If the average person can run sub 14 with a few weeks of training it’s not being taught. You need to change your threshold to 12.5 and see what the results are.
From what I've seen:
Approximate percentage of HS senior boys running an electronically-timed sub 12.5: 50%
Approximate percentage of HS senior boys running a sub 17 5K, which is roughly equivalent: 10%
how on earth is a 12.5 that any decent girl runs the same as a 17 min 5k?
To the "contribution" argument, it's still highly unlikely that a 12.5 guy can score you points in high school in a 100. However, in a crummy dual meet in the middle of no where? Something even in the 12s can might get you a point or two. So that renders that critique void as far as I can tell.
I think in a place where 12.high or 13.low gets you points in the 100, 20 minutes gets you pretty damn close to the win in XC
I would be surprised if thats a demonstrable fact. I would think that genetics plays an equal role in either activity. Personally I could imagine getting my poor 2:40s marathoning down to sub-2:40 with a bit more mileage and racing. But no way no how could I ever get my splay-footed 100 below 12, not even juiced god forbid.
I've run under 12 in the 100m a few times. It wasn't easy, but I did it.
Now let's say you were to give me Alphaflys, an altitude tent, EPO, and a $1 million prize for breaking 2:40 in the 'thon. Could I do it? Hell no, I'm not sure I could even break 3 if my life depended on it.
I ran sub 10.3 (FAT) in the 100m in my early 20s.
I ran a 5:02 1600 when I was 13, along with a 2:09 800m and a 54.0 400m (all hand times). They wouldn't let me run the 100 and 200 when I was 13 because they didn't think I was "genetically" gifted to succeed in the short sprints. I didn't train hard to run that mile time or 800 time, it was middle school and I was a soccer player. I WANTED to be a sprinter but they wouldn't let me do it.
I just HAPPENED to run well in the mile and 800 because I was in shape, athletic, and highly competitive. Nobody else was even willing to even put in the effort to run those events, so I typically won them going away. At the time, I shoulda just quit the team until they let me run the 100, and then when I shattered those records, too, they might have let me alone. Eventually I did that anyway...because I was GENETICALLY a gifted sprinter more than I was a distance runner.
My experience with how easy it was to run 5:10/5:05 in 1600 and 2:10ish 800 at 12/13 years old would almost make it seem like it was "easy" to run those times, but I know better than that. So I wouldn't make a claim about "genetics" in distance running at all.
Isn’t there some sort of point system for different times that can settle this debate? There is in swimming, and can estimate how good your 200m freestyle is to your 100m breaststroke, for instance.
Someone could do much better in distance with average talent than in sprints. Consider the 100. The first person broke 10 in 1964. The first white(maybe non black but can't remember) broke 10 in 2014. This clearly shows how genetics block a milestone for 50 years. Meanwhile many people from countries can do well in mid d.
East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia have more than half of the world's population but virtually no elite mid-d runners if you exclude the doped Chinese mid-d runners in the 90s.
At least in the sprints, you've got some elites like Su Bingtian (9.83 100) and Liu Xiang (12.88 110h). Japan also got a silver in the 4x100 in the 2016 Olympics (37.60).
To the "contribution" argument, it's still highly unlikely that a 12.5 guy can score you points in high school in a 100. However, in a crummy dual meet in the middle of no where? Something even in the 12s can might get you a point or two. So that renders that critique void as far as I can tell.
I think in a place where 12.high or 13.low gets you points in the 100, 20 minutes gets you pretty damn close to the win in XC
That I cannot answer to, as I just don't have the experience with HS XC results to know. But it sure makes it sound like there is less competition in XC than there is in the 100. Might have a part to play in the weird debate of "genetics" in relation to distance vs. sprints.
By the way, to be clear, I'm not sure 13 ANYTHING scores anywhere for boys in high school over 100. But I might be wrong.
Isn’t there some sort of point system for different times that can settle this debate? There is in swimming, and can estimate how good your 200m freestyle is to your 100m breaststroke, for instance.
The claim is the points tables make it out that a 14 second 100 is worth more than a 20 minute 5k. I haven't looked into that. I'm surprised a table would even go as low as 14 for a 100, it's so slow (at least in the cint xt if an adult male). My argument is that at those speeds for a 100m comparison, the formulas lose their traction because it's too extreme a comparison.
While Im not going to go back and re-read every page of this thread.. at a certain level most great, elite distance runners in the USA, have a similar story:
"I was involved in (insert other sport) and a friend of mine was on the track/xc team, so I went out for it with him/her. I won (prestigious meet) my first year and thought that maybe if I was lucky I could go on to (win even MORE prestigious meet) if I worked hard. I finished (high place) at Footlocker/NXN and went on to run for (insert prestigious college). "
When it comes to running some people are just super responders. Not saying they do not work hard, far from it, it's just that for some of us no amount of work could ever produce a very similar result.
This thread is based on a seriously flawed comparison.
Sub 14 is much easier than sub 20.
I am 52 years old. I was a terrible sprinter.
I can still run sub 14 without any specific sprint training.
No specific distance training... I am running a 25 minute 5k. And I was always a distance guy.
YES. And that goes to the heart of what the post above you says about "who's contributing in the XC/TF team". A 19/20 5k is NOT equal to a 14/13 100m guy. I think the comparison is closer to high/mid 12s.
To the "contribution" argument, it's still highly unlikely that a 12.5 guy can score you points in high school in a 100. However, in a crummy dual meet in the middle of no where? Something even in the 12s can might get you a point or two. So that renders that critique void as far as I can tell.
This whole debate needs to be reset as saying "a 20 minute 5k is equal to a 12.5 100m, and not a "flying" 100, either, but from the blocks in reaction to a gun". From THAT point of contention, make your arguments about this "genetics" bologna. Annnnd, GO.
Even with those times, more people can be trained to run a sub 12.5 100 than a sub 20 5K.
Isn’t there some sort of point system for different times that can settle this debate? There is in swimming, and can estimate how good your 200m freestyle is to your 100m breaststroke, for instance.
The claim is the points tables make it out that a 14 second 100 is worth more than a 20 minute 5k. I haven't looked into that. I'm surprised a table would even go as low as 14 for a 100, it's so slow (at least in the cint xt if an adult male). My argument is that at those speeds for a 100m comparison, the formulas lose their traction because it's too extreme a comparison.
Honestly, a 20 minute 5k is also pretty awful. XC scoring is just set up in a way so there are valid reasons to be excited about placing 30th or whatever, so bad runners are less likely to filter themselves out.
The equivalent of a 20 minute 5k runner in other sports is not considered good enough to play that sport.
The claim is the points tables make it out that a 14 second 100 is worth more than a 20 minute 5k. I haven't looked into that. I'm surprised a table would even go as low as 14 for a 100, it's so slow (at least in the cint xt if an adult male). My argument is that at those speeds for a 100m comparison, the formulas lose their traction because it's too extreme a comparison.
Honestly, a 20 minute 5k is also pretty awful. XC scoring is just set up in a way so there are valid reasons to be excited about placing 30th or whatever, so bad runners are less likely to filter themselves out.
The equivalent of a 20 minute 5k runner in other sports is not considered good enough to play that sport.
Funnily enough, a 12.5 100m dash is not considered fast enough to keep sprinting, either. Anything other than mid 11 in high school means they should be looking into other events, frankly. So I don't really understand this "you can be better at sprinting so easy" claim. What's considered the 5k equivalent of an 11.5?
No. You heard a story or two but that is not true for the majority of distance runners. Many had parents who were good or at least got them involved. Others realized that they were fast based on 7th grade gym class or outrunning other soccer players at age 12.
I ran a 5:02 1600 when I was 13, along with a 2:09 800m and a 54.0 400m (all hand times). They wouldn't let me run the 100 and 200 when I was 13 because they didn't think I was "genetically" gifted to succeed in the short sprints
you ran a 54.0 400m in 7th or 8th grade and "they" wouldn't let you even run the 200? this is difficult to comprehend. i mean i know the world is littered with absolutely incompetent coaches, but this sounds crazy. whereabout did you grow up?
I don't believe it, especially since it was at least 10 years ago. 54 in the 400 may have won nationals.
54.0 hand time in 1997. 8th grade. I was 13. I don't think the 54 was really THAT good, though. There was a kid in my area alone who was probably faster than me over the distance and became something of a big deal on the 800 for a while nationally in HS and college. He probably ran a faster 400 in '97 than even I did. But...you're right, his coaches I think we're letting him do 100s and 200s still in middle school, whereas mine were not.
I'm serious though. My coaches WERE idiots and it still bothers me to this day. They finally let me shift over to the 100 after I tore my ACL right before my sophomore year and the doctor said I could finish the track season still before surgery, but I couldn't run any turns. That only left the 100. When I ran a hand timed 11 flat with no ACL, the coaches finally let me become a 100/200 guy. But it took an injury like that to force their hand.
I ran a 5:02 1600 when I was 13, along with a 2:09 800m and a 54.0 400m (all hand times). They wouldn't let me run the 100 and 200 when I was 13 because they didn't think I was "genetically" gifted to succeed in the short sprints
you ran a 54.0 400m in 7th or 8th grade and "they" wouldn't let you even run the 200? this is difficult to comprehend. i mean i know the world is littered with absolutely incompetent coaches, but this sounds crazy. whereabout did you grow up?
They let me run a couple 200s when I was a freshman in HS, fairly begrudgingly, but they never let me in middle school. There's more story to that, but meh Ironically, my skill set wasn't well suited to the 200, I was a better 100 guy than 200. THAT is how off and incompetent my coaches were. I did run a 52 flat 400 as a freshman in HS (aged 14, I was a young for my class), but I only mustered a 23.6 over 200. And when they finally let me run a 100 at a JV meet and I ran an 11.3 not knowing what the heck I was doing, the coaches turned to me and said "pretty good, for an 800m runner". They knew how much that would piss me off. I wish I had quit the team right there in hindsight.
For a person who is naturally fast twitch anything that involves endurance is much harder than for others. For slow twitch, speed is impossible. Horses for courses. But for the average person off the street, running sub-12.5 is impossible, no matter how much they train - more like 15. Running sub-20 after training may be possible but probably not sub-18.
Genetics is equally important for sprinting and long distance.
Equally important is a stretch. In sprinting it is entirely possible for a very talented football/basketball player to run state championship winning times their first season touching a track. Sprinters can also afford to take much longer breaks from the sport and as long as they don't become actually become overweight, they generally don't lose much speed.
These two scenarios are almost never mirrored in distance running. Even the most naturally gifted runners will take a lot of miles to reach lets say 9:00 3200m level, and if they take 3 months off it is entirely possible they could be 9:45 guys even if they look the same outwardly.