Nico Young 3:54.07* - Is his 4:02 mile the fastest mile ever run in Flagstaff?

young dynasty wrote:

JRinaldi wrote:

Must mean Kip Keino was in 3:19 1500 shape when he won the Olympics in 1968!

The app I have won’t let me plug in 12890 feet

Lol. Where did you get 12890 from? That is almost twice as high as Mexico City.

Mexico city was higher back then! You young bucks don't know how good you got it

ROTFLMAO

At this point Kessler might be almost 10s faster in the mile than Young.

Master of LolIy wrote:

At this point Kessler might be almost 10s faster in the mile than Young.

Unless they run it at the same place and time.

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.

CIF track history wrote:

Ha, I was thinking the same thing.

Ok, well congratulations to him for his new 800m (1:54.2) and mile (4:02.8) PBs yesterday then..,

gold medalist wrote:

I hate it when the run gets falsely reported because of altitude. I don’t care what the conversion to get him into champs is. He didn’t run a 3:54 mile. I am a huge NAU and NP fan and all I want is to see the Youngs all do really well, but please stop doing this title editing bull$hit. He ran 4:02 mile. Like several high schoolers will this season, maybe some from his alma mater.

Maybe even like some from his mater.

The NCAA conversion is a bit silly for somebody thoroughly acclimated.

Keino ran his best 1500 at 7000ft. Ritz ran his best 5000m at 3000ft.

The assumption of O2 limitation is just a mistake for some runners.

My guess is Young can go sub 4 but not much faster.

Future similar to Mantz if not overtrained.

I have to disagree with you about upside in his kick, lothair, because Drew Hunter was a 1:48 guy in high school and famously outkicked two excellent kickers in high school, Justyn Knight (now a 12:51 guy!!) and Grant Fisher (almost sure to go well under 13 this year). Hunter can kick but he hasn't had the aerobic engine and health in recent years, maybe because he had heel problems and I know from experience the past year that when the heel is super sensitive, you cannot take the pounding on it required to have that extra acceleration.

See Hunter take it to Knight with the acceleration at 8:09 in the first race here. In the second race, enroute to a pr 4:07, he ran a 1:58 close. He was a sophomore for those races.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPsxGNpOUS4

Adidas Dream Mile 2015. Joe Klecker and Conner Mantz were also in the field with Fisher and Hunter. Now Hunter was a junior and Fisher as a senior had just become the 7th American high schooler to break 4. Fisher crushes Hunter in the last 200m and wins by 0.6 in 4:01-2, but ran 39 last 300m. Fisher has just perfect form and control in this race compared to Hunter. However, Hunter had some pushing and tripping with Mikey Brannigan around 200 to go and that impacted it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztgs2aPpwnE

Then there is the Brooks 2 Mile the same year where Hunter exacts revenge on Fisher, 8:42 to 8:43.

4:27/4:15. Not a great video and I couldn't find better but he outkicks Fisher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdQqk-bqaaE

dsrunner wrote:

The NCAA conversion is a bit silly for somebody thoroughly acclimated.

Keino ran his best 1500 at 7000ft. Ritz ran his best 5000m at 3000ft.

The assumption of O2 limitation is just a mistake for some runners.

My guess is Young can go sub 4 but not much faster.

Future similar to Mantz if not overtrained.

It doesn’t really matter.

The mile is not Nico’s race

This was a great workout and it shows that he is in great shape.

Let’s see what he does at Millrose (3000m). I say sub 7:45

Not to take anything away from this, but I think it's important to pump the brakes a little and remember that if you train at altitude like that, the negative effects aren't as bad. In other words, the same 4:02 effort at Flagstatt for Nico might only be 3:57-3:58 at sea level. And 3:57 isn't really the future of US distance running. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. He'll eventually run at sea level.

If you need observational evidence, we see this every year with a bunch of unknown guys getting fast 10k conversions from altitude and then running only a few seconds faster at sea level.

Everybody said the exact same things when Geordie Beamish made it into the mile a few years ago with a 4:07 PB set in Flag. He then promptly won the race and ran 3:38 outdoors. The altitude conversions work. Case closed.

That’s a fair point, I’ve been judging hunters kick off the past few years and he clearly hasn’t been right in a while.

Geordie Beamish and Soratos a couple years before that. There will always be truthers of some kind.

your move planet Earth wrote:

I agree with him though. Nico is clearly in 3:54-3:57 mile shape right now, but he hasn’t broken four yet. Conversions don’t count.

Dude, who cares? It's his first meet of the year. People aren't hyped because he ran a 3:54 mile, they're hyped because he showed he's in 3:54 shape already. I don't see why 'conversions don't count'. Don't count for what? He won the race, beat an Olympian by two seconds, doubled back for an 800 a little later, and the conversion time was super fast. Maybe we can't say his PR is 3:54, but other than that, I don't see what a conversion doesn't count for. The conversion was literally made in order to more accurately compare performances, which is exactly what people in this thread are doing.

Peach Pit wrote:

your move planet Earth wrote:

I agree with him though. Nico is clearly in 3:54-3:57 mile shape right now, but he hasn’t broken four yet. Conversions don’t count.

Dude, who cares? It's his first meet of the year. People aren't hyped because he ran a 3:54 mile, they're hyped because he showed he's in 3:54 shape already. I don't see why 'conversions don't count'. Don't count for what? He won the race, beat an Olympian by two seconds, doubled back for an 800 a little later, and the conversion time was super fast. Maybe we can't say his PR is 3:54, but other than that, I don't see what a conversion doesn't count for. The conversion was literally made in order to more accurately compare performances, which is exactly what people in this thread are doing.

No, people ARE hyped by what's being bandied about as a 3:54 mile. NAU's homepage, Young's IG page and several other headlines claim that Young ran a 3:54 mile*.

I don't see young running 1:57-1:57 on the flat when his backup race was a 1:54 (albeit at altitude).

The Mile altitude conversions have proven themselves over and over for flatlanders and even flatlanders living at altitude like Nico Young and Christian Soratos. So, we can safely predict he'll run 3:54 or better at sea level in a fast race. That's actually not that absurd, even though it was surprising, when you consider that Prefontaine was a 3:54.6 miler and 13:21.9, which is slower than Young's 5000m pr.

Peach Pit wrote:

your move planet Earth wrote:

I agree with him though. Nico is clearly in 3:54-3:57 mile shape right now, but he hasn’t broken four yet. Conversions don’t count.

Dude, who cares? It's his first meet of the year. People aren't hyped because he ran a 3:54 mile, they're hyped because he showed he's in 3:54 shape already. I don't see why 'conversions don't count'. Don't count for what? He won the race, beat an Olympian by two seconds, doubled back for an 800 a little later, and the conversion time was super fast. Maybe we can't say his PR is 3:54, but other than that, I don't see what a conversion doesn't count for. The conversion was literally made in order to more accurately compare performances, which is exactly what people in this thread are doing.

I am hyped about Nicos performance. Especially because he won. I would say he is going to take a step or two forward this year and possibly win his first NCAA title in the winter or spring.

But I just don’t like the claim that he ran 3:54 when he didn’t run 3:54. He ran a very very impressive 4:02 at altitude why can’t we just say that? Anyone who knows running will be impressed.

your move planet Earth wrote:

I am hyped about Nicos performance. Especially because he won. I would say he is going to take a step or two forward this year and possibly win his first NCAA title in the winter or spring.

But I just don’t like the claim that he ran 3:54 when he didn’t run 3:54. He ran a very very impressive 4:02 at altitude why can’t we just say that? Anyone who knows running will be impressed.

I really dislike the idea that we should or shouldn't do something because 'anyone who knows running will know what it means'. When it comes to one of the biggest up-and-coming talents in the country, it's the perfect time to get people who don't know much about running to follow the sport. High schoolers who watch Total Running Productions on YouTube and have little-to-no more interaction with the competitive side of the sport may like following Nico Young's progression, and seeing the title "Nico Young runs 4:02 mile at altitude" is not gonna have them as excited to watch the video as "Nico Young runs 3:54 mile*".

If they watched the video, they'd see he ran a 4:02, be really impressed that it was equal to a 3:54, and hopefully they'd continue to follow the sport. If every headline says he ran a 3:54 and it gets people invested in the sport who weren't previously, I'd love that, even if in the future people say he ran a 3:54.

It gives me the same vibes as people saying Hocker was a 3:35 guy last year because his 'mile conversion didn't count', or 'indoors are faster anyways', or 'he's peaked already and will be burnt out by NCAAs/Trials/Olympics'. It's fighting against the hype in a way that is 1) detrimental to growing the sport, and 2) wrong because he proved the entire year he could run faster than 3:35.

gold medalist wrote:

Master Of Lolly wrote:

And that's how I can tell that you're 65 years old. This is an Instagram video - vertical platform, therefore vertical video.

Astonishing that someone who is so in the know about COVID wouldn’t know something so basic about social media.

What's astonishing is that kids today think being social media end users makes them tech savvy.