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

chris hanson wrote:

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...

He ran one when he was 16. And he wasn't very good. His club and then the national coaches got him in workouts and directed him towards the 5 and 10. Long distance events are what matter in Ethiopia. Meseret Defar and/or Tirunesh Dibaba could probably win the 1500m at the Olympics or World Championships but they hardly ever run that distance and you probably won't see them do it because it doesn't interest them. Dibaba ran her last 1500m in Oslo in 4:06 and has no aspirations for the 1500m in a serious race.

chris hanson wrote:

I bring up the 400-800 nonsense because YOU quoted it in your FIRST post to start the thread...

No, I didn't. That was not the part of the article I excerpted, and I said repeatedly I don't agree with the 400/800 nonsense.

chris hanson wrote:By the way, who should be running the 1500 for the U.S.? This is a serious question.

Do you mean specific names or by event/PR profile? I'll try to address both, and won't even attempt to be all-inclusive.

Before I do, the T&FN Little Red Book used to have a formula in the back (don't know if it still does, I haven't seen one in several years) where you took PRs and compared how much someone slowed down per lap as the moved up. It was a useful tool for seeing who trended better up and is often spot-on for predicting potential at distance not yeat attempted (by, say, taking a mile and 5,000 PR and extrapolating to 10,000). That's the concept I'm talking about: The subset of guys who show the trend up in distance but never took it further than 1500/5000.

Lopez Lomong. Lomong has shown good range and cross results. Based on his trend, I could see Lomong as a potential 1500/5000 runner, despite his solid 800 credentials. Probably worth exploring a 5,000 or two to see what happens, but I don't see him any higher than a 1500/5,000 guy.

Webb. Probably still has a lot of untapped upside at 5,000 (13:10 at end of season when his mile PR was 2+ seconds slower), but his highest-value marks are still at 1500/mile, with solid marks on either side at 800 and 5,000. Another serious 5,000 or two would give better data.

Wheating. His 3:38 last year has to be put in context. The all-time list of American milers who could close in 26.0+/- in a 3:38 race is a fairly short one. The all-time list of guys who could close in 26.0+/- in a 3:38 race as a college sophomore is extremely short, probably less than five. The all-time list of guys who could close in 26.0 +/- in a 3:38 race as a college sophomore after only running for about two or three years is probably one: Wheating. He's run well in cross, but not well enough to show upside beyond 1500. Profiles as more of a pure middle-distance guy. His improvement rate is just stupid fast.

I could go on, but it's all about how much someone slows as they move up. Teg and Kennedy are two guys who profile beautifully at 10,000.

So, after you get called out on the fact that Ethiopian running culture is inherently different than the US, you twist this argument to Zatopek in a way that really wasn't the point of the thread?

One would think you were an english major or something, with the way you use big, flowery words. Unfortunately your lackluster reading comprehension quickly dispells that notion.

I have a question, why are you so angry about this topic? You seem personally offended by this debate / discussion. It was a rather civil discussion before your negative tone was introduced.

chris hanson wrote:

Zatopek wants to change the world...Hope and change...But when asked for specifics (who should be running the 1500) he has no ideas at all. Very clever that Zatopek.

Not an Obama guy, so don't paint me with the hope and change crap.

And see my post below your post that I'm quoting. Give a guy a chance to multi-task at work and actually type the response.

I'm a data guy. It's all about the math and the trends as one moves up.

jonesy. wrote:

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

http://www.usatf.org/athletes/bios/hall_ryan.asp

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.

Meant to say "serious" 10,000. His 28:07 was run off of marathon training in preparation for London, and his 28:51 was run on a very hot day at USATF when everyone ran well off their PRs, just a couple of months after London. We haven't seen Hall point for a 10,000 the way he has at half-marathon and marathon.

chris hanson wrote:

I bring up the 400-800 nonsense because YOU quoted it in your FIRST post to start the thread...

I owe you a clarification, chris. I didn't realize I included the 400/800 nonsense in my excerpt from the article. You were right when you said I included it and I disagreed initially. My bad.

Zat0pek wrote:

chris hanson wrote:

I bring up the 400-800 nonsense because YOU quoted it in your FIRST post to start the thread...

I owe you a clarification, chris. I didn't realize I included the 400/800 nonsense in my excerpt from the article. You were right when you said I included it and I disagreed initially. My bad.

I think you owe him an apology as well

just a clarification? wrote:

I think you owe him an apology as well

A joke, right? Chris is the one who owes the apology. ZatOpek made a mistake, caught it and corrected it. Chris insists on insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with him.

It's simple

Those who can - sprint

Those who can't - move up in distance

Those who still can't - race walk

precisely wrote:I have a question, why are you so angry about this topic? You seem personally offended by this debate / discussion. It was a rather civil discussion before your negative tone was introduced.

I thought the same thing.

So if we look at specifics, you would have Lopez Lomong perhaps dabble in the 5000, in addition to the 1500. I would have no objection to that. I might add that it could be argued that his dabbling in the 800 might actually help his 1500 and ultimately a 5000 down the road. Said Aouita seemed to benefit from his 800 dabbling.

AS far as Webb goes, he too seemed to benefit from dabbling in the 800. As far as having potential at 5000 or even 100000, it is difficult to argue, but he also still can presumably do it at 1500.

As for Wheating, I would say that it is early to predict, but it would appear to me at this point that he and Manzano are less likely to move up as well as Lomong and certainly Webb.

Part of what makes this discussion contentious is that there are no absolutes here. Certainly Webb was heavily criticized when he ran the 10000 and then had problems, perhaps unrelated. Also, the leap to the marathon often results in stagnation or even decline at the shorter distances.

I apprecitate your attempt to get specific, but it does seem more tricky than in the abstract...

two points:

1) The onus is not on zat0pek to bring up Americans who should run the 1500m. The onus is to bring up Americans who should run the 5000m or 10000m or marathon. So, let's hear it, and we already know about Teg and BK in the 10k. The guy was exactly right to compare your hope and change idea here to the misperception of Obama, because like that false image of Obama as having only hope and no ideas, you have said little or nothing about who should do it.

2) I don't accept the idea that every distance runner in the U.S. does that because they're too slow to be a sprinter. A lot of people do it because they love to run distance. I couldn't wait to run distances. In elementary school they only let you run 50 yards or something like that, and while I would usually win the class race at that, I just wanted to run the mile and farther, like my dad, a jogger. When I got to 7th grade, I didn't even try the sprints and went straight to xc and the mile/two mile in track. I'm no talent but I'm positive that many, many distance runners aren't failed sprinters at all. In fact, like Derek Clotfelter, the best (and very undertrained) distance runner in my high school (49.0, 1:54.8 as a soph, 4:18), many distance runners are in fact among the best sprinters in their high school.

Agreed on both counts. His cross performances suggest potential there about 1500. No harm in running off events, including the 800.

Webb's 800 to me is a chicken and egg thing. 2007 was the first year (by his own admission) he focused more event-specific on the middle distances. The 800 is likely just result of that and had no bearing on his great mile and 1500 times that. Could be the other way around. No way to know, really, and I won't argue that.

I purposely didn't mention Manzano because I just don't know enough about what he's done outside the 1500. I haven't seen anything that makes me think he's a candidate to move up. I agree that it's early for Wheating, but his 3:38 last year, and just as importantly the way he ran it, tells me he's got huge upside at 1500.

While there may be "no absolutes", there is some pretty reliable data.

For example, if take miler A and miler B. Both have identical 3:55 PRs. Miler A has a 1:46 800 PR and a 13:35 5,000 PR. But Miler B has a 1:48 800 PR and a 13:20 5,000 PR. Miler B trends strongly towards the longer distances, Miler A does not.

Miler B realizes he's a better 5,000 runner than miler, so he moves to the 5,000...and stops there. His trend of getting better as he goes longer suggests he should give the 10,000 a shot rather than stop at 5,000. He may have a 27:3x in him, but he'll never find out if he never runs the event in his prime.

That's my whole point. There is a tendency for guys who trend up not to explore that trend to its conclusion, most likely at 10,000. We have some recent examples of folks who trend up (Hall, K.Goucher, S.Flanagan) and who have bucked that trend with some very impressive results, and I wish a few more would follow their lead.

My comment about Lomong should have been "above 1500" not "about 1500." Damn the lack of editing software on this board.

Re:

Why do U.S. runners tend to run the shortest distance?

Very-very interesting question; the answer is that its a cultural thing. Africans have had so much success in the SC/5k/10k...that even if you are the fastest sprinter at the youth level, your goal is to be the next Komen or Tegat. Also, Africans view running as a lifestyle changer and they go for the event where they have greatest opportuity for success even if that means the marathon.

There was an African NCAA 800/1500 athlete during the 90s who said in an interview that if he had stayed in Kenya he would have been a 5k/10k runner becasue of his lack of speed. He also said that in Kenya, you don't choose your event, your event chooses you.

Btw - A lot of the 400 guys who are true sprinters do not transition well to the 800. There are a lot of 1:45x 400m guys who can't breat 1:55 in an 800. The 400m sprinters that do transition well are the ones with slow 100m and average 200m times.

ZatOpek's latest posts nail it. Chris, you look like an ass for responding to a position you disagree with by name calling. You may disagree with him on this and that's fine but Zat has been one of the better informed, thoughtful posters on here for a long time. sometimes people just have an honest disagreement, but you don't have to be an ass about it.

Zat0pek wrote:

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.

There absolutely WAS a need for him to move up. As we saw him struggle in the Olympic 10k the last two Olympics, he is not competitive anymore at 10k, not even in his own country. At this stage of his career, Geb is basically a businessman. He runs the marathon because he can make a lot of money at it. He can't at 10k anymore. He only runs flat, cool weather marathons where he can set world records and make more money. He's never run a hot weather, competitive marathon like the World Championships or Olympics which don't pay like London or Berlin. He didn't run the Olympic marathon because he was afraid of the pollution, he avoided it because it would have ruined a big payday for him later in the fall.

Used to be good wrote:

ZatOpek's latest posts nail it. Chris, you look like an ass for responding to a position you disagree with by name calling. You may disagree with him on this and that's fine but Zat has been one of the better informed, thoughtful posters on here for a long time. sometimes people just have an honest disagreement, but you don't have to be an ass about it.

What a hyporcrite you are. And Zatopek hasn't told us who he thinks should be moving up to the 5 and 10. Chris is spot on.

woody h wrote:And Zatopek hasn't told us who he thinks should be moving up to the 5 and 10. Chris is spot on.

It's not so much who should move to the five as it is who should move to the ten. I've pointed out Teg currently and Kennedy historically. Pre actually fits the model pretty well, too, and I believe the ten was and would have continued to be his best event.

I've given the profiles of a few guys at 1500 as requested.

But most importantly, I've given the model of what to look for (better performances as the distance gets longer) so it should be a matter of plugging the PRs of any athlete in question and then looking at whether the quality of performance increases or decreases with a change in distance. The biggest problem is that you won't have good updistance data on some guys because they either won't attempt longer distances at all or not in their prime.