Didn't qualify for Boston until I dropped from 165 race weight to 159. Makes a huge difference. 6'2"
Didn't qualify for Boston until I dropped from 165 race weight to 159. Makes a huge difference. 6'2"
Luke Beevor of Florida State is 6'10 and has run 14.25 for 5000m, 3.49 for 1500m.(quote)
If this is true...then it might be considered a truly amazing athletic field....equivalent to a normal sized runner running 13:40 for the distance or better.
It seems I have touched a nerve in some of the tall people on this forum, but as a tall guy myself (6.3), I'm just trying to be as objective as possible.
If you guys doubt what I'm saying, I suggest you take a sample of tall and short athletes, and have them do a battery of tests for strength, speed, conditioning, power, endurance, and general athletic skills. Have a sports scientist with credentials do the testing.
The results will show, that normal sized athletes (under 6 feet) have more advantages than disadvantages in comparison with taller (over 6 feet) athletes, undergoing the same battery of tests.
Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, with regard to outstanding/tall/coordinated athletes and sports people in the arenas....and we can think of runners like Johnny Gray and bastketball players like Kobe Bryant and Magic Johnson, who were exceptionally coordinated.
In Soccer....a complete sport which demands speed, strength, coordination, reflexes and other attributes...all the top world stars have been under 6 feet....and many of them well under 6 feet....with players like Maradona, Pele, Zidane, Platini, Romario...and others all closer to 5.6-5.9, than 6 feet or over. I use soccer as an example....because it is a sport which uses all the areas of sporting ability, including short sprints.....longer runs, jogging and coordinated, skilled movements.
By the way..in professional soccer...players are said to cover between 10-15km per game....!
ghost wrote:
In Soccer....a complete sport which demands speed, strength, coordination, reflexes and other attributes...all the top world stars have been under 6 feet....and many of them well under 6 feet....with players like Maradona, Pele, Zidane, Platini, Romario...and others all closer to 5.6-5.9, than 6 feet or over. I use soccer as an example....because it is a sport which uses all the areas of sporting ability, including short sprints.....longer runs, jogging and coordinated, skilled movements.
By the way..in professional soccer...players are said to cover between 10-15km per game....!
Xtie asks: Who is the tallest player at UEFA EURO 2004™?
Expert: Czech Republic striker Jan Koller is the tallest player in the competition, measuring two metres and two centimetres, followed by Sweden goalkeeper Andreas Isaksson at 199cms. The Czechs have the second tallest team in the competition with an average height of 184.39cms, slightly behind the Croatians whose average stands at 185.48cms. The smallest team at UEFA EURO 2004™ is Russia, with an average of 178.52cms, followed by England at 179.35cms.
Key points for you non-metric types:
1. The SMALLEST team, Russia, averages above 5'10".
2. The Croats average 6'1", with several other teams averaging above 6'0".
3. There is a striker nearly 6'8" and a goalie (position requiring great coordination and quickness) over 6'6".
4. Many of the top players are well over 6'0" in height; the above poster's use of Zidane is absurd, Zidane is not 5'6"-5'9", he is 6'1".
5. Said above poster is a dumbass.
You have proved my point.....the best teams have players who average under 6 feet....and that takes into account the tall goal keepers who throw the average ratings to the high end....so the averages are skewed because of the abnormal heights of the goalies...who have a special role...
Of course Zidane is about 6 feet...but as previously stated, being tall in soccer does not confer a skill or speed advantage...quite the contrary....and for my money ....the best team in the world....has men who are, in their vast majority, under 6 feet tall.
Shorter translates to better coordination and fleetness of foot.
And once again....in the soccer greats of yesteryear....show me a single star who was over...6.2....you will not find one....
jack batchelor was already mentioned as being tall, but i recall kirk pfeffer(sp?) being 6'6 or 6'7 and being a world-class marathoner.
also, cross-country great pat porter was about 6'4 or so.
bob kempaninen, was up there.
didn't slow them much.
personally:
6'3, 145 lbs in college.
5K - 15:22
i guess if i had shurnk i would have been faster?
!!! wrote:
Luke Beevor of Florida State is 6'10 and has run 14.25 for 5000m, 3.49 for 1500m.
Any idea how much the bloke weighs?
Doubling your height to find your ideal running weight (in pounds) would be too heavy for women.
ghost wrote:
It seems I have touched a nerve in some of the tall people on this forum, but as a tall guy myself (6.3), I'm just trying to be as objective as possible.
If you guys doubt what I'm saying, I suggest you take a sample of tall and short athletes, and have them do a battery of tests for strength, speed, conditioning, power, endurance, and general athletic skills. Have a sports scientist with credentials do the testing.
The results will show, that normal sized athletes (under 6 feet) have more advantages than disadvantages in comparison with taller (over 6 feet) athletes, undergoing the same battery of tests.
Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, with regard to outstanding/tall/coordinated athletes and sports people in the arenas....and we can think of runners like Johnny Gray and bastketball players like Kobe Bryant and Magic Johnson, who were exceptionally coordinated.
In Soccer....a complete sport which demands speed, strength, coordination, reflexes and other attributes...all the top world stars have been under 6 feet....and many of them well under 6 feet....with players like Maradona, Pele, Zidane, Platini, Romario...and others all closer to 5.6-5.9, than 6 feet or over. I use soccer as an example....because it is a sport which uses all the areas of sporting ability, including short sprints.....longer runs, jogging and coordinated, skilled movements.
By the way..in professional soccer...players are said to cover between 10-15km per game....!
I don't doubt that your are trying to be objective, but pulling scattered anecdotal observations and statistics out of context does not prove anything. Fact is that at least here in the states, and certainly in other countries, tall athletes have a number of other sports where height is actually a demonstrated advantage, and it pulls good athletes out of running (basketball, volleyball, swimming, etc). It would be just as inaccurate and anecdotal for me to sit here and say that runners are short because most of the potential taller runners are doing other sports as it is for you to cite sport statistics as evidence for your case.
Fact of the matter is that there has never been a physiological study that shows any optimum body type or size for distance running. You can talk about averages all you want, but that doesn't prove that the average is the most efficient - it may be the average based on many factors that have nothing to do with running (average heights of populations, number of taller athletes in other sports, etc.). You haven't touch any nerves, you are incorrecting citing anecdotal evidence as fact and we're correctly pointing out the flaws.
Cite just one professional study that shows that shorter athletes are more coordinated and "fleeter of foot". Just one.
6'1" 157 wrote:
being over 6 ft. means...
1) your more likely to be hired and make more money
2) your more likely to be respected
3) GIRLS ARE MORE INTERESTED IN YOU
IT'S ALL ABOUT PRESENCE SUCKAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah baby!!
jake jabs wrote:
6'2 155
1:48 - 800
3:38 - 1500
This guys my freaking hero. Does anyone else over 150 lbs notice that high mileage tends to put a lot of strain on the joints? For me, thats the reason why I suppliment my runs with some low impact aerobic activity such as pool running
ghost wrote:
Ghost, in soccer, it also depends which positions they play in. You state: all the top world stars have been under 6 feet....and many of them well under 6 feet....with players like Maradona, Pele, Zidane, Platini, Romario...and others all closer to 5.6-5.9, than 6 feet
Whereas there are the occasional players who are small and great there would be many more players who do not fall into the 5.6 - 5.9 category, even the 'small' Michael Owen is closer to 5'10 than 5'6
Ronaldo closer to 6ft - Ronaldinho closer to 6ft - Thierry Henry 6.02 - David Beckham closer to 6ft - patrick viera 6ft4 - Beckenbauer closer to 6ft - Johan Cuyff closer to 6ft - Geoff Hurst closer to 6ft - Ryan Giggs closer to 6ft - Milan Baros closer to 6ft
If you compare all sports equally you will find that the taller athletes are the more successful ones.
You fail to mention tennis, what heights for example are the top 10 women, you will find that most of the taller girls in the Top 10 with a few shorter girls, like Justine Henin up there, well not anymore.
Weight plays a major factor in running, however efficiency is the keyword and efficiency is more determined by how the athlete utilises his given ability and not how tall they are.
Derek Clayton - Rob De Castella - Paul Tergat are and were not the smallest runners, yet all of them were world record holders over a distance which is considered by you for shorter people.
you state 5.6-5.9 as being the ideal height for men, yet you may find that in most sports the top performing women are touching on closer to 5.9
Radcliffe is 5'8 which is tall for an athlete. So the stellar time for the marathon 2:15 is set by a woman who is considered too tall and the first man to go sub 2:05 is set by an athlete taller than 6ft
Are we missing something
He's missing the obvious. The numbers of fast or good soccer playing 6+ footers are going to be fewer simply because there are fewer 6+ footers in the general population. I don't see any evidence from the examples presented by Ghost that height has anything to do with success in running or soccer.
6'2", 165 - 47(split), 1:48, 3:45, 14:02 in college.....now I am 28, 185 and feel fit.
Also, I was offered a full soccer scholarship to two acc schools....guess I am the exception.
What about BDG ... he\'s a big boy. ;-) BDG, what are your stats?
6'3 - 143 pounds - 20 yeard old
1,000 - 2:29
1200 - 3:01
Mile - 4:14
(all indoors).
24:53 XC 8k
JMiler wrote:
6'3 - 143 pounds - 20 yeard old
1,000 - 2:29
1200 - 3:01
Mile - 4:14
(all indoors).
24:53 XC 8k
6'3 143? holy shit, are you a toothpick?
I am 6'1 maybe a alittle over. I have run my best times at around 153-155.
Any engineering or "techies" on this forum will tell you that shorter levers (arms/legs) are easier to move and rotate and more economical than longer levers seen in taller people. A shorter lever can generate more power.
Another advantage shorter people have is that they utilize calories more efficiently than taller people. They require fewer calories for their smaller frames, and fewer calories translates to better health overall.
In fact, I have never seen an 80-90 year old in the very tall range....(over 6.3/6.4)...on the other hand we have seen plenty of short people reach very old ages in the high nineties and even 100's. This means that shorter people have a much higher longevity chance, and better health outcomes because of the lower weights they tend to have.
The longest living people in the world are Japanese, who tend to be short and slim. Genetics and dietary factors also play a part. The Japanese also have the greatest concentration of sub. 29/10k male runners and sub.32/10k female runners in the world. They tend to be the most efficient runners in the world over long distances, with the Kenyans, who also tend to be short and light.
Most of the Japanese elite runners are around 1.70/50 kilos.