Peter Snell Calls US Middle Distance Running "Pathetic"

Czech Guy wrote:How many German and Dutch basketball players do you know, apart from Dirk Nowitzki? And yet, the Netherlands and Germany have the highest base of potential basketball talents in the world - together with the US white population that doesn't compete in this sport either (thinking that they can't jump in a sport, where body size matters above else)

idiot

tell me when last the dutch/germans won gold in basketball or the fiba title ???

You would be very surprised, how low the global competition in some athletic disciplines actually is. Today's track is basically a Third World sport, where Africans compete against other Africans. It can't be taken seriously at all.

eh ???

only a moron woudn't take seriously the sport where 1'41.01 was run last year

Ventolin, you are an entertaining sort of a psychopath.

halfr wrote:

Current USA born OG and WC Mid distance medalists: 0

Current NZL born OG and WC Mid distance medalists: 1

Current NZL college/pro trained and coached OG and WC Mid distance medalists: 0 (zero)

Current USA college/pro trained and coached OG and WC Mid distance medalists: 2 (Lagat + Willis)

& you are a f***ing idiot

mmm - I believe that Snell is talking about USAs comparison to the World in recent(?) years

AND then compares that to the USA runners vs the world during his time.

And we have our peeps comparing our runners today ... to our runners of 3+/- yrs ago.

To dismiss his statement by comparing his accomplishments/times to today's marks is flawed thinking - there have been ad nauseum discussions about oomparing generations performances ...just because he makes statements that hit a nerve - rightly or wrongly is naive. He was a world record holder and 3x Olympic champion - 3 for 3.

He has said what many of 'us' - the 'distance running peanut gallery' have said in frustration of how 'our guys are running vs world elites. That we are improving vs the world is clear and fosters hope of greater things to come - which I'm convinced we all want.

While Snell's statement is abrasive - I do think he didn't quite hit the nail on the head.

Now if I am wrong here - keep it to yourself

Derderian wrote:

Malmo makes me wonder how you would calculate what a country "should"produce in a track event. Might there be a formula?

Tom

In some disciplines, it is not so difficult, although some factors are still hard to measure objectively. Let's take discus throw: The average discus thrower is cca 198 cm tall.

Now let's examine some of the tallest and/or most populous populations in the world:

Dutch - 184 cm, SD 6,8, population size 15 million

Dinaric Alps - 184,6 cm (in 17-year olds), which would equal to at least 186 cm in adults, SD 6,84, roughly 5 million people

US whites - 178,9, SD 6,5, 200 million people

Russia, 177,2, SD 6,4 cm, 140 million people

Germany, 179,5, SD unknown (say 6,5), 80 million people

How many males with the height of 198 cm and more would you find in these countries/regions? I will calculate it from the total population, so the numbers can serve only as a tool for a relative comparison:

Dutch: 1,98% x 15 = 0,297

Dinaric Alps: 3,97% x 5 = 0,199

US whites: 0,165% x 200 = 0,33

Russia: 0,056% x 140 = 0,0784

Germany: 0,221% x 80 = 0,177 (or 0,26, if we used SD 6,8)

So, the first place goes to US whites, followed by the Netherlands, Dinaric Alps, Germany and Russia. The same ranking would be applicable to basketball or volleyball.

Do you think that India and China could compensate it by their 1-billion population size? Let's test it:

India, 170,4 cm (median), SD unknown, usually around 6,0, but let's say 171 cm with SD 6,0, population size 1,19 billion.

The proportion of Indians with the height of 198 cm would be 0,0003% x 1190 = 0,00357. In other words, the population of India would have to grow up to 26,133 billion to compensate the potential of Russia in this regard. Te average height in today's China is almost exactly the same.

How well do black Americans fare in this regard?

178,0 cm, SD 6,9, 40 million.

0,187% x 40 = 0,0748.

And my native country?

Czech republic: 180,3 cm in 17-years olds, SD 6,9, 10 million people. There are roughly 0,516% young males with the height of 198 cm, which produces our "coefficient" 0,0516 - quite favourable even in comparison with such large countries like Russia. And it would be cca 0,0687, if I included a more realistic height 181 cm in fully grown males.

Naturally, these calculations can't be taken too seriously, but they aren't far from the truth. The diffirences in population age structure couldn't be taken into account either. But you can see that irrespectively of population size, "small" countries like China or India can't be competetive in height-demanding sports.

Further, we must take into account another differences in body build like limb proportions or somatotype. This is much harder to ascertain, however. All we can say is that East Euros (and specially Northeast Euros) have the best somatic type and limb proportions for discus throw, followed by Dinaric mountaineers, Germans, Dutch and US whites. The ranking is thus practically reversed, which makes our final conclusion difficult.

Nevertheless, on per capita basis, the biggest sources of talent for discus throw are quite clear: Estonia and - with some reservatons concerning limb proportions - Dinaric Alps.

In absolute numbers, I think that either of the five countries/ethnicities can successfully compete in discus throw - which reasonably well agrees with the historical stats,

except that West Balkanese and Dutch don't compete in athletics virtually at all (and the Dutch gene pool is actually represented only indirectly by Frantz Kruger).

If the secular height increase continues in countries like Turkey and Iran, we could expect growing number of athletes even from these regions. But currently, they are still too small, which is their major drawback.

And now some interesting facts:

1/In USA, there are at least 4-times more whites with the ideal height for basketball (200 cm) than blacks of West African ancestry.

The biggest medal contenders in today's basketball are countries with one of the weakest potential for this sport in the whole Europe (or populations of European ancestry): Greece, Turkey, Argentina, Spain. Surprised? Then read further.

2/In middle distance running (800/1500 m), where top runners are 178-180 cm tall, you must acknowledge that Kenyans and Ethiopians, who are ca. 170 cm tall on average, can't be any source of a "natural talent". In fact, after 1985, when the optical illusion called "African domination" first appeared, middle distances regressed and stagnated for the whole decade.

3/ The 400 m is another mind-boggling case, because due to the importance of absolute anaerobic power, runners are currently 187-188 cm tall on the average. This explains, why black Americans almost completely dominate this event, because with 178 cm, they are by far the tallest West African population in the world. The second highest number in a population of West African ancestry that I have found is 174 cm in Jamaicans. In West Africa, the averages usually range between 170-175 cm.

But how is it possible that such small or moderately tall people (by current European standards) utterly dominate this event? Despite the fact that even differences of physiological nature shouldn't be markedly high? (The average ratio of fast-twitch fibers in vastus lateralis of 400 m runners is usually around 60%, but certainly not much higher than this number; the same ratio in average Europeans is routinely 55%, while in two studies of West Africans, numbers 63% and 68% were reported.)

In my opinion, no reasonable answer exists.

4/ The body build of the most "universal" athlete (with the height around 184 cm and a slim/moderate physique) is virtually identical to that we today find in the Dutch. Yet the Dutch are one of the least successful European nations in athletics. Do you need any reasonable explanation for this curiosity? I think it would be a waste of time.

5/ The mountaineers from the Dinaric Alps are the tallest people in the world, with some regions like Croatian Dalmatia reaching average male height of 187 cm in 17-years old (!) youngsters. You would say that the political fractionalization of this region markedly weakened its potential in team sports, but still, you would expect a flood of athletic talents in events like high jump, triple jump, the 400 m, decathlon, discus throw. This doesn't hapen, however. Why? I think that after reading all this post, you will find an answer very easily.

We've got a few guys trying to break through at 800 but it seems to me we are overloaded at 400-(at NCAA last year 23 under 47.8 in prelims) Why don't more sub 47 guys move up? It's not other sports completely drawing away 800 talent- some go to the 400. Has Andrew Rock hung it up?

What are you babbling about? I can't even figure out what point you are trying to make.Why are you obsessed with average national heights? Top athletes are not average. How did the average Jamaican height of 174cm influence Usain Bolt's 195cm stature?Is height even a relevant factor? All the examples you give of tall populations who fail to excel in sports, implies your point is that height doesn't matter all that much. Yet you seem obsessed not only by individual heights, but the national averages.Common sense indicates height is an advantage for sports like basketball, but it requires other physical and technical skills too, like speed, accuracy, hand to eye coordination, and ability to jump.Height is also linked to endurance sports, where more height usually means more weight, which requires more energy, and reduces heat dissipation.You provide a bunch of irrelevant pseudo-facts, seemingly to support a suggestion that no reasonable explanations for such curiosities exist, hinting there is some unspoken obvious explanation. I did find the answer very easily: your facts are not facts, and/or not relevant. Average national height is a poor indicator of individual success.Success is a combination of many other factors, such as talent, power/weight ratio, muscle fiber distribution, body type, opportunity, motivation, infrastructure, etc.

Czech Guy wrote:

And now some interesting (sic) facts:

On the front page now:

"The thing that really makes the difference - iconic, driven coaches like Arthur Lydiard. You can't just dial up another coach."

- Peter Snell talking about the importance of coaches over administrators and exercise physiologists.

If he really feels like this, does anyone know why Snell never became a coach? His medals would have made him an icon, he has certainly show the ability to be driven...

Sounds like Peter Snell is using Blood Libel against the USA.

For those of you who sit in front of your screens and bash a legend, shame on you. You don't have to agree with his statement, keep in mind the audience (N.Z. citizens), but you can't question his results!!!!!

It is quite obvious that Snells only intention is to question the increasingly overuse of Sports Science.

Funding's middle men in New Zealand are like that of a third world country.

The Performance "office crew" is thrown together and given money based on medals from the past competitions. They cater to a select few athletes.

At the last World Championships there were more administrators than athletes and on top of that athletes had to pay for their uniforms.

America is a fine nation with so much talent. Snell is merely saying that both New Zealand and the U.S. need to get back to basics. Take away all the b.s. and get to down hard training, no matter whose training philosophy you follow.

Reduce High Performance Programs by going straight to the athletes and asking them what they need!

9itrndg7i wrote:

On the front page now:

"The thing that really makes the difference - iconic, driven coaches like Arthur Lydiard. You can't just dial up another coach."

- Peter Snell talking about the importance of coaches over administrators and exercise physiologists.

If he really feels like this, does anyone know why Snell never became a coach? His medals would have made him an icon, he has certainly show the ability to be driven...

Snell never desired to become a coach. He stated that his personality was almost the exact opposite of Arthur's.