Why do U.S. runners tend to run the shortest distance for which they have the speed?

A 3:36 guy is unlikely to medal in the 10k. Moving up isn't as easy as everyone makes out. Everyone has a best distance. That is partly set by training but partly by genetics. There is a reason why none of our 45 s 400m guys have moved up and become 1:42 guys. You can say it is lazy but that is a very limited view. In many ways the shorter distances are tougher to train for and race than the longer ones. It is much easy to go run for 12 miles than to do 12x400 with short rest.

logician wrote:

Zat0pek wrote:

Because by switching events, they may go from being on the cusp of becoming an Olympian at 1500 to being on the cusp of becoming an Olympic medalist at 10,000.

I wasn't asking why they should switch, I was asking if you can understand why someone wouldn't want to. "Maybe you'll be a medalist at 10,000" - that's a pretty big maybe. Seems like a bigger maybe than trying to lose those 3.5 seconds in the 1500.

Zat0pek,

I think part of this American stigma about staying at 'your distance' and not giving higher distances a chance is somewhat linked to the idea of making concessions to failure. I think a lot of people view moving up in distance as admitting failure to do well at the distance they have chosen to try excelling at, and some athletes are the athletes they are because they always want to hold out on hope. Can't blame them, because hope is a good thing.

Now I'm not justifying this point of view; just saying that I could see a lot of top athletes out there having this perspective somewhat embedded in their thought processes. Especially if they have spent so much time training for a specific distance, and maybe that's the error to begin with. Canova believes strongly any training the body more aerobically until the athlete is in his early to mid 20's, and then working at specific distances. If you look at some of his athletes, they have competes at various distances: Isaac Songok ran 3:31, 12:48, and even some longer cross races. Kipchoge has started his seasons out the past couple years with 10k's, both under 27:00.

One example I think of is Anthony Famiglietti. For years he continued to pound away at the steeple. Then in the last few years, we've seen him run 3:35, 7:39, 8:13, 13:11, and 27:38. He set ? PR's in a two-year period just from racing different distances, and how many 10k's on the track had Famiglietti ran before his 27:38? I see your point, and I think it has some validity to it, if not a lot.

I believe the crucial point in your argument is that if a runner has a limiting athletic ability (i.e. their basic, raw speed is only so fast) then they can improve their caliber of competitiveness by adjusting the other parameters of their physical characterstics which are not yet limited. I think there are some runners in the U.S. who can benefit from this mindset, but at the same time, I think there are a lot of athletes who see competing at distance of 5-10k as futile against the top runners in the world.

For the 10k, a man really has to be able to run under 27:00 if he hopes to be competitive in the least against the world's top talent. Until some U.S. runners start running within spitting distance of 27:00, middle-distance runners will not stop perceiving the 10k as a distance out of the American league. I think Hall and Rupp are two candidates possibly capable of approaching to within spitting distance of the 27:00 'barrier', but until some runners start doing it, no one is going to start looking for the carrot at the end of that stick. Like a poster said earlier, the carrot looks a lot closer when it's only 3.5 seconds away as opposed to a whole minute. And no matter how good your basic speed is, you need a lot more to be able to run 26:30 for 10k. It isn't as simple as just logging more junk miles.

I think there are some special cases as well. For example, Webb has amazing range, and I think he's make some good decisions, but I also think he has a great opportunity to lower the 3k and 5k AR's. Anyone who can go 1:43, 3:30.5, 3:46.9, 8:11, 13:10 and 27:34 in a debut has very good potential for any specific mid-distance to distance work. Remember, Webb's 5k progression went 13:45, 13:30, 13:10. And his 13:10 was ran at the end of the track season, not necessarily when he was at maximum strength or even specifically training for it.

I often think about Seb Coe. He was already talented at 800m when he was in college, and his 800m speed is most definitely the reasons he was able to get gold in the 1500m, even though he was the WR at 800m. At one point, he lost that pure speed, but still had enough of it and stamina to be great at 1500m. But Coe never really moved up in distance, and there is an interview where Peter Coe mentions that the time came when they could have started moving Coe up in distance but instead decided to turn around and keep focusing on speed. But I imagine Coe could've been a great 3k-10k runner had he spent the time training specifically for any of those distances.

I think Webb should definitely make a coordinated effort to train for the 5000m if he still wishes to continue running 1500m/mile. I could see Tegenkamp being good at 10k if he can hang with the leaders, but I don't think he has the aerobic power to do it. He definitely has the finishing speed, but if he can't be able to withstand 60 second laps being thrown in the middle of the race and continuing on for another 10 laps then I'm not sure if he could be any more competitive at 10k on the world stage than he could be at 5k.

Webb --> should try 5k's and 10k's more, a la Kipchoge

Tegenkamp --> should try more 10k's

C. Smith --> 1500's and 3k's

G. Jennings --> marathon

Sara Hall --> 10k

Tollefson --> marathon

Rupp --> turn pro and start marathoning but still do 10k's

McDougal --> marathon

Bauhs --> marathon

Manzano --> 3k's/5k's (at least try them)

OR wrote:

In many ways the shorter distances are tougher to train for and race than the longer ones. It is much easy to go run for 12 miles than to do 12x400 with short rest.

logician wrote:

[quote]Zat0pek wrote:

Yeah but how easy is it race a marathon compared to racing a 100m dash, or even training for the marathon compared to the 100m? yes, aerobic work can be easier than anaerobic work, but it depends on the intensity of both.

I wrote a reaction here:

http://track-superfan.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-long-distance-track-woes.html

and I identified a basic problem in the US system that keeps people from running longer distances.

"When I went to a presentation Lydiard did three weeks before he died, I suggested to him that our team orientation is a big barrier to getting top athletes into distance races.

"Let me give you a theoretical example. Suppose an average, ordinary high school track team has a 17-year-old who not only can run 48-flat in the 400, but can run that several times in one meet without tiring. He can also do duty on the 4x800 and/or 4x200. Most average, ordinary track coaches see this kid as the centerpiece of their average, ordinary track team, scoring big-time points.

"But this theoretical 16-year-old's combination of speed and endurance might be suited to someday being a national-caliber miler, or an international-caliber 5k/10k man, as both Grimes and Lydiard suggest. The team-points system does not reward high school coaches who would have such a boy become a distance runner (since he couldn't run as many races), and teenage jock culture sure doesn't encourage him to think of going that way either. Ditto for a great high school 800/1500 runner becoming a 5k/10k man in college, for similar reasons. Unless something is changed to encourage the best runners to move up, it won't happen by itself."

Coe's father trained him as a distance runner for many years, then they slowly worked their way down in distance as they found he had more and more speed. Most runners start at the shorter distances and then move up as it is easier to increase endurance then speed (and speed is lost with age), but occasionally (ex Bucher, Wottle) they start with good perfomances at longer distances and then discover they also have good speed, and run well at 800 and 1500.

interesting. i did not know that.

Speed is developed just as aerobic power/capacity is/can be. I think people give up on long distances just as often as they give up as shorter/mid distances. I think the thing is people need to race more when they are young, but not just race more but do a variety of distances, to see how they do at those distances. I wouldn't attribute any distance to any runner until we have seen them run the distance. Webb clearly shows the chops of a 1500/800 guy, as well as a 5k/10k guy, having comfortably run A standards at all 4 distances. Looking longer is not necessarily the answer, I think just looking in different places for different runners' potential is what people need to do.

Completely agree! Ovett used to do the 100 and 200 as a youngster as well as the 400, 800 and mile. He got down to about 11/22 in the 100 and 200, which surely helped his 400, which helped his 800, etc. Wilt Chamberlain did the long jump, triple jump, high jump and ran a sub 2:00 800m in high school. Then he went on to do other stuff later in life, I think he dabbled in basketball. Developing speed/explosiveness at a young age is just as important as developing endurance, and maintaining speed as an athlete matures and moves up in distance is important too.

Classic wishful thinking and armchair quarterbacking. The article was flat out dumb - repeating the thesis as proof that the thesis is valid.

I have not the time to read the whole thread and started reading because of who the OP is. Zat, Teg has the problem that he has not been able to train at the level of mileage that he thinks optimal for the 5000, much less the 10,000. He apparently has been training well with more mileage except that he came up with a knee injury that is now healing but will lead him not to race indoors. Also, he rather on the large side for the 10,000. In the big races he has not been out-kicked but they have run away from him (compare OGs with WCs).

Geb ran 3:31 1500m while concentrating on 5k/10k. what makes you think 3:31 was his upper limit at 1500m? There are only two Americans who have run sub-3:31, Webb and Lagat. Lagat's shown the ability to walk down Bekele in a slow championship 5k and to run sub-13, and Webb might be able to run sub-13 with specific training. But Webb (with tactics and health, mind you) is a medal contender at 1500m already, so if he might stand a shot at a 5k medal, that would be no greater a shot than at 1500m. Teg just missed a 5k bronze at world's. Would he do better at 10k? I don't know that he would, unless he could run substantially under 27, which is not that likely. An American record, even a big one, say, 27 flat, does not mean that you can kick home in 52-3 in a low 27 championship race against Bekele, Tadesse, and Sihine. I don't think that any of our other distance runners, except for German Fernandez, project to sub-27 10k. It is easier to medal in the 1500m for a 3:31-3:33 guy in a sit and kick race (see Willis). I do think that some of our 800m guys should spend more time on the 1500m (Christian Smith, Andrew Wheating, Nick Symmonds, and in the recent past, David Krummenacker).

malmo wrote:

Classic wishful thinking and armchair quarterbacking. The article was flat out dumb - repeating the thesis as proof that the thesis is valid.

Now why'd you have to go and say that?

We were having a nice big circle-jerk here!

malmo wrote:

Classic wishful thinking and armchair quarterbacking. The article was flat out dumb - repeating the thesis as proof that the thesis is valid.

You disagree that American runners tend to stay down in distance too often or for too long?

jonesy. wrote:

There are only two Americans who have run sub-3:31, Webb and Lagat.

How soon we forget...

Maree 3:29

Spivey 3:31even

Zat0pek wrote:

malmo wrote:

Classic wishful thinking and armchair quarterbacking. The article was flat out dumb - repeating the thesis as proof that the thesis is valid.

You disagree that American runners tend to stay down in distance too often or for too long?

No, but it is inherently speculative, and seems like a desperate attempt to alter results with a magic wand, a la Jeremy Wariner running the 800 meters. Malmo nailed it. It is wishful thinking, and yet rather harmless as a proposal if not taken too seriously. Unfortunately, the kool-aid drinkers will not be denied their sugar fix, which almost always appears concomitant with rendering inoperative what passes for their reasoning faculties.

Compare a 1500/3k/5k/10k to a marathon. Sure they are over quicker but you hurt a heck of lot more (well the marathon can hurt but only if you boink. If your a 2:08 guy that is not super likely to happen). Dealing with moderate discomfort for a long period of time isn't harder than dealing with extreme discomfort for 15 min.I have no clue what 100-400m guys really do but I am guessing they are all training the 2-3+ hours a day that every other elite athelete does.The main point is that you can't take every sub 48 400m guy and expect to turn them into 1:44 800m guys. Or every 4 min miler into a 28:00/2:10 guy. If your 4 min miler, is running a 14 min 5k, moving up to the marathon isn't going to make him more competitive. Maybe he can adjust his training but he also has to deal with his limitations. If you have good efficiency and high anaerobic tolerance, and decent vo2 max you can be an 800m guy. If you run the 5k, that anaerobic tolerance doesn't help you much.You can also find a whole class of guys that can run good 15k-half marathons but can never put a marathon at that level together. Maybe it is bad training but I think it more they have good vo2 max/anaerobic threshold but their body just doesn't burn enough fat(or their efficiency is low) for them to be as competitive in the marathon.And then their are the ones that have other goals. Pat Porter never tried to become a marathoner because it would have interfered with his XC running.

irun wrote:

OR wrote:

In many ways the shorter distances are tougher to train for and race than the longer ones. It is much easy to go run for 12 miles than to do 12x400 with short rest.

Yeah but how easy is it race a marathon compared to racing a 100m dash, or even training for the marathon compared to the 100m? yes, aerobic work can be easier than anaerobic work, but it depends on the intensity of both.

Re: Webb

Canova said it best, after AW ran his 27:3x

"Alan Webb might as well be wearing a shirt that says, 'I am a 5k runner'"

chris hanson wrote:No, but it is inherently speculative, and seems like a desperate attempt to alter results with a magic wand, a la Jeremy Wariner running the 800 meters. Malmo nailed it. It is wishful thinking, and yet rather harmless as a proposal if not taken too seriously. Unfortunately, the kool-aid drinkers will not be denied their sugar fix, which almost always appears concomitant with rendering inoperative what passes for their reasoning faculties.

I agree, which makes me think that I've overstated my view, so let me be clear: No way in hell are we going to take a bunch of 3:36 1500 guys and suddenly have a pack of sub-27:00 10,000 runners. Not going to happen. Not now, not ever.

If I gave the perception that I thought we should just move everyone up and voila! we suddenly dropped 30 seconds off of the 10,000 AR, then I communicated my view poorly.

I don't believe that and, while I can't speak for him, I don't think Grimes thinks that, either.

But I don't think that alters the point that there is a strong cultural tendency to stay down in distance in this country that hurts us at 10,000 and up. I cite Hall because he has been the very rare instance in this country where someone jumped from 1500/5000 straight to the longer distances at a young age. Hall was in the, what, top 5-6 on the all-time combined U.S. high school list at 1500/1600/mile, and he's now a marathon force to be reckoned with. Hall has never even run a 10,000 on the track. And the results of that jump have been nothing short of spectacular in his case.

My only point is that I believe there are guys committed to the 1500/5000 range who could have very different careers if they took a season and tried hand farther updistance. Magic wand? Hell, no, and even remotely the same garbage as Wariner running the 800 (I remember the same talk about MJ at one point).

Correct me if I'm wrong, Chris, but haven't you had a couple of guys who moved up from the shorter distances and had greater success at the marathon than they had down distance?

You're not going to take everyone who can run under 48 for 400 and turn them into a 1:44 800 guy. That's absolutely true. But any 1:44 or better 800 people you get will be people capable of going sub 48.

Similary, someone else said that even if you get a US 10k runner doing 27:00 he wont' likely be able to close in 52-53 and get a medal. That's also true. But if you're going to get someone who can close in that 52-53 they're likely going to be someone who is capable of running under say, 3:35 for the 1500. So we'd be moer likely to find that 27 flat guy who can close in 52-53 if more 3:35 types moved up.

But no, most of them would not become medalists.