Wild 1500 in NZ: 15-yr old Sam Ruthe ties 3:31 man Sam Tanner in DEAD HEAT at Kiwi nationals

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Thoughts on what we saw here:

Tanner obviously didn't perform as he has the ability to. In that type of race against that level of competition when you are basically 10 seconds faster than the field and a 3.31 guy, he should be either ripping off a 53 flat last lap or he's running low 1.20's for the final 600m and winning comfortably - even against an exceptional young talent like Sam Ruthe.

What could have happened? The training thing is relevant to a degree because it's really his off-season vs the peak of Ruthes summer season, but he's already run 3.36.0 this year en-route in a mile. Firstly I think travelling back and forth across the Pacific ocean in the month of Feb didn't help. He ran 3.55 in Jan in NZ, was back on an east coast swing throughout Feb and then back to NZ for this meet in March. It seems like it should be easy but I don't think it is. It's a long way to travel and a lot of time zones and it accumulates.

Secondly we all saw the state of the NZ champs in terms of atmosphere - it yeah, yep, sucks. It's basically a HS meet atmosphere - everyone wants to complain about Eugene? Try running in front of 930 people at 1pm in the afternoon on a windy day in NZ for a national title. Right or wrong it's tough for a guy who's won that title 4 times already to really be overly excited to do it - I get that.

Thirdly you have a young kid who is extremely talented, seemingly runs better and better every time he runs and is absolutely riding high on confidence. Every time he's tried to do something he's done it. He has no mental/emotional fatigue or had to overcome any adversity so far in his career because he's only 15. Everything is plus side for him right now. Even if he got beaten by a second here by Tanner everyone would (correctly) think it was an awesome run. Tanner has everything to lose god forbid he gets knocked off by a 15 year old, Ruthe nothing to lose at all. This is an underrated scenario in terms of somewhat levelling of the playing field. And don't forget, Ruthe ran 3.41 on a windy day in a crappy meet in NZ, so it's not unreasonable to say if put in some of the races Tanner has been in throughout his career, he would be well under 3.40.

Now to the race. You have a dude in 3.36.0 shape who's hasn't been very settled going into this, probably a little fatigued from running the NZ champs with an atmosphere not even in the same galaxy as what he's used to running in and with everything to lose comes in against the a kid in a true sub 3.40 shape with everything to gain on fully charged momentum. He takes on the race obviously hoping he's going to grind this kid down but every 100m that goes by that he doesn't, he's getting more and tense and concerned that he can't break him and conversely the kid is gaining in confidence as "he's not breaking me". Tanner is at the front burning more physical and emotional energy than Ruthe behind him and it this all comes to a head in the final 50m where Tanner is desperate to not lose and Ruthe is desperate to win. Classic hunter v hunted psychological situation in this one.

Really Tanner needed to be much closer to the top of his game to take care of this the way we we expected. But when you are not, it's crazy how quickly the gap shrinks between performance levels (also taking into account all factors above). In the end I think the positive Tanner can draw is that he managed to hold on and not be beat - even if they crossed the line at the same time.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Thoughts on what we saw here:

Tanner obviously didn't perform as he has the ability to. In that type of race against that level of competition when you are basically 10 seconds faster than the field and a 3.31 guy, he should be either ripping off a 53 flat last lap or he's running low 1.20's for the final 600m and winning comfortably - even against an exceptional young talent like Sam Ruthe.

What could have happened? The training thing is relevant to a degree because it's really his off-season vs the peak of Ruthes summer season, but he's already run 3.36.0 this year en-route in a mile. Firstly I think travelling back and forth across the Pacific ocean in the month of Feb didn't help. He ran 3.55 in Jan in NZ, was back on an east coast swing throughout Feb and then back to NZ for this meet in March. It seems like it should be easy but I don't think it is. It's a long way to travel and a lot of time zones and it accumulates.

Secondly we all saw the state of the NZ champs in terms of atmosphere - it yeah, yep, sucks. It's basically a HS meet atmosphere - everyone wants to complain about Eugene? Try running in front of 930 people at 1pm in the afternoon on a windy day in NZ for a national title. Right or wrong it's tough for a guy who's won that title 4 times already to really be overly excited to do it - I get that.

Thirdly you have a young kid who is extremely talented, seemingly runs better and better every time he runs and is absolutely riding high on confidence. Every time he's tried to do something he's done it. He has no mental/emotional fatigue or had to overcome any adversity so far in his career because he's only 15. Everything is plus side for him right now. Even if he got beaten by a second here by Tanner everyone would (correctly) think it was an awesome run. Tanner has everything to lose god forbid he gets knocked off by a 15 year old, Ruthe nothing to lose at all. This is an underrated scenario in terms of somewhat levelling of the playing field. And don't forget, Ruthe ran 3.41 on a windy day in a crappy meet in NZ, so it's not unreasonable to say if put in some of the races Tanner has been in throughout his career, he would be well under 3.40.

Now to the race. You have a dude in 3.36.0 shape who's hasn't been very settled going into this, probably a little fatigued from running the NZ champs with an atmosphere not even in the same galaxy as what he's used to running in and with everything to lose comes in against the a kid in a true sub 3.40 shape with everything to gain on fully charged momentum. He takes on the race obviously hoping he's going to grind this kid down but every 100m that goes by that he doesn't, he's getting more and tense and concerned that he can't break him and conversely the kid is gaining in confidence as "he's not breaking me". Tanner is at the front burning more physical and emotional energy than Ruthe behind him and it this all comes to a head in the final 50m where Tanner is desperate to not lose and Ruthe is desperate to win. Classic hunter v hunted psychological situation in this one.

Really Tanner needed to be much closer to the top of his game to take care of this the way we we expected. But when you are not, it's crazy how quickly the gap shrinks between performance levels (also taking into account all factors above). In the end I think the positive Tanner can draw is that he managed to hold on and not be beat - even if they crossed the line at the same time.

What did i just see wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Thoughts on what we saw here:

Tanner obviously didn't perform as he has the ability to. In that type of race against that level of competition when you are basically 10 seconds faster than the field and a 3.31 guy, he should be either ripping off a 53 flat last lap or he's running low 1.20's for the final 600m and winning comfortably - even against an exceptional young talent like Sam Ruthe.

What could have happened? The training thing is relevant to a degree because it's really his off-season vs the peak of Ruthes summer season, but he's already run 3.36.0 this year en-route in a mile. Firstly I think travelling back and forth across the Pacific ocean in the month of Feb didn't help. He ran 3.55 in Jan in NZ, was back on an east coast swing throughout Feb and then back to NZ for this meet in March. It seems like it should be easy but I don't think it is. It's a long way to travel and a lot of time zones and it accumulates.

Secondly we all saw the state of the NZ champs in terms of atmosphere - it yeah, yep, sucks. It's basically a HS meet atmosphere - everyone wants to complain about Eugene? Try running in front of 930 people at 1pm in the afternoon on a windy day in NZ for a national title. Right or wrong it's tough for a guy who's won that title 4 times already to really be overly excited to do it - I get that.

Thirdly you have a young kid who is extremely talented, seemingly runs better and better every time he runs and is absolutely riding high on confidence. Every time he's tried to do something he's done it. He has no mental/emotional fatigue or had to overcome any adversity so far in his career because he's only 15. Everything is plus side for him right now. Even if he got beaten by a second here by Tanner everyone would (correctly) think it was an awesome run. Tanner has everything to lose god forbid he gets knocked off by a 15 year old, Ruthe nothing to lose at all. This is an underrated scenario in terms of somewhat levelling of the playing field. And don't forget, Ruthe ran 3.41 on a windy day in a crappy meet in NZ, so it's not unreasonable to say if put in some of the races Tanner has been in throughout his career, he would be well under 3.40.

Now to the race. You have a dude in 3.36.0 shape who's hasn't been very settled going into this, probably a little fatigued from running the NZ champs with an atmosphere not even in the same galaxy as what he's used to running in and with everything to lose comes in against the a kid in a true sub 3.40 shape with everything to gain on fully charged momentum. He takes on the race obviously hoping he's going to grind this kid down but every 100m that goes by that he doesn't, he's getting more and tense and concerned that he can't break him and conversely the kid is gaining in confidence as "he's not breaking me". Tanner is at the front burning more physical and emotional energy than Ruthe behind him and it this all comes to a head in the final 50m where Tanner is desperate to not lose and Ruthe is desperate to win. Classic hunter v hunted psychological situation in this one.

Really Tanner needed to be much closer to the top of his game to take care of this the way we we expected. But when you are not, it's crazy how quickly the gap shrinks between performance levels (also taking into account all factors above). In the end I think the positive Tanner can draw is that he managed to hold on and not be beat - even if they crossed the line at the same time.

You are totally overthinking it. Tanner is probably in 3.36 form at best. Ruthe could probably go 3.39. The race was won in 3.44. Ruthe ran amazing Tanner had an off day. Simple as. The chumps behind them excluding Chignell should be ashamed that they didn’t even attempt to get in the mix.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Coevett wrote:

I don't understand what you mean here. What is 'physical maturity' as regards running performance? Sam Ruthe looks at least 3 inches taller than Sam Tanner (who is 5ft 7"). The average 16 year old today is more physically developed than the average 16 year old fifty years ago. You've said before that size has no bearing on running performance, so what is this 'physical maturity' if it has nothing to do with either size or years of training?

You seem unaware that there are enormous developmental changes that occur in the teens. If there weren't then we could expect a 14 year old - or a 13 year old - to run as fast as Ruthe is now. Barring injury he will be much faster at 17 than he is at 15. That is entirely natural. What I am sceptical of is that he is as now fast as an insanely gifted teenager was who was two years older - and on a fraction of the training.

Youngsters in sports aren't necessarily more physically developed today than in the '60's. Ryun was 6'1" at 17. He was taller than Ruthe. On the other hand, Coe was 5'8" and El G the same and Kipchoge 5'6". So what does it mean to be be "physically more developed" as a runner? Height isn't necessarily the measure but heart, muscles and lungs. These change through the teens. That's why we see age records. Furthermore, in a sport like running, which is much less technical than many other sports, athletes can progress very quickly when they reach physical maturity - 20 upwards.

Armstronglivs wrote:

malmo wrote:

You sound like Kamala Harris. I don't even think you have any idea what you are trying to say. At 15 I didn't look as old as any of my peers. The same at 18. The same at 22.

I'll take the comment about Harris as a compliment, since the alternative is devoid of intellectual credibility.

It appears you in fact have no idea what I was saying. Your appearance at any given age is irrelevant and not an indicator of your physiological development, which is the factor that determines performance. It doesn't matter that at 22 you looked far younger - you were physiologically 22. Conversely, at 15 you weren't 18 physiologically, so you wouldn't have been able to perform at that level when you were 15. Teenagers are in a state of constant development. 15 is not 17 or 18. What I am sceptical of therefore is an athlete of 15 matching or even exceeding the very best athletes who were some years older. Or matching a 3:31 runner in competition.