3 European 17-18 year olds have run 1:44 this year...how is the US HSR still 1:46?

John Wesley Harding wrote:

Are you sure Miller was 18 and not 19 when he ran 1:44? I can’t find a DOB but I know he was 19 as of July 24, based on an old FloTrack article. Even if he was say 18 & 11 months (D.O.B. please), has there ever been another U.S. boy to run sub-1:46 before their 19th birthday?

Meant to include “outdoors”—Brazier ran 1:45.93i for A&M 3 months before turning 19.

John Wesley Harding wrote:

malmo wrote:

Uhhh, like because the Eurokids are faster than the American kids. Just a wild speculation on my part.

Thank you for the friendly and intelligent contribution.

It could be random chance that Poland, a country with less than 1/8 the U.S. population, has produced two boys no older than typical U.S. high school seniors who have run 1:44 this season while no American has broken 1:46 outdoors before their 19th birthday ever. Or, there could be various training, environmental, and competitive factors at play: is the club system superior to the U.S. HS system?, are U.S. high schoolers over-raced?, do U.S. phenoms focus on and save their best for the mile?, etc.

How about this: in America the high school season is done by June. In Europe the season is just starting up in June.

The fact is we've had hs miles who've out-performed the Poles. Marty Liquori is the youngest runner to ever make an Olympic final in the 1500m. Whats wrong with the rest of the world?

Or maybe its just that the anomalies are just distributed randomly, and bunching of random data is just whats expected?

1:44 is a different animal, but some of the 1:47 high schoolers we have produced perhaps could have run 1:46 or even 1:45 if they didn't double and triple most of the high school season and ran races where someone could lead them out in 52.

I thought Granville ran faster (meaning I thought the high school record was faster) but 1:46 it is. I thought it was 1:44high, by same man. Clearly not the case, but it is somewhat surprising. Granted, you have to consider 1:44 is world level, and how many american high school kids are at that level, especially for distance? But you think it’d be a bit lower.

I’m thinking - if you were fast enough to run <1:46 you’d be the fastest 400m runner on your team and be asked to go down and multi in sprints. OR if you’re an endurance guy and can run that time you are winning every mile in devastating fashion. Lots of teams separate distance and sprint coaching - that 800 can get caught in the fray.

Personally I don't care how fast they can run at a young age. What's more important is whether they can continue to improve and be competitive at the senior level.

We see many examples of these prodigies burning out and never run faster again.

Two pages in and no one has given you the correct answer. American football. College football at all levels and N.F.L. are filled with guys who either have 21.xx 200m P.B. or would have been capable of 21-something 200m. Twenty-one something 200m speed is usually the sprinting ability of elite 800m men. From voluntary (mandatory) 12 month a year weight training, it is hard to picture many N.F.L. receivers as potential 800m men. Have to watch the transformation. Many sub-170 pound receivers show up on campus as freshmen. After voluntary (mandatory) weight training, many N.F.L. receivers no longer have an 800m build.

malmo wrote:

Uhhh, like because the Eurokids are faster than the American kids. Just a wild speculation on my part.

Haha. Because it’s the one race where you put the least talented of your Hs runners. Just not prioritized in the US…at least not in HS.

OozmaKappa wrote:

Because american distance and mid distance running culture is plagued by a reverance for hobbyjogging the first half of the race and sprinting the last lap.

That's the only answer. I guarantee those two European kids don't immediately savor 8th or 10th place and wait until the final 100 meters for a sucker rally.

VroomVroom wrote:

malmo wrote:

Uhhh, like because the Eurokids are faster than the American kids. Just a wild speculation on my part.

Haha. Because it’s the one race where you put the least talented of your Hs runners. Just not prioritized in the US…at least not in HS.

If you were to give your post further thought, you will know your post is not the answer to the question. I guess if I were a coach of high school girls, I would place an 80 second 400m athlete & 7 minute 1600m runner in 800m; I guess I would place a 70 second 400m male athlete & 6 minute 1600m runner in 800m. Your post does not explain what occurs with 60 second female 400m athletes and 50 second male 400m athletes. U.S. men from 1936 to 1956 Olympics won 800m gold. If winning is a priority, one would think high school coaches would want to place athletes in appropriate events.

In a way perhaps football is a factor. But what seems possibly another factor is you wonder how many sub 47 second 400m HS runners the US produces in an average year. Those kids often have little incentive to try the 800m or to run maybe 35 miles per week which might render a few of them capable of running a 1:45ish type race. I think it is rare for a sub 47 talent to run cross country because he is very often a stud on the football team and he often can train 5 to 10 miles per week, if that, during track season and still be “da man.” I don’t pretend to have the answer but I do think football, basketball, soccer and the above issue may all be parts of the answer.

Uprising wrote:

"Uh...maybe you missed an American teen who got 6th in the Olympic 1500 while those other kids were watching online or TV? "

----------------

Hocker was 20 years old in the Olympic final!

the macdaddy og yo wrote:

However, it’s likely that two of the runners you mentioned would be in the college system already.

I - along with many of my peers - did not turn 18 until after I graduated high school.

This is one reason why comparisons are difficult. The US HS is roughly "under 19"; it's not strictly "under 18" (especially because someone graduating in June but turning 18 in december is not u18). Therefore their records are neither comparable with European countries' u18 nor u20 records.

Similarly, college is almost like the u23 class but not quite as some people run in college at 23-24.

600yd/600m man wrote:

Two pages in and no one has given you the correct answer. American football. College football at all levels and N.F.L. are filled with guys who either have 21.xx 200m P.B. or would have been capable of 21-something 200m. Twenty-one something 200m speed is usually the sprinting ability of elite 800m men. From voluntary (mandatory) 12 month a year weight training, it is hard to picture many N.F.L. receivers as potential 800m men. Have to watch the transformation. Many sub-170 pound receivers show up on campus as freshmen. After voluntary (mandatory) weight training, many N.F.L. receivers no longer have an 800m build.

How is this different to Poland, when soccer is the biggest sport?

Kobbs Hessler wrote:

Michael Granville never got any better and vanished from the running scene not long after high school.

Yeah I don’t know if Granville’s record should be the standard here if we are concerned with success long term.

American football is a huge factor. I have lost state level athletes who would rather sit the bench or play special teams in football. football gets all the glory, girls, popular kids, etc. it is the epitome of American high school culture.

I also believe this to be true as my kid is a very talented runner and gets pressured to play football and baseball which he has no interest in. He’s all in for track and cross country but in our area that is very rare.

Soccer is probably a bigger factor in Europe than American football in the US. There is usually no glory at all in HS and college level sports in Europe. Unless you can already play in the youth division of one of the famous soccer clubs, or maybe as a 17-19 yo already full professional. So the draw of professional soccer should be stronger than HS track vs. HS football.

And 800m is an event more attuned to soccer whereas the shorter sprints, hurdles, decathlon are more associated with athletes being also good in American football. So I don't think this argument is plausible. There is probably no deeper reason. Except for Britain and Poland Europe is usually not very good at teenage middle distance running, these boys are more exceptions than evidence for some big differences.

This is a combination of two things, lack of competition in high quality 800s for high school students, which was why Brazier didn't dust this record considering his huge negative split race--same for Webb, who ran 1:47.7 as a split or a race with high schoolers before the 3:53, and priority among distance runners to chase the sub-4 mile along with 400m guys who refuse to try the 800m.