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

I agree with the point that most of you guys are making . And basic speed at events like the 1500 is neccesary to be a force in the 10k . But I think you may be forgetting that the 800(possibly improving now) and the 1500 have been weak on the world stage and especially so compared to 10 years ago . Athletes in the 3:32 range have been competitive on the Grand prix circuit and even in the major championships in the 1500 whereas in the 5k athletes of sub 13 minute calibre get destroyed by the likes of Bekele,Sileshi Sihine and Eliud Kigchoge .

Alan Webb had a great chance of winning a medal in the World Champs last year and possibly even a gold when he was in 3:30 shape . He's got a good 4 years left of high quality miling in him . Hopefully people will break 3:30 in the 1500 this year and Abubaker Kaki can do good things in the 800 . But for the moment middle distances are weak and unless Bekele gets injured/retires and German Fernandez gets his hands on some EPO we won't be seeing any gold medals for the US and Europe in the 5k and 10k for a good ten years .

Nobby wrote:

What intrigues me, however, is why Bob Kennedy didn't move up to 10000 earlier... I don't think he had that mentality. I think he could have picked up bronze had he competed in 10000 at Atlanta.

While I agree that Kennedy probably would have made a better 10k runner, there is no way he would have gotten the bronze in the 10k in Atlanta. The only reason Kennedy finished so high in the 5k was because it was watered down because everyone was running the 10k. Kennedy would have beaten Salah Hissou, Paul Koech #1, and Khalid Skah?

An interesting thesis. One problem is that almost all of our early competitive opportunitites as distance runners in this country are at 1 and 2 miles (and at most 5k XC). So almost everybody starts as a miler in middle school or a 1 or 2 miler in high school. Contrast that with a place like Ethiopia. I believe (though not an expert) that almost all of their early competitive opportunitites are at something like 10k XC. Almost all of their milers are failed 10k guys moving down. Would American's proportions be different if early competitive opportunities were at longer distances and there was no moving up involved? What would happen if early competitive opportunities were longer distances on the grass or roads through clubs instead of shorter distances on the track through schools?

We feel the need to focus on times, how many of the posts in this thread have been about for fast you can go at X distance. The biggest issue with winning a medal in a WC or Olympics is the ability to close. The 5k/10k guys do not close much slower than 1500 guys. If you can put yourself in position when it is time to kick then you have the chance at a medal. I think you should run the event that you are best suited for, and developing your speed (it can be done, its not all genetics) is the way you will win a medal. I think we are actually more obsessed in this country with moving up to get to an event we have enough leg speed for.

In 2007 both the 800 and 1500 were astonishingly weak. Best times of 1:43.74 and 3:30.54, which are good times for an individual, but the slowest world leaders in several decades. 2008 was a little better for the 800, but the 1500 was still about as bad. There is no active world record holder or dominant athlete in those events, so they are effectively wide open. Meanwhile, the marathon is EXTREMELY deep right now, as is the 5000m, the 10000m and the half marathon. The world record holder is active in all of those events, and many others aren't too far behind-why would you move up to a distance that is much more competitive? If Webb can run near world leading times at 800/1500 and still not medal, what makes people think he can move up to the 5000 and be competitive with a horde of 12:5x Africans with superior kicks? Alan he never closed in 53 seconds, whereas Bekele can close like that at will.

I completely agree with the OP on this one...

But Geb isn't a good exemple, because the guy could have run 3:28 or so if he really tried to run a fast 1500m outdoors. The guy ran a 3:31'7 indoors behind El G in his base phase...

A guy like Sully is a good example of a guy that should had move up long ago...

on the runs wrote:

Shalane and Kara - US team contenders at 1500m who now each have global 10000m medals. They could have just stuck with the 1500m, hoping to make teams and hoping to (maybe) make the finals, but when you have women like Dibaba, who closed her 5000m WR with a final 1500m of 4:06, and Defar, who finished her 14:12 PB with a 1:31 last 600m, you begin to understand that 4:06 1500m ability isn't all that great in the big scheme of things.

Precisely. Add them to the Hall example, especially Kara. She not only has a WC bronze, but has added a very solid 2:25 at New York.

I'm not going to beat this to death. Not everbody is meant to be a 10,000 runner. My only point (and I think it was Grimes', too) is that we have a lot more 10,000+ runners trying to be 1500/5000 runners than we do 1500/5000 runners trying to be 10,000+ runners and that those focused on the lower end of the range might be well served to try their hand updistance for a season and see what happens.

chris hanson wrote:

Zat0pek wrote:

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.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I think you guys misunderstand the OP and the article. I don't think anyone is saying that if you run distance X well, you could run distance Y faster, which is the basic stupidity behind people talking about Wariner running the 800. I agree with you about that.

I think the point is that Americans (with some recent exceptions) limit the events they choose and never test the waters. We rarely think of guys with really good speed being 10,000 (or longer runners). We see a kid with low-50's or maybe even sub-50 400 speed and we automatically think "miler", but instead that being national-class 1500 speed, it might be world-class 10,000 speed, but nobody ever tests it to find out.

Hall is a great example of what the OP and article are talking about, which is very different than the crazy-assed Wariner 800 garbage.

I think chris and malmo are responding to an argument that isn't being made.

No, the idea that the U.S. 1500 runners should run the 10000 is somewhat analagous to asserting that 400 runners should move up to the 800. There is a tendency for runners to move up to the distance at which they are able to be most competitive. This is not rocket science. Most of the U.S. runners are not very competitive internationally, so to be the best I guess you'd have many of them become ultramarathoners. That's why malmo termed it wishful thinking. It is somewhat like opting for door number 2, while remaining cognizant that door numbere 1 is not palatable...therefore, I choose another option. There's nothing wrong with that. Good luck with all that.

chris hanson wrote:

No, the idea that the U.S. 1500 runners should run the 10000 is somewhat analagous to asserting that 400 runners should move up to the 800.

No, it isn't. Not at all. The 400 and 800 are completely different events. The number of people who have competed well at both can be counted on one hand with a couple of fingers left over.

chris hanson wrote:There is a tendency for runners to move up to the distance at which they are able to be most competitive.

This is where we disagree. Most U.S. runners hit a certain level of success and stop seeking more. Look at Ryan Hall. He ran a great 5,000 at nationals (13:1x, as I recall) right out of college, and MOST U.S. runners would have stopped there. He didn't, and with much more dramatic results. This is the crux of the disagreement between you and malmo and the OP and the Grimes article as I understand it. MOST U.S. runners after laying down a sub-13:20 time would have believed that was their event and stopped there. Hall didn't. He looked at the trend of him getting better as the distance increased and took that to the next level. And, wow, what a level he took it to.

Think for a moment what would have happened if Hall would have decided to stay at 5,000 based on the results of his last year in college. Not near what he's done at the half-marathon and marathon, is it?

There is little/no similarity between the 400 and 800. But "distance running" covers the range from the mile to the marathon. A lot of milers put in mileage comparable to some 10,000/marathon types, but they stick to racing the 1500/5000. Why? Look at Alan Webb, a guy who can make a U.S. World Cross team at 12K and run a top-ten all-time U.S. list 10,000 while preparing for the 1500.

The similarities between events from 1500 up has nothing to do with the goofy-assed 400/800 comparisons. Chris (and you, too, malmo) I really appreciate your knowledge and what you have done for the sport, but I think you miss the mark here. The 400 and 800 have very little in common compared to the 1500 and 10,000. 1500 guys and 10,000 guys train together all the time for much of the year.

The problem we have is that the data sample of people who really stretch to reach levels at longer distances is very small, but that really small sample supports the OP and the Grimes article. Ryan Hall. Kara Goucher. Even Alan Webb. All started as primarily milers (Webb still is) and reached way above in distance and had great success. There are no (or at least very few) comparable examples for 400/800. One has to wonder what Lopez Lomong could do at 5,000. What could Lagat do at 10,000?

Why not try? Teg at 10,000 is really tantalizing. Fifth at World Junior Cross, 3:34 1500 and 13:04 5,000. Granted he needs to stay healthy enough to put in the volume, but the trend is clearly there.

The preparation for many guys between 1500 and 10,000 isn't that different for most of the year. If you're a 1500 guy who has run solid 3000's or 5,000's, why not try the 10,000?

I like this debate, and it tears at the crux of many letsrun threads.

I agree with the original assertion, and I think the problem is more widespread than just the US. It is everywhere.

It is a tough arguement, but it doesn't work both ways..

You can't say all 47-49 sec 400m runners should be moving up... but contrarily, if you want an internationally competitive 5km/10km runner they NEED to have 47-49 speed.

So more kids should be tested younger to plumb the depths of their aerobic engine, all the prodigous kids I know have great speed and a big engine, doesn't mean they should move out, but they should test their capabilities at a range of distances before settling.

This should be done before they get to the age of a pro athlete!

For instance Rupp knows he is a marathon runner, he is just waiting til he is mature enough to handle the distance (could be a long wait).

There should be a career plan in place by the time you are Webbs age, physiologically he has not changed so he should know where he is headed.

Zat rules!

shingle bowels wrote:

There should be a career plan in place by the time you are Webbs age, physiologically he has not changed so he should know where he is headed.

What? Webbs body type seems to change as much as his level of performances.

on the runs wrote:

How many other potential sub4 minute milers are there at schools across the country who are spending all their time and energy in the sprints or even in other sports? Probably not many, but there are surely a few.

I knew a badass high school xc runner who competed in the 100, 200, and long jump during track. He never won events, but often placed. I never understood why he was a sprinter, and basically though his coach was a douche for keeping him in those events. He finally raced the 1600 during his senior year the week before divisionals, and ran 4:24 to break the school record, and 3 weeks later he was a state champ at 4:17. I wonder how me might have fared if he'd focused on distance all along.

campana wrote:

I knew a badass high school xc runner who competed in the 100, 200, and long jump during track. He never won events, but often placed. I never understood why he was a sprinter, and basically though his coach was a douche for keeping him in those events. He finally raced the 1600 during his senior year the week before divisionals, and ran 4:24 to break the school record, and 3 weeks later he was a state champ at 4:17. I wonder how me might have fared if he'd focused on distance all along.

Steve Ovett started out as a sprinter.

He was doing more distance-oriented stuff by his mid-teens, though. Went sub-4 @ 17.

Still, it shows that a speed background doesn't hurt.

The problem is NOT basic speed...

400m of guys like Geb, Bekele, Shaheen, and Kemboi are all right around 50 flat.

We have plenty of good distance runners (5k and up) who can match that. Yet they are way behind in 1500m, 3k, 5k, 10k.

What you'll find is that comparing the difference between 1,500m and 5k isn't that big. The kenyans slow at a slightly better rate but only enough to account for maybe 5sec.

But from 400m to 1,500m the difference is huge. An african with 400 speed of 50 can turn a 1,500m in 3:31. For an american to run 3:31 he's gotta have 47ish speed. Our 50sec guys are running 3:42.

I am absolutely stunned at the ignorance paraded here. Some of you don't seem to realize that many of these 1500 guys have run cross country and so when you keep clamoring for them to try the 10000, you don't appear to comprehend that many of them have tried it and are relatively mediocre. It is not as simple as you may assume.

Distance events also require talent. Short distance talent is much more obvious when you see a distance guy run a low 50's 400, but that doesn't mean that distance events don't require different talent that shorter events. Some people have the physical attributes to succeed in shorter distances, but not the longer.

There is more to being a top 10 in the world 10k runner than a 50.0 400 and a couple years of 100+ mile weeks.

when I said that there are only two Americans who have run sub-3:31 (webb, lagat), I meant of those currently competing, since this thread is about current American 1500m runners with the potential to medal at higher distances.