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

Zat0pek wrote:

Hall has never even run a 10,000 on the track.

Hall ran two 10,000m's in 2007, 28:51 and 28:07.

After his half marathon, there was speculation that he would run low 27's or even break 27, but he has said that he was doing marathon training and not ready to run a good 10,000m.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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?

The same goes for college guys being limited down to 5k or 10k instead of the marathon. There are plenty of successful college level 5 and 10 guys who spend four years at those distances and then try to spend the early part of a pro career just to get the A standards. By the time they run a marathon they are almost 30. The american system has told them that they are good at shorter distances and even encouraged them to stay there when they could have been moving up to the marathon and running with Hall/Ritz. If the NCAA had a marathon (I believe they still do in a lower division) there would be guys moving up at 18-20, just like the best Africans do.

What that would do is to expand greatly the depth at 2:15-2:25 in the marathon, and from that large group of 28-31 10k runners, you'd get more sub-2:12 guys, as was roughly the case back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As for potential marathon medal contenders of those not now running the marathon, it's pretty clear who those guys are: McDougal, Rupp, Fernandez.

chris hanson wrote:

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.

Chris, as someone else said, I think you're responding to an argument that isn't being made.

True, many 1500 guys are mediocre at cross country. Those aren't the guys I'm talking about. Those are the guys who more fit the pure middle-distance mode and have no business even thinking about moving up.

But there are also many who have excelled at cross country who never ran above 1500/5000. And on some college teams, the "1500 guys" are given different workouts in cross country than the "distance guys" so their lack of success may not be an indicator of ability.

Take Bob Kennedy. The guy won NCAA cross as a freshmen and never attempted a serious 10,000 until past his prime. His mile PR was 3:56-ish, and I don't think he ever ran faster than about 3:38-3:39 at 1500. So, you had a modest 1500/mile PR (by comparison to his 3,000 and 5,000), an AR at 3,000 and 5,000 and an NCAA cross champ as a freshmen. That's a very strong trend of better performances as the distance increases, including cross country. That's the profile of a very successful 10,000 runner. But Kennedy never went above 5,000 during his prime.

Of course, Kennedy is one of the all-time great U.S. 5,000 runners and speculating about him at 10,000 is admittedly armchair quarterbacking. Guilty as charged. But I'm responding to your comment about cross success and guys who did or didn't move up. Had Kennedy made a serious attempt at 10,000 when he was in 13:00 +/- shape, I think it's a good bet that he'd still hold the 10,000 AR.

Compare that to Ryan Hall. Hall was an even better miler in high school than Kennedy (3:42 1500 vs. 4:05 mile). Hall struggled a bit in college, then busted out his senior year when he won the NCAA 5,000 in 13:22 then ran a great race for third at USATF when he ran 13:16. That was clearly his breakout year, and it came at 5,000. A lot of guys would have stopped at 5,000 rather than going on up. Hall didn't. Can't argue with Hall's decision. No way to know what Kennedy would have done at 10,000 in his prime, but the indicators are that would have been at least as good, if not better, than what he did at 5,000.

It used to be pretty common for U.S. runners to be 5,000/10,000 guys. Now, the trend is that you're a 1500/5,000 or a 10,000/marathon type. And I think Grimes is right that it has hurt us at 10,000. And I don't think that it is "ignorant" to think that there are some 5,000 guys who may be missing out on what might be their best event if they'd just try it. That view has nothing in common with Wariner running 800, which defies all history and evidence with the exception of just a couple of guys (most notably Juantorena).

Grimes:"We simply don't have our athletes running the events they should."

Well, I guess we need a sports dictator to decree what events they SHOULD be running...

I nominate Zatopek and Grimes as possible dictators.

chris hanson wrote:

Grimes:"We simply don't have our athletes running the events they should."

Well, I guess we need a sports dictator to decree what events they SHOULD be running...

I nominate Zatopek and Grimes as possible dictators.

I guess this is easier than responding to the arguments and examples. I thought this could be a useful discussion. I expected more from you.

Zatopek, you can always find examples of athletes who you think should have run different distances. Anecdotal evidence is not enough for those of us who actually THINK, but it may be enough for those of you who prefer to use exceptions to prove your rather dubious rules.

The 400 to 800 Pollyannas are even supported by Grimes, and the one thing some of you ignoramuses don't comprehend is that if you look at the title of this thread, you can see it is not just U.S. runners who have predilections in this direction, it is ALL runners. Geb couldn't beat ElG or Morceli at 1500, so he moved up. This is not rocket science.

Geb did not move up. He started as a 10000m runner.

Geb didn't move up to avoid Morceli: he started as a 5000/10000m runner in the early 90s. He moved down for a few races in the late 90s to improve his speed though. Though I don't have his book in front of me, I don't think Geb even raced a 1500 or Mile until 1994.

When I write Geb moved up, I don't mean he literally moved up, but perhaps he "moved up" in the sense that some of you may have started out running the 3200 in high school because you or your coach sensed that you weren't going to be the best 800 runner due to your abilities. So you may have "moved up" to avoid being defeated by the 1:52 kid, even if you never actually raced him.

chris hanson wrote:

Zatopek, you can always find examples of athletes who you think should have run different distances. Anecdotal evidence is not enough for those of us who actually THINK, but it may be enough for those of you who prefer to use exceptions to prove your rather dubious rules.

The 400 to 800 Pollyannas are even supported by Grimes, and the one thing some of you ignoramuses don't comprehend is that if you look at the title of this thread, you can see it is not just U.S. runners who have predilections in this direction, it is ALL runners. Geb couldn't beat ElG or Morceli at 1500, so he moved up. This is not rocket science.

"...those of us who actually THINK...", "...you ignoramuses don't comprehend..."

Wow, real intelligent, Chis. Again, I expected more from you.

On the subject of reading comprehension, perhaps you should check yours. You give examples of those who DO move up. The focus of this thread is those who DON'T move up and indicators are that they could be successful if they did so.

Your Geb example cracks me up because if anything it proves my point.

Geb was the most successful 10,000 runner in history. There was no need for him to attempt the marathon; his place in history was secure. But he DID attempt the marathon, and has dominated the all-time list since doing so. In other words, Geb is an example of someone who didn't let success at one distance preclude them from attempting a different event. The focus is on Americans here because more often you see just the opposite here; success at one distance does seem to prevent guys from trying other events for which they might be successful.

And why do you keep bringing up the 400/800 nonesense? I've already said we agree that has NOTHING to do with this subject. There is nothing in the history of either of those events that suggests such a move.

chris hanson wrote:

When I write Geb moved up, I don't mean he literally moved up, but perhaps he "moved up" in the sense that some of you may have started out running the 3200 in high school because you or your coach sensed that you weren't going to be the best 800 runner due to your abilities. So you may have "moved up" to avoid being defeated by the 1:52 kid, even if you never actually raced him.

Geb never moved up. Part of the reason is cultural. Almost all runners in Ethiopia start as 10,000 meter runners. The ones without enough endurance to succeed at this distance move down.

Most US distance runners are people who moved up in distance because there were faster people than themselves at shorter events. Look at almost any US high school team and you see that the 800 guys were a bit slower at 400 than the guys actually in the 400, the milers were a bit slower than the 800 guys and so on. Usually once someone has some success they stay at that distance and don't move up much farther.

ZatOpeks's question is simply whether such athletes might have even more success if they didn't stop moving up at the first distance at which they were successful. Shorter comes to mind as someone who did just what is suggested. Of course that doesn't mean that we're going to be rolling in medals if we just get everyone to move up by a couple of racing distances and I can think of people who moved up and did no better than they'd done at their original event.

But inferring that anyone who believes that we might have more international success if some of our successful athletes moved to longer distances isn't thinking seems a bit much.

I bring up the 400-800 nonsense because YOU quoted it in your FIRST post to start the thread...But beyond that, Geb moved UP when he realized he could not be the best at the 10000. Geb is a freak. Of course he would succeed.

The beauty of your argument, Zatopek, is that NOBODY can prove you wrong. They'll always be athletes who you decide are not in the correct event. It is armchair quarterbacking, and because there is no way to prove you wrong, you'll continue to spout your theory. By the way, who should be running the 1500 for the U.S.? This is a serious question.

Precisely.

Again, Zatopek, who should be running the 1500 for the U.S.? You must have some ideas...

chris hanson wrote:

When I write Geb moved up, I don't mean he literally moved up, but perhaps he "moved up" in the sense that some of you may have started out running the 3200 in high school because you or your coach sensed that you weren't going to be the best 800 runner due to your abilities. So you may have "moved up" to avoid being defeated by the 1:52 kid, even if you never actually raced him.

This is dead wrong. Whereas in America everyone wants to be the 100m guy, everyone in Ethiopia wants to be Abebe Bikila. They could give a shit about the 800m and 1500m. Mulugeta Wondimu ran the 1500m in Athens because as a 13flat guy he couldn't make the 5000m team.

Angry Man, two things wrong with your post. First, if everybody wants to be Abebe Bikila, then why didn't Geb start out competing in the marathon in the early 90s? Second, if Geb had shown he could run a 9.8 100 when he was 18, according to your theory he'd have still been in the 10000 or marathon...

Zat0pek wrote:

HRE wrote:And I think you run into the American tendency to be satisfied to a large degree by being one of the best in the US and not paying as much attention to what goes on internationally. So if you're among our best at the mile that may be enough for you even if you could rank higher internationally in some longer event.

I think that's it in a nutshell.

^This