The only feelings of insignificance will be with you try-hards who can't match a child who does about half of your training. I'm not competing with him or anyone - so, am I bothered? Nah - not bovvered.
But at least I understand that my feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by incessant posting because I accept the reality that there have been teenage phenomenon runners for over 50 years. Why can't you?
I post because I like to discuss issues that others also like to discuss. So why exactly are you here?
No "teenage phenoms" of the past were anywhere near what they are running today. I don't believe human evolution occurs in a span of a few decades. Nor can what is happening today be simply ascribed to improvements in the sport. How are relatively small changes in the technical side of the sport suddenly having a dramatic effect on performances and especially in young teenagers?
He's training with a pro because he's transcendently talented at this age, but he's also running amazing times at this age because he's one of the few 16 year olds training with a low 3:30s pro. It wasn't a coincidence that Hobbs ran 3:34, the high school record and faster than the in-season college record at the time, while training with Nick Willis and Ron Warhurst in a pro system.
Sam Ruthe, a 16 year old from New Zealand, ran a 3:53.83 mile on a windy day and 3:48.88 the very next week at his first indoor race. The fastest in the world under 18 and already fastest New Zealander in the mile. The time itself is mind-boggling and causes an existential crisis, but what’s crazier to me is his training. His dad said in the interview that he only runs 80-90km (50-56 mile) per week and never does doubles. When Jakob dominated the field as a teen or Kiptum ran crazy marathons back-to-back-to-back despite his young age, it kinda made sense because they’d been training like a machine since they were like 12 or something. They put in insane time and effort on top of their phenomenal talent and environment. But this Kiwi kid right here trains like a normal high schooler and is crushing the aerobic game (he also ran his first 5k in 13:40 about a month ago while focusing on the 800m-mile). There are literally tons of high school or collegiate runners all around the world who run way more than he does and never touch a 4:00 mile, let alone 3:50.
That's what they said about Sebastian Coe. In addition Peter Snell and other Lydiard disciples have in the past had inaccuracies told about their training. Often we do not truly know what anyone actually "does." Also, we do not know what Ruthe did in his childhood. That could be where he got his base training!
But at least I understand that my feelings of insignificance can't be allayed by incessant posting because I accept the reality that there have been teenage phenomenon runners for over 50 years. Why can't you?
I post because I like to discuss issues that others also like to discuss. So why exactly are you here?
No "teenage phenoms" of the past were anywhere near what they are running today. I don't believe human evolution occurs in a span of a few decades. Nor can what is happening today be simply ascribed to improvements in the sport. How are relatively small changes in the technical side of the sport suddenly having a dramatic effect on performances and especially in young teenagers?
How are relatively small changes in the technical side of the sport suddenly having a dramatic effect on performances and especially in young teenagers? *Relatively small changes you say? Come again, or better yet bring back Jesse Owen and Paavo Nurmi!
I don’t understand why posts on Sam Ruthe get deleted but then this guy gets to make any post he wants on Phanuel Koech.
Why do the same brigade posters constantly say guys like Ruthe and Cooper look “old” but then turn around and tell us a guy who is an obvious liar about his age, Koech, is a kid? Puh-leez!
I had fun a few months ago reading on this board about how Cooper Lutkenhaus was unnaturally tall for his age, The guy is about 5 11", maybe 6' even, and he was 16 1/2 at the time that was written. I mean, really? That was also my height the summer after my soph year of high school, and guess what, nobody was recruiting me for the basketball team.
As for Ruth's training, 50 to 60 miles per week of quality is believable. I had trouble with the claim that high school half miler Cade Flatt -- remember him? -- only ran 5 miles per week. I was openly skeptical of that. But Ruthe ... sure. That could be.
Sam Ruthe, a 16 year old from New Zealand, ran a 3:53.83 mile on a windy day and 3:48.88 the very next week at his first indoor race. The fastest in the world under 18 and already fastest New Zealander in the mile. The time itself is mind-boggling and causes an existential crisis, but what’s crazier to me is his training. His dad said in the interview that he only runs 80-90km (50-56 mile) per week and never does doubles. When Jakob dominated the field as a teen or Kiptum ran crazy marathons back-to-back-to-back despite his young age, it kinda made sense because they’d been training like a machine since they were like 12 or something. They put in insane time and effort on top of their phenomenal talent and environment. But this Kiwi kid right here trains like a normal high schooler and is crushing the aerobic game (he also ran his first 5k in 13:40 about a month ago while focusing on the 800m-mile). There are literally tons of high school or collegiate runners all around the world who run way more than he does and never touch a 4:00 mile, let alone 3:50.
That's what they said about Sebastian Coe. In addition Peter Snell and other Lydiard disciples have in the past had inaccuracies told about their training. Often we do not truly know what anyone actually "does." Also, we do not know what Ruthe did in his childhood. That could be where he got his base training!
Childhood? What are you talking about? Let's go back to infancy.
Sam Ruthe, a 16 year old from New Zealand, ran a 3:53.83 mile on a windy day and 3:48.88 the very next week at his first indoor race. The fastest in the world under 18 and already fastest New Zealander in the mile. The time itself is mind-boggling and causes an existential crisis, but what’s crazier to me is his training. His dad said in the interview that he only runs 80-90km (50-56 mile) per week and never does doubles. When Jakob dominated the field as a teen or Kiptum ran crazy marathons back-to-back-to-back despite his young age, it kinda made sense because they’d been training like a machine since they were like 12 or something. They put in insane time and effort on top of their phenomenal talent and environment. But this Kiwi kid right here trains like a normal high schooler and is crushing the aerobic game (he also ran his first 5k in 13:40 about a month ago while focusing on the 800m-mile). There are literally tons of high school or collegiate runners all around the world who run way more than he does and never touch a 4:00 mile, let alone 3:50.
That's what they said about Sebastian Coe. In addition Peter Snell and other Lydiard disciples have in the past had inaccuracies told about their training. Often we do not truly know what anyone actually "does." Also, we do not know what Ruthe did in his childhood. That could be where he got his base training!
Up to 60 miles a week sounds reasonable. He ran a 13:40 off of that. He is talented. There doesn’t need to be some mystery or suspicion that they are lying about his training.
I post because I like to discuss issues that others also like to discuss. So why exactly are you here?
No "teenage phenoms" of the past were anywhere near what they are running today. I don't believe human evolution occurs in a span of a few decades. Nor can what is happening today be simply ascribed to improvements in the sport. How are relatively small changes in the technical side of the sport suddenly having a dramatic effect on performances and especially in young teenagers?
How are relatively small changes in the technical side of the sport suddenly having a dramatic effect on performances and especially in young teenagers? *Relatively small changes you say? Come again, or better yet bring back Jesse Owen and Paavo Nurmi!
In the last few decades the improvements in shoes, tracks and nutrition are the smallest part of gains made. Kratochvilova in the 1980s and El G in the 1990s are still faster than anyone today. Most of the jumps in performance have been with refinements in training and doping. The latter in particular has changed every sport, which is why it is found in every sport.
On the issue of the thread, which is Ruthe's training, from what we have been told there is nothing new or different in Ruthe's training from what young athletes were doing decades ago.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
How are relatively small changes in the technical side of the sport suddenly having a dramatic effect on performances and especially in young teenagers? *Relatively small changes you say? Come again, or better yet bring back Jesse Owen and Paavo Nurmi!
In the last few decades the improvements in shoes, tracks and nutrition are the smallest part of gains made. Kratochvilova in the 1980s and El G in the 1990s are still faster than anyone today. Most of the jumps in performance have been with refinements in training and doping. The latter in particular has changed every sport, which is why it is found in every sport.
On the issue of the thread, which is Ruthe's training, from what we have been told there is nothing new or different in Ruthe's training from what young athletes were doing decades ago.
Two days of cycling added to the weekly training is something that was not done, at least notably, decades ago. Adding in significant amounts of aerobic cross-training is a relatively new thing.
In the last few decades the improvements in shoes, tracks and nutrition are the smallest part of gains made. Kratochvilova in the 1980s and El G in the 1990s are still faster than anyone today. Most of the jumps in performance have been with refinements in training and doping. The latter in particular has changed every sport, which is why it is found in every sport.
On the issue of the thread, which is Ruthe's training, from what we have been told there is nothing new or different in Ruthe's training from what young athletes were doing decades ago.
Two days of cycling added to the weekly training is something that was not done, at least notably, decades ago. Adding in significant amounts of aerobic cross-training is a relatively new thing.
Cross-training isn't new. It has been employed decades ago. It is mostly used by biathletes and triathletes. Are running coaches advocated cycling now for distance specialists (other than for injury recovery?) How has it added to his performances in a way that running wouldn't?
I brought the cross-training up specifically because you are the one, thinking you’re smart, that was saying he is doing the same training as runners decades ago.
You want to keep arguing. If you have questions about his training, why don’t you contact them yourself.
I brought the cross-training up specifically because you are the one, thinking you’re smart, that was saying he is doing the same training as runners decades ago.
You want to keep arguing. If you have questions about his training, why don’t you contact them yourself.
Runners also did cross training decades ago. I was aware of it when I was a kid. So it isn't new, even for runners. But the general picture is that his training is pretty light for a distance runner - no long runs - and essentially no different from what a lot of other youngsters do. There isn't anything in his training methods that points to his exceptional success.
I brought the cross-training up specifically because you are the one, thinking you’re smart, that was saying he is doing the same training as runners decades ago.
You want to keep arguing. If you have questions about his training, why don’t you contact them yourself.
Runners also did cross training decades ago. I was aware of it when I was a kid. So it isn't new, even for runners. But the general picture is that his training is pretty light for a distance runner - no long runs - and essentially no different from what a lot of other youngsters do. There isn't anything in his training methods that points to his exceptional success.
Peter Coe would have likely thought adding in a significant amount of biking would have been detrimental wasting of injury. Name the runners of note, from decades ago that were doing significant amounts of aerobic cross training.