Body type: Can't you usually tell who's good and who's not?

zohan wrote:

How often have you been really surprised at a race when someone that doesn't really "look" fast wins or performs well? I have to say it's not often.

Can't HS and college coaches just look at a kid and know if they have any potential as a runner, w/o even know the kids times or history?

I think I can look at ankle size, wrists, and calves and pretty much nail it.

This applies for men but not for women. I've seen chubby xc girls run hella good times

Not necessarily, I don't really look like a distance runner 6'2" 190 lbs but I just popped a sub 3 marathon. So there are some exceptions to the rules.

General population? No. I could line up at some local yocal 5k and still beat a lot of skinny looking runners.

But, generally you can tell the good runners at a local billy bob 5k by the shoes and clothing they wear.

Alan

Reg Fields wrote:

Not necessarily, I don't really look like a distance runner 6'2" 190 lbs but I just popped a sub 3 marathon. So there are some exceptions to the rules.

Dont take this the wrong way but....

One might argue that you really arent a good distance runner. Saying, "jeez I ran a Sub 3 hour marathon, thats an hour faster than Oprah and I was in the top 10% of the field," is a bit absurd.

It would save a lot of time to just get rid of races and determine the winner by who looks the fastest on the start line.

zohan wrote:

How often have you been really surprised at a race when someone that doesn't really "look" fast wins or performs well? I have to say it's not often.

Can't HS and college coaches just look at a kid and know if they have any potential as a runner, w/o even know the kids times or history?

I think I can look at ankle size, wrists, and calves and pretty much nail it.

If there is someone at a non-major race (

What the hell? I always thought that the "less than" sign thing was a running joke around here or something. I guess I have never tested it. Anyways here is the gist my post:

If the race has less than a couple of thousand people, I can always tell by looking at the competition if anyone there has a shot at beating me. Sorry Reg, you definitely wouldn't be someone I was worried about. I think that the guys that the OP and I are talking about would generally beat you by 3-5 miles in a marathon.

At a local low key race I have no trouble identifying the competition.

A good tip for winning these races is to wear the lowest tech stuff you can find so that you don't look the part and run off to a crazy lead early.

Everyone will expect you to come back like the kids wearing high tops.

Don't.

Gary Oldman wrote:

At a local low key race I have no trouble identifying the competition.

A good tip for winning these races is to wear the lowest tech stuff you can find so that you don't look the part and run off to a crazy lead early.

Everyone will expect you to come back like the kids wearing high tops.

Don't.

Haha - I actually have used this very tactic. There was a local stud at a race that I really wanted to win. I intentionally had on knee-length shorts, a tucked in T-shirt, and a dorky backward baseball cap. I took off in about 5:00 for the first mile and ALMOST ran away from him. He ended up getting me 15:49 - 15:53. He admitted after the race that he paid no attention to my early "move" and had settled back in a comfortable tempo expecting to reel me in and win without breaking a sweat. At least I made him work for it a little... he is a high 14s/low 15s guy on the track and well out of my league.

Body type is like VO2 max. Across 1000 people in your average 5 k race, you can tell who the fastest 1% are based on body type. Ordering the top 10 according to body type - not so easy. Other factors come into play.

Reg Fields wrote:

Not necessarily, I don't really look like a distance runner 6'2" 190 lbs but I just popped a sub 3 marathon. So there are some exceptions to the rules.

You are good for a hobby jogger, but you are NOT a good runner. I could beat you by THIRTY minutes and I'm not even sub-sub-sub-elite.

Purveyor wrote:

oh for the love of shit wrote:

[quote]Reg Fields wrote:

You are good for a hobby jogger, but you are NOT a good runner. I could beat you by THIRTY minutes and I'm not even sub-sub-sub-elite.

Wow good for you, but how come you're withholding the fact that you have a micropenis?

As soon as he capitalized "not" he announced that he lives a life of shame due to his almost non-existent penis. When he also capitalized "thirty" the immediate inference is that it's so bad that he must sit down to pee. Read his post again, he was very open about his pegina.

Indeed, it was right there in front of me.

But there are plenty of skinny guys who run who can't run sub 3. So its a good measure but not fool proof. Your typical skinny guy on the start line could be anywhere from 13:00 to 21:00 for a 5k

Alan

Yeah, you can typically tell who is going to really roll and who isn't. You can also tell who has more upside.

Case in point, the Ambers: Trotter v. Gore

As a college coach I would have always taken Gore over Trotter if I had a choice.

runningart2004 wrote:

But there are plenty of skinny guys who run who can't run sub 3. So its a good measure but not fool proof. Your typical skinny guy on the start line could be anywhere from 13:00 to 21:00 for a 5k

Alan

It's more about observing the way a person moves than just looking for skinny people.

Usually. There are exceptions. http://youtu.be/oUvMrHZwOZQ

lol lol lol lol wrote:

Usually. There are exceptions.

http://youtu.be/oUvMrHZwOZQ

Was Snell known to be very idiosyncratic? He reminds me of someone who could fall on the autism spectrum somewhere.