Holy moly.
Dustin Horter ran 9:14 at the Eastern Relays this past weekend. Crazy.
Holy moly.
Dustin Horter ran 9:14 at the Eastern Relays this past weekend. Crazy.
Next Zach Wills??
No way off no training.
(Letsruns Exercise Physiologist)
GnomeBe wrote:
No way off no training.
(Letsruns Exercise Physiologist)
No one said he did it off no training. He was a middle school superstar and one of the best runners in Ohio in CC in the fall. He undoubtedly trains a lot. Even so, 9:14 in your first 3200 ever is pretty darn good, especially as a freshman.
anacondarunner wrote:
Next Zach Wills??
Hopefully not. Zach didn't improve after his sophomore year.
TAA wrote:
anacondarunner wrote:Next Zach Wills??
Hopefully not. Zach didn't improve after his sophomore year.
To be fair, Zach was the D1 state XC champion his junior and senior years.
Flagpole wrote:
No one said he did it off no training. He was a middle school superstar and one of the best runners in Ohio in CC in the fall. He undoubtedly trains a lot. Even so, 9:14 in your first 3200 ever is pretty darn good, especially as a freshman.
No it's not. "First" is only significant if the guy has never raced a distance race before or if he is doing something extreme like the marathon. If you've been training a lot, have raced 800-5000 several times already, good enough to be considered a superstar, and considered one of the best xc runners in the STATE, then "first" is totally irrelevant. All you need to mention is the time. What does it being his first have to do with anything?
Flagpole is wrong again. Not surprised.
I ran a 9:24 two mile as a freshman (9th grade). I did it off of consistent, but limited training (35 miles a week).
I did not think it all that great then because it was so far behind Eric Hulst.
But it was a time not often run by a 9th grader in the state, and I remember it well, since I had no idea what I was doing.
This young man's 9:14 (9:18 for two miles) time is impressive. I hope he enjoys the sport. I never did really enjoy the sport; I suspect that was more or less due to an absolutely dismal family situation that colored all aspects of my young life. But a time like this young man's is a great platform for future achievement.
How fast has he run for a mile, or 1600?
cradle wrote:
"First" is only significant if the guy has never raced a distance race before or if he is doing something extreme like the marathon. If you've been training a lot, have raced 800-5000 several times already, good enough to be considered a superstar, and considered one of the best xc runners in the STATE, then "first" is totally irrelevant.
What would you say about Solinsky's debut 10,000m in 26:59? Is that what you would call "extreme," or is it also irrelevant since he was such a stud at 5000m?
It is certainly a noteworthy accomplishment. But for the love of Pre, add a few more yards and make it a full Deuce!
cradle wrote:
Flagpole wrote:No one said he did it off no training. He was a middle school superstar and one of the best runners in Ohio in CC in the fall. He undoubtedly trains a lot. Even so, 9:14 in your first 3200 ever is pretty darn good, especially as a freshman.
No it's not. "First" is only significant if the guy has never raced a distance race before or if he is doing something extreme like the marathon. If you've been training a lot, have raced 800-5000 several times already, good enough to be considered a superstar, and considered one of the best xc runners in the STATE, then "first" is totally irrelevant. All you need to mention is the time. What does it being his first have to do with anything?
Flagpole is wrong again. Not surprised.
You're way off base. First means the first time you've run the even in competition, period. Straightforward.
-- ? -- wrote:
How fast has he run for a mile, or 1600?
Milesplit says 4:24.
malmo wrote:
cradle wrote:No it's not. "First" is only significant if the guy has never raced a distance race before or if he is doing something extreme like the marathon. If you've been training a lot, have raced 800-5000 several times already, good enough to be considered a superstar, and considered one of the best xc runners in the STATE, then "first" is totally irrelevant. All you need to mention is the time. What does it being his first have to do with anything?
Flagpole is wrong again. Not surprised.
You're way off base. First means the first time you've run the even in competition, period. Straightforward.
CORRECT!
Anyone who competes in an event for the first time without gaining an insight of how to improve upon that effort is either uncompetitive or not very smart. A freshman's first attempt at 3200 in 9:14 is a hell of lot more impressive than if it was his 10th attempt. Good for this kid and let's hope he continues to improve at all events.
opinionated guy wrote:
A freshman's first attempt at 3200 in 9:14 is a hell of lot more impressive than if it was his 10th attempt. Good for this kid and let's hope he continues to improve at all events.
Why is that more impressive? How many times you run an event has nothing to do with anything. How is the time and his grade not the only things that matter???
cradle wrote:
How many times you run an event has nothing to do with anything.
that's just not true. ever talked to a steeplechaser or a hurdler? practice makes perfect... and experience goes a long way.
and you said yourself that a debut marathon would be considered noteworthy. doesn't that mean you would expect future marathon attempts to be better ones?
cradle wrote:
Flagpole wrote:CORRECT!
No, INCORRECT.
You both are idiots and lack reading comprehension. I didn't say that first did not mean "the first time you've run the event in competition, period". I don't think I even used the word "mean" at all. You two are arguing with no one. Good job.
I'll put both Flagpole's and my reading comprehension up to yours any day, any time.
it is good wrote:
I ran a 9:24 two mile as a freshman (9th grade). I did it off of consistent, but limited training (35 miles a week).
I did not think it all that great then because it was so far behind Eric Hulst.
But it was a time not often run by a 9th grader in the state, and I remember it well, since I had no idea what I was doing.
This young man's 9:14 (9:18 for two miles) time is impressive. I hope he enjoys the sport. I never did really enjoy the sport; I suspect that was more or less due to an absolutely dismal family situation that colored all aspects of my young life. But a time like this young man's is a great platform for future achievement.
Yea ok buddy, way to try to coyly self promote your dumb self. The fact that Hurst ran a lot faster would have no bearing on whether you thought it was great. You're either a moron or a liar.
cradle wrote:
opinionated guy wrote:A freshman's first attempt at 3200 in 9:14 is a hell of lot more impressive than if it was his 10th attempt. Good for this kid and let's hope he continues to improve at all events.
Why is that more impressive? How many times you run an event has nothing to do with anything. How is the time and his grade not the only things that matter???
It definitely matters, it can take time to learn to compete at a new distance, beyond just physical ability. Unless it's something like mile to 1500, it matters.