were you a better athlete at age 18 or 28?

Better runner at 28 for sure. Better athlete? Debatable...

Faster runner at age 18.

Better all around athlete at age 28. I'm sure if I had been focussing on running I would have been faster, but I moved on to other sports after college.

Probably will be an even better all around athlete at age 38.

I'm sure I'll decline by the time I'm 48 though.

I was faster at the mile and shorter distances at 18. My running peak was around 22 to 24 with PRs in several distances in those years. At 28, however, I was stronger by far and still in very good running shape (my lifetime mile PR is 4:41 and at 28 I could still break 4:50). Overall I was a better athlete at 28 though my middle distance times at 18 were a little bit faster.

I am in my mid 30s now and while I am still getting stronger I am also getting much more slow. le sigh. I do not think I could break 5:15 now.

It's not even a contest. At age 18, my running PRs were 2:09 for 800m, 4:51 for 1600m, 10:25 for 3200m, and 16:29 for 5k (all done as an 18 year old). I am 28 now. Since my 28th birthday, I have run PRs for 5000m (15:04), 4 miles (19:57 enroute), 8k (25:01), 15k (48:45), 10 miles (52:39 enroute), HM (1:08:18), and marathon (2:28:38 debut). I was a bit of a late bloomer as far as running goes. I grew a lot in high school, and it took me a while to really get used to my body. And if we're talking about all-around athleticism, again, it's not really a contest. I'm much stronger and more coordinated now than I was at age 18.

I dunno guys, if you're killing it at age 28, y'think you might be overcompensating a bit for not being much at 18? I know a lot of you dudes from pickup basketball. Jim Rome addressed it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMfqbR8Ujlk

To answer the OP's question, I was definitely a better athlete at 18 than I am now at 27, but I was probably at my peak during college, when I was 21 or so.

late bloomer too. 28 no doubt. at 18, pothead who smoked a pack a day and drank myself stupid whenever i got the chance. started running at 26, after becoming a husband and father. 28 now and just ran a 1:24 half marathon. i know that's not fast, but i'm getting faster fast. 28 is young.

late bloomer too. 28 no doubt. at 18, pothead who smoked a pack a day and drank myself stupid whenever i got the chance. started running at 26, after becoming a husband and father. 28 now and just ran a 1:24 half marathon. i know that's not fast, but i'm getting faster fast. 28 is young.

28.

I can still run 5Ks as fast as I did in high school, am better at anything longer, probably a little worse at shorter distances (but my training in high school was suited for the mile), and am much much stronger.

Most anyone should be a better athlete at 28 than 18 if they have the time to devote to it, barring injury. The issue is often finding the time and motivation.

Good topic. I'm turning 24 in about a month, so a little over half way in your time frame. Physically, I was a much better runner at 18. Mentally, I'm a better runner now. I'm hoping to get my ducks in a row by 28.

Haha. I'm pretty sure I know Softball Guy. I get what you're saying, but it really has more to do with the fact that my body fully matured after high school, and I fell in love with the sport later on in life. I just really enjoy my hobby, and I tend to be pretty driven in whatever I do. To me, most things just aren't worth doing unless I intend to do them well.

I was much better at 28/29 than at 18. I'm 42 now and still faster than when I was 18.

I was a late bloomer physically and didn't really start training wisely until I was about 24 or 25. Went from barely being able to run 6 minute pace for 3 miles to averaging that for a marathon.

I was better at 28 than 18, but at least partly because I was smarter and trained better. I've always wondered what I could have done with my 18-year-old body and the training I did around 30. But by 35, it was like flipping a switch---gradual downhill ever since, and training is a rear-guard effort against decline (currently 41, still fighting).

i didn't start running until my 40's. i was a soccer player, and way better at 28 then 18. but then it was downhill from there. by 32 i'd lost much of the explosive starts needed for soccer. by age 44 i gave up completely and started running 'thons. for those saying the best years in skill sports are the 30's, well you weren't soccer players.

At college age I was the best runner i could be. At 25 I was the best athlete. I didn't have dead legs from training 70-100 MPW and I would tear up the basketball court because I was much quicker and had more stamina than everyone else. I also had pop in softball and would blast the occasional HR. Much like you, at 28 I started to decline. The HR's turned into fly ball outs and I won't even attempt to run more than 15-20 MPW.

All my track PRs are from around 27-28. Years more mileage under my belt and a lot more strength.

Just missed 3k steeplechase pr at 36, and still plugging away at 53.

Better at 18 than at 28 (but never very good) and making a comeback now (at 30).

I was not fast enough to make the track/XC teams where I went to college, so all of my high school track PRs still stand (2:04 800m, 4:36 mile, note: I'm a guy). I ran most of my road PRs freshman and sophomore years of college (16:36 5K up to 2:53 marathon), but for the first time since then, I'm getting close enough that I think I might be able to set new PRs at all distances over a mile in the next several months.

At 18 my 100m time was 11.3HT

At 25 my 100m time was 10.83FAT

At 30 my 100m time was 10.57FAT

Never good at distance...i.e. A 16 year old girl could kick my ass in the mile!

However, my already pathetic aerobic capacity has gotten worse over the years but my anaerbic has gotten much better... don't know but beats me....

Lazy judgmental slug!

Don't Want to Judge, But... wrote:

I dunno guys, if you're killing it at age 28, y'think you might be overcompensating a bit for not being much at 18? I know a lot of you dudes from pickup basketball. Jim Rome addressed it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMfqbR8Ujlk

To answer the OP's question, I was definitely a better athlete at 18 than I am now at 27, but I was probably at my peak during college, when I was 21 or so.

Defintely better at 28.

18

Long jump: 18' 1"

220 yard: 25.6

440 yard: 56.8

1 mile time trial: 5:30

28

1500 m: 4:05

5K: 15:18

Nordic skiing: regional 20K champ (not a strong field), and 38th at US Nationals (a much stronger field).

BBT wrote:

Most anyone should be a better athlete at 28 than 18 if they have the time to devote to it, barring injury. The issue is often finding the time and motivation.

I agree with this completely. Unless you have sustained a permanent injury, the extra years should strengthen you. In my case, my decline is completely due to my increasingly sedentary lifestyle; I truly feel I am on the "use it or lose it" threshold, whereby I could still be at peak if I wanted to, but several more years of reduced activity, combined with advancing age, would render me permanently inferior.

This brings up my next question: for those of you who kept up the "good fight" the whole time, when did you start to decline? At what age did you realize, "I am trying as hard as possible, and will never be as good again"?

I have been dunking since I was a sophomore in HS. I think the day I can't do that anymore will be a sad one indeed.