You don't realize this year NAU, Indiana, Oregon and other had more than that?
You don't realize this year NAU, Indiana, Oregon and other had more than that?
I'll throw Furman, Stanford, BYU, Washington, and VA Tech on the list.
CoachB wrote:
Lots of my athletes view 20:00 as significant accomplishment.
For the boys, the ones that view it as significant, are among those that are "less talented". Granted, high school cross country teams aren't a great indicator of how easy it is for the general population, since they are a self selected group who largely think they are decent (or have the ability to be decent) runners before they even start.
For the girls, it's quite a big deal. Sub 20:00 will win our league title most years. (although our league course is 3.19)
A lot of it depends on what kind of runner you are. There was a thread on here last week by a kid who was a 4:50 miler and couldn't break 20:00. I was the opposite. My freshman year of HS, I ran 5:42, but bumped my training up to 50 mpw for 4 weeks after my season ended and ran 39:45 for 10k.
Jesus. Running a 20 minute 5k is near impossible for most people, yet it is considered bad for high school athletes.
CoachB wrote:
Granted, high school cross country teams aren't a great indicator of how easy it is for the general population, since they are a self selected group who largely think they are decent (or have the ability to be decent) runners before they even start.
A popular meme on this board is that high school cross country teams are full of people who are either not explosive enough or not coordinated enough to play other sports. They cannot make the team in any other sports, and therefore they end up in the cross country team. In their theory, athletes in other sports are more talented, and could easily run faster than the cross country team if they tried seriously.
Bolt vs. Kipchoge wrote:
Then why did Farah have a hard time breaking 13 in the 100, and why couldn't the Brownlee brothers run that 100 in sub 14? Either your 11.5 was misleading (self-timed? very generous hand time? 100 yards instead of 100 meters?), or your 5K was on a really short XC course with a net downhill and a massive tailwind. Or maybe both times were legit, but you trained as a sprinter early in HS and as a distance guy later on. It's simply impossible for anyone to be good in both events at the same time.
predictor wrote:
You are crazy. Both of my times were FAT track times.
So you were a sprinter who became a distance runner.
I maintain what I said. You can be good at both the 100 and the 5K, but not at the same time. Nobody can do that. Besides my examples of Farah (12.98 100) and the Brownlee brothers (14.33 and 14.70 100), you have Carl Lewis and Usain Bolt (2:10 - 2:16 800) on the other side of the spectrum. Considering their 100-800 drop off, their mile times would definitely have been slower than 4:50-5:00, and there are 4:50-5:00 milers who aren't as fast-twitch as Bolt or Lewis but still couldn't break 20:
CoachB wrote:
There was a thread on here last week by a kid who was a 4:50 miler and couldn't break 20:00.
From 2007:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1788836On the women's side, we have Christine Ohuruogu, who ran a 49 second 400 but could only manage a 20:27 5K despite having raced that distance 3 times:
https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=20941I went to a small high school where I hold the records for everything from 100-1600. 11.6, 23.x?, 51, 1:54, and 4:12 were my times. I was a mid D guy in high school and college. I did not break 1:50 or 4 or 14 in college. And like I said, most of the guys on my XC team were just as fast as me. You are crazy if you do not think hundreds of college guys could break 13 in the 100 and 15 in the 5k. I pointed out guys like Hoare and Kusche. How about pros like Centro, Murphy, or Engels?
predictor wrote:
You are crazy if you do not think hundreds of college guys could break 13 in the 100 and 15 in the 5k.
Paula Radcliffe has run a 14:29 5K but only has a 400 PR of 58.9. At best, that's only a mid 13 100, and I'm being generous on this since there were quite a few distance guys on my HS team who couldn't break 14 from a standing start despite having 400 PRs in the high 58 - low 59 range.
If you prefer an example from the guys' side, there's Alberto Salazar, who has never run a sub 57 400. There's no way he would have been able to go under 13 in the 100 without sprint training.
But let's say you're right that "hundreds of college guys could break 13 in the 100 and 15 in the 5k." My point still stands. I never said that it was impossible, I just said that it would be very hard to run that time:
Bolt vs. Kipchoge wrote:
It all depends on whether you're fast twitch or slow twitch. If a sub 13 100 is easy for you, a sub 20 5K will be very hard. If a sub 20 5K is easy for you, a sub 13 100 will be very hard.
have seen this posted over and over again. I do not believe for one second that salazar couldn't break 57 in a 400. 54, bare minimum.