Former HS Sub-4er Tim Danielson: Guilty of Murder - Faces 50 to Life

That "Into the Wild" guy, Christopher McCandless, was an avid distance runner who lead his high school team on big miles training sessions.

You would need to compare the proportion of "crazy" runners vs "crazy non-runners" to test this correlation.... intuitively it doesn't seem life were discussing many cases compared to the sheer number of runners in the last century...

Distance running is still a sport where being slightly mentally imbalanced can be helpful in the short term. Particularly OCD types that can plug into the training like a robot day after day.

I don't think people with those issues get the same advantage in most other sports that require extremely rare inherent talent. In running at the high school and college level people with less talent can out work their peers and dominate for a little while. Just because very few of their competitors are driven to work that hard at that age.

I first-hand recall my university's female NCAA D1 championship team in the 1980's. Out of that top 7 only one runner didn't quit the team before their eligibility ran out. One that quit was a NCAA record holder in the 10,000. And another actually was put into a mental hospital her sophomore year and never ran again.

The others I think just decided that the pressure was too great and wanted to focus more on their classes and party a little like a normal college student.

I wouldn't classify those as the same as the others. They weren't happy with the stress of running at the high level and made a decision to get out of it.

Everything about running at the elite level is so abnormal that is leaves some room for mentally abnormal people with decent talent to succeed for a while.

I don't think you can compare Lindgren and Danielson though. But I bet neither ever even found how to be happy in life after their running days. Lindgren needed to run every day and left a family behind to disappear to Hawaii so he didn't have to deal with a family that got in the way of his running.

Danielson quit running at a young age right after college and was a productive and successful engineer and supported a family.

His defense tried to argue that he was on the drug Chantrix to quit smoking. These psychotropic drugs always seem relevant in the high school shootings. But millions of people taking those medications don't kill people.

The dude had guns, definitely depressed, living with an ex wife that was dating other men.

I'm sure in this country this kind of crime happens 50 times a week.

Rojo , you hijacked my thread. And changed the tittle. I was providing info on the unfortunate crime committed by one of the fastest milers in prep history. Start you own topic!

Not a Nut wrote:

Yes, its the Americans. Look at Bannister, Chataway Brasher, Lord Coe, Cram, and Ovett, all are (were) very successful and well-adjusted in life after running.

I think what Rojo was referring to was not the successful, Crete of the crop runners that you named. It's the guys that came so close to greatness but never obtained it that go crazy. All the guys you named achieved incredible victories and feats in their day and after their running careers ending they were able to excel in other fields, which I feel a reason behind that is they moved on in life with no regrets or demons eating at them - they did everything you could dream to do. Danielson on the other hand did something, however amazing, that had already been done before. He had won a state championship in California but after that his college career quickly fizzed out and he never broke 4 after high school. He never went to the Olympics, or won a national championship, or did anything really in the same league as Bannister or Coe or the other guys excluding that 4 minute mile.

He tasted greatness but never ultimately obtained it, and that probably haunted him his whole life.

Yet another adverse effect of smoking contends the defense. What kind of sub 4 miler takes up smoking anyway ?!

Apparently not as interesting as Oscar Pistorius.

You just notice it because they're famous. The normal good-guy runners don't get the press after they retire. What about Frank Shorter, Steve Scott, Billy Mills, and all the other great runners who are either doing great stuff now or are just regular guys.

Not just mental issues, I'm starting to think the excessive miles over the years takes a toll on the elite runners body. I'm sadden to see how many runners have medical issues.

I think this just contributes to the fact that High School phenoms usually burn themselves out and become alienated to the sport. They never really live up to the hype afterwards.

(All 4 in the same class)

Verzbicas

Gedyon

Moussa

Oshier

Verzbicas ran 3:59, Oshier 4 flat, and Gedyon 4:01 in the same year and none of them have gone anywhere near those timessince. And are out of the sport for the most part.

Also:

Fernandez

Hulst

Lindgren

Danielson

Webb

Rojo,

This is the smartest thing you've ever written on this site.

Respect.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Manson, Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, McVeigh...not a sub-5:00 mile among them.

We're OK folks.

At the end of the day though, doesn't Rojo's logic apply to almost any endeavor in which a person attempts to achieve great success? Although we tend to romanticize the miles we put in to improve, I think any person who wants to excel in any sport/activity really needs that OCD behavior. Very few people (this is admittedly unqualified) are naturally great at anything, be it running, or writing, or even something as banal as eating (see, competitive eaters and how much they train) especially if you want to see a sustainable career. Perhaps this is why we romanticize those with short but flamboyant careers?

One thing I think about often with regard to running is which approach/mindset is best? For myself, I often run based on how I'm feeling - If I'm feeling good, I definitely feel myself start to crank out more miles at faster times, or cut the long run short to do workouts on the track. If I feel bad, I cut short the run/workout. However, many people could argue that by mentally copping out and stopping training, I'm setting myself up for not being able to run faster. It's a bit of a Schrodinger's cat situation, but would I as an individual absolutely be better if I were more OCD about my training (i.e. keeping logs, be strict with nutrition, pay attention to weight training/core)? Or would I just burn out faster and just stop running all together. I guess the dialectic here for running is: Is it better to be obsessive? Or is it better to seek out the pleasure in it?Both are plausible, but which one actually makes me faster (to be clear, running on a feeling basis isn't supposed to mean penguin-style running, more not being so OCD with all details)?

Note: This is not meant to advocate one method of training over another. Obviously, it's not so simple, as many could get pleasure from running to win, run like penguin and just enjoy solely the act of running itself, etc. But to be honest, how many of us here are consistently championship runners always in the hunt? As this site's mantra is working hard in order to have your dreams come true, do most of you believe if we're not OCD about our training, then we're keeping ourselves from achieving our personal bests?

rojo wrote:

This may sound crazy, but does anyone besides me ever think the traits that make someone super great at running...

I think this is true but certainly not limited to greatness at running. To be truly great at most anything you need to so heavily prioritize one thing over another that you lose perspective and probable happiness. Artists are the classical example of going mad when spending huge amounts of time on minute details while needing to ignore family money and love to do so.

This is blown out of proportion. I would bet the percentage of HS greats with issues you speak about are no greater than that of the general population.

rojo wrote:

This may sound crazy, but does anyone besides me ever think the traits that make someone super great at running aren't healthy?

The obsessiveness, drive and solitariness of the sport can be too much. I used to think about that at Cornell. To be great, you aren't really living a normal life. How do you stay balanced?

Or do unbalanced people naturally excel at running.

Look at all of the troubles many of the former HS phenoms have faced - Lindgren, Danielson, etc.

There is nothing presented in the limited facts presented that suggests that Danielson was a particularly unbalanced or "crazy" person.

Dude was living with his ex-wife for "financial reasons." That is a recipe for disaster that could cause anyone to go off the deep end in a temporary fit of passion.

The fact that he kept a gun in his home did not help matters.

rojo wrote:

This may sound crazy, but does anyone besides me ever think the traits that make someone super great at running aren't healthy?

The obsessiveness, drive and solitariness of the sport can be too much. I used to think about that at Cornell. To be great, you aren't really living a normal life. How do you stay balanced?

Or do unbalanced people naturally excel at running.

Look at all of the troubles many of the former HS phenoms have faced - Lindgren, Danielson, etc.

Again Rojo, as coach at Cornell what did about it?

And pls don't delete my post this time

"I used to think about it at Cornell"?? Are you kidding me?

What?

Incidents , 2 which you sited of nut jobs over a period totally disconnected over 40 years?

Boy that's a sample size.....

Runners are no more nuttier than Tennis Stars who strive for greatness or are out by age 18

Nor more than Golfers who thousands can break Par and NEVER make the Tour

etc etc and so on.

Stupidest comment in a range of many

You guys all suck. The reason I know is that none of you know what a killer instinct is. You sit around talking and analyzing, and have never been among the very best.

It's hard to switch out of that mode. I don't expect you to understand.

If Jonathan Gill steals another pizza, maybe they can race.