Colorado doesn't even come close to putting all their scholarship eggs into the distance basket. In addition, Oregon has signed more Footlocker finalists (and NXN high placers) than any other program in the country since 2000, so independent of how they distribute their scholarships, on the surface they should be dominating everyone in XC. They are not. The difference is called coaching.
ummm...have you heard of Galen Rupp, or Andrew Wheating, or Matt Centrowitz, or Elijah Greer, or Mac Fleet, or Edward Cheserek?
Chess A Wreck wrote:
ummm...have you heard of Galen Rupp, or Andrew Wheating, or Matt Centrowitz, or Elijah Greer, or Mac Fleet, or Edward Cheserek?
Ummm, have you heard of dopers?
Sagarin wrote:
Obviously there are outliers, but tall guys tend to be at a disadvantage in cross country, and they generally carry more weight.
Do you have any proof or evidence for any of that?
Colorado Oldie wrote:
Colorado doesn't even come close to putting all their scholarship eggs into the distance basket. In addition, Oregon has signed more Footlocker finalists (and NXN high placers) than any other program in the country since 2000, so independent of how they distribute their scholarships, on the surface they should be dominating everyone in XC. They are not. The difference is called coaching.
Well one of those Footlocker finalists quit the sport.
The difference has a lot of factors. Running is a very risky sport, in that you never know who's going to become prone to injury, and you never know who's going to taper off improvement-wise.
If you don't think Andy Powell is a good coach, you're not counting the NCAA titles his individual athletes have, let alone their top ten finishes out doors.
Additionally, Oregon has done well as a team.
usu wrote:
Sagarin wrote:Obviously there are outliers, but tall guys tend to be at a disadvantage in cross country, and they generally carry more weight.
Do you have any proof or evidence for any of that?
"At first glance, such thinking does not seem entirely unreasonable. Research has revealed that an individual’s genetic makeup has a significant effect on physical characteristics, including body size and shape. Although there are many exceptions to the rule, the best distance runners tend to be relatively short in stature and light in weight with slim calves, factors that probably have some genetic component. Greater height tends to dampen distance-running performance because of added mass: Bone mass increases exponentially as a function of height, instead of linearly, giving the taller runner relatively more dead weight to move around a 10K or marathon course. In general, enhanced body mass, either in the form of fat or nonpropulsive muscle mass in the upper body, makes endurance runners less economical and less able to sustain high speeds for continuous periods. Scientific studies also have identified many genes that are linked with greater endurance performance."
http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/genes-and-running-performance"The rules of physics say that distance cycling and distance running are for small people. Rowing and swimming are for people who are big. The physics is so exact that when Dr. Secher tried to predict how fast competitive rowers could go, based only on their sizes and the weights of their boats, he was accurate to within 1 percent."
"Distance running is different. Tall people naturally have longer strides, but stride length, it turns out, does not determine speed. Running requires that you lift your body off the ground with each step, propelling yourself forward. The more you weigh, the harder you have to work to lift your body and the slower you will be.
The best runners are small and light, with slim legs. “If you have large legs, you have to move a big load,” Dr. Secher said. “The smaller you are, the better you are.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/health/nutrition/27Best.htmlLook at world cross. Average the top ten heights. I'll bet they are less than 5'9" on average. Of course, taller people are rarer generally, but being 6' isn't so uncommon anymore.
Yes, we have all heard of dopers. Have any Oregon or ex-Oregon runners ever been found to be dopers? Answer: NO. The only thing we know for certain, is that you are a coward to make such a statement, while hiding behind an internet name.
Sagarin wrote:
usu wrote:Do you have any proof or evidence for any of that?
"At first glance, such thinking does not seem entirely unreasonable. Research has revealed that an individual’s genetic makeup has a significant effect on physical characteristics, including body size and shape. Although there are many exceptions to the rule, the best distance runners tend to be relatively short in stature and light in weight with slim calves, factors that probably have some genetic component. Greater height tends to dampen distance-running performance because of added mass: Bone mass increases exponentially as a function of height, instead of linearly, giving the taller runner relatively more dead weight to move around a 10K or marathon course. In general, enhanced body mass, either in the form of fat or nonpropulsive muscle mass in the upper body, makes endurance runners less economical and less able to sustain high speeds for continuous periods. Scientific studies also have identified many genes that are linked with greater endurance performance."
http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/genes-and-running-performance"The rules of physics say that distance cycling and distance running are for small people. Rowing and swimming are for people who are big. The physics is so exact that when Dr. Secher tried to predict how fast competitive rowers could go, based only on their sizes and the weights of their boats, he was accurate to within 1 percent."
"Distance running is different. Tall people naturally have longer strides, but stride length, it turns out, does not determine speed. Running requires that you lift your body off the ground with each step, propelling yourself forward. The more you weigh, the harder you have to work to lift your body and the slower you will be.
The best runners are small and light, with slim legs. “If you have large legs, you have to move a big load,” Dr. Secher said. “The smaller you are, the better you are.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/health/nutrition/27Best.htmlLook at world cross. Average the top ten heights. I'll bet they are less than 5'9" on average. Of course, taller people are rarer generally, but being 6' isn't so uncommon anymore.
None of that says that height is important. It says weight is the key thing. He is within the weight range of other distance runners shorter and taller so mentioning his height is irrelevant and unnecessary. And no the best distance runners don't have slim legs. They have all sorts of types of legs.
Actually, it does say height is important and somewhat correlated to weight. We'll have to agree to disagree. I suppose you'll tell me that genetics has nothing to do with it either.