justify the means, and therefore he (or any athlete) may have cheated their way to the top of their sport, but so long as they give back tremendously in some way, shape, or form, it makes it ok to have done so.

Mixing sports, life, and politics

The bigger picture here is that we do not see our sporting heroes in the same light as we see our colleague in the cubicle next door----they are not just other people doing their job and living their lives. Somehow we expect more from them on all fronts, and hence the debates that will rage about how much or how little athletes give back, and how they might have achieved their fame that allowed them to give back so much in the first place. Even more interesting is that we do not apply these standards to all top athletes. The one that comes to mind now is Barry Bonds, a sure bet for the hall of fame and current holder of the home run record, or even Mark McGwire, also a hero in his day. These figures have gone quietly away and we do not seem upset that in spite of their multi-million dollar salaries they give nothing back.

So if you are looking for a new book and a quick read, I really recommend Zirin's book. It provides a great view of history in the US as viewed thru a sporting lens. In the mean time we will try to recover from a dismally slow month here on the site. It was inevitable, but alas, the call of our real jobs plus other work and the "normal" commitments of life (work, family, fatherhood, friends) call, and they compete for time spent posting here. But marathon season is upon us, and you can be sure we will be tuning in to see how the big city races and their epic fields unfold!

Jonathan