MohammedAA wrote:
I agree but... wrote:
The people in that local restaurant’s follow up question: “so, does that mean you have also qualified for and run in the Boston marathon?”
And their second follow-up question, “how far is the marathon that you did?”
When you tell then you ran D1 Cross country championship, the first question will be "how long did it take you to run across the country?"
WHICH is more impressive, not WHAT
NJ Scofflaw wrote:
MohammedAA wrote:
And their second follow-up question, “how far is the marathon that you did?”
When you tell then you ran D1 Cross country championship, the first question will be "how long did it take you to run across the country?"
35 minute 10k runners make the NCAA Meet and guys running 34 minutes score, yes score. If I was a dude who ran the NCAA'S in the 1990's and saw this thread I would love it, actually I think someone like that started this thread. The OT's are all good runners, no hobby joggers there, but the NCAA Meet can't say that about every runner in the race because there are quite a few jokers there that made it off a team. They end up running 170 or something place, so end this crap.
Trials Vs. XC Nationals wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if this has been covered in a past discussion, so feel free to send me a link to that if that is the case, but I couldn't find any posts in my minute or two of searching, so here's my question:
Runner A ran D1 XC and qualified for and then raced in the NCAA Cross Country Championships (either as an individual or as a scorer for a fast team that qualified). Assume he had a respectable finish, somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Runner B had a less than impressive collegiate career, but took to the roads post-graduation and ran a 2:17-2:19 marathon to qualify for the trials. Assume he also had a respectable finish at the trials, finishing somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Who had the greater accomplishment/whom are you more impressed with?
I think this could go both ways...
As someone who had a less than spectacular collegiate career, I have a gut reaction to be far more impressed with Runner A. You have to be an absolute STUD to make it to the NCAA Championships. I had absolutely 0 shot at ever making it that far during my college XC days. However, I've been racing longer distances on the roads for a few years now, and have been closing in on that trials standard of 2:19 pretty consistently. I can also rattle off the names of 10+ guys living within a 10 mile radius of me who have hit the OTQ Standard, yet were nowhere near making it to NCAA Nationals.
However, looking at it strictly from the numbers, it seems like racing the trials is a rarer and more impressive feat. 100-200 guys will race the trials once ever 4 years vs. 250+ race the NCAA D1 Championships every single year.
It's a weird situation where hitting the OTQ Standard and racing the trials is a rarer accomplishment than racing NCAA Nationals, yet I think it's easier to do so.
What do you think?
Someone else said it earlier -- the XC guy is likely a 14:20 dude or better and that's loads tougher / more impressive than OTQ. However, the OTQ guy is a person that has continued to train and is now running pretty fast.
There is no lore of the marathon for most people. At least, not in the spirit of truly being competitive. I used to tempo 10 miles at 5:30 once per week when I was 19. Never once thought about increasing mileage and running a marathon.
I I personally believe that any person that runs 9:30 or below in HS, can eventually run sub 2:19. How many kids run sub 9:30 every year? 1000?
competitive runners wrote:
Trials Vs. XC Nationals wrote:
It wouldn't surprise me if this has been covered in a past discussion, so feel free to send me a link to that if that is the case, but I couldn't find any posts in my minute or two of searching, so here's my question:
Runner A ran D1 XC and qualified for and then raced in the NCAA Cross Country Championships (either as an individual or as a scorer for a fast team that qualified). Assume he had a respectable finish, somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Runner B had a less than impressive collegiate career, but took to the roads post-graduation and ran a 2:17-2:19 marathon to qualify for the trials. Assume he also had a respectable finish at the trials, finishing somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Who had the greater accomplishment/whom are you more impressed with?
I think this could go both ways...
As someone who had a less than spectacular collegiate career, I have a gut reaction to be far more impressed with Runner A. You have to be an absolute STUD to make it to the NCAA Championships. I had absolutely 0 shot at ever making it that far during my college XC days. However, I've been racing longer distances on the roads for a few years now, and have been closing in on that trials standard of 2:19 pretty consistently. I can also rattle off the names of 10+ guys living within a 10 mile radius of me who have hit the OTQ Standard, yet were nowhere near making it to NCAA Nationals.
However, looking at it strictly from the numbers, it seems like racing the trials is a rarer and more impressive feat. 100-200 guys will race the trials once ever 4 years vs. 250+ race the NCAA D1 Championships every single year.
It's a weird situation where hitting the OTQ Standard and racing the trials is a rarer accomplishment than racing NCAA Nationals, yet I think it's easier to do so.
What do you think?
Someone else said it earlier -- the XC guy is likely a 14:20 dude or better and that's loads tougher / more impressive than OTQ. However, the OTQ guy is a person that has continued to train and is now running pretty fast.
There is no lore of the marathon for most people. At least, not in the spirit of truly being competitive. I used to tempo 10 miles at 5:30 once per week when I was 19. Never once thought about increasing mileage and running a marathon.
I I personally believe that any person that runs 9:30 or below in HS, can eventually run sub 2:19. How many kids run sub 9:30 every year? 1000?
False all of it. It has been said before, that the people or person posting all this is someone who got in the Cross Country Meet via his team, but never made the OT. No lure in the Marathon, lol.?
I agree most don't continue post collegiatly. I thought the fire would never burn out. I qualified for 2 XC nationals and called it a day when I felt a career and a life was more important.