Hunter didn’t prevent Knight or Fisher from going pro earlier.
Hunter didn’t prevent Knight or Fisher from going pro earlier.
whats the problem here wrote:
westsouthrunner wrote:
Mo has hardware kincaid does not.
Mo ran sub 13 in a real race kincaid did not in fact Mo paced kincaid perfectly for like 11 laps lol.
Mo would take the lead of his national championship.
Kincaid would NEVER.
They are not in the same category man.
Also why does it matter a big deal if someone goes to school and they are 17,18,or 19 so much with you guys. College doesn't have age limits anyways. Why is that so hard to understand
One of the great objective things about track and field is times. Your argument about medals and who would take the lead is silly and irrelevant.
Obviously you can run a fast time in a minor race or win a major race with a slow time, but the time you run over a set distance is pretty hard to argue. The clock doesn’t care who you are or what’s at stake.
You don’t have a better chance to be national champ just for leading part of the race.
Literally We could argue that kincaid can't run sub 13 without Ahmed but we can't say so otherwise. Regardless they have both run 12:58 but ahmed has way more success. Objectively speaking
fasciz wrote:
Hunter didn’t prevent Knight or Fisher from going pro earlier.
What's your point? I agree that Hunter going pro earlier was a bad choice
The point is it’s not a weight against Hunter that he went pro earlier. Others could have done the same. Merits are merits.
fasciz wrote:
The point is it’s not a weight against Hunter that he went pro earlier. Others could have done the same. Merits are merits.
It totally is. If you think you're good enough to go pro out of high school, you should put up the results to show it.
I know your marathon is cancelled wrote:
I graduated and went to college at 17, and ran a 4:08 mile before turning 18.
And my former training partner ran a 3:59-equivalent at the age of 17. His teammate ran a 3:50 which was the collegiate record for many years until disallowed since he ran in Helsinki or Oslo.
Merits like All-American and NCAA champions that Knight and Fisher have? I don’t know much about Knight’s group but their coach is extremely underrated. Fisher is with the best track club in America. I would say both those are better than Tinmans situation right now
He got paid $100k per year plus his schooling. That is a better deal than anyone else got.
Downer it goes wrote:
He got paid $100k per year plus his schooling. That is a better deal than anyone else got.
I agree it's a good deal, but it depends on if he values money or track success. As well, I'm assuming Fisher got a full ride to Stanford + a Stanford degree. I know I wouldn't choose Hunter's path, but I'm sure many would.
Amory wrote:
Downer it goes wrote:
He got paid $100k per year plus his schooling. That is a better deal than anyone else got.
I agree it's a good deal, but it depends on if he values money or track success. As well, I'm assuming Fisher got a full ride to Stanford + a Stanford degree. I know I wouldn't choose Hunter's path, but I'm sure many would.
What about the Hunter path..? Explain how his contract and choice goes against your thoughts ..?!
How France? wrote:
Talent runs everywhere. On the road and the track, Or are you not considering Cheptegei & Rhonex Kipruto a talent? All of the big names have run road 5ks and/or 10ks. You don't seem like a true fan of the sport.
You're right, lots of talented people have run road 5Ks. And they ran much faster than Gressier. For example, Sammy Kipketer (12:59 at Carlsbad in both 2000 and 2001), Dejene Birhanu (13:10), Eliud Kipchoge (13:11), Dejene Gebremeskel (13:11), and so on. Gressier's time isn't even close to the top ten.
Prior to 2017, the IAAF kept track of "world bests" in the 5K. Since then, they have kept track of "world records." Similarly, they started keeping track of marathon "world records" in 2004, but no pretends that marathon times from before 2004 didn't count.
Gressier's obviously a promising talent, but this "second-fastest road 5K ever" business is either a joke or a complete misunderstanding.
Amory wrote:
fasciz wrote:
The point is it’s not a weight against Hunter that he went pro earlier. Others could have done the same. Merits are merits.
It totally is. If you think you're good enough to go pro out of high school, you should put up the results to show it.
You're basically arguing that he should get bonus points then by saying "he was good enough" to go pro before the others.
fasciz wrote:
Amory wrote:
It totally is. If you think you're good enough to go pro out of high school, you should put up the results to show it.
You're basically arguing that he should get bonus points then by saying "he was good enough" to go pro before the others.
I'm saying the opposite. He should get bonus points if he actually outperformed them. Which he hasn't. He's somehow behind them after going pro right out of high school. That sucks.
The Future of North American 5k wrote:
Merits like All-American and NCAA champions that Knight and Fisher have? I don’t know much about Knight’s group but their coach is extremely underrated. Fisher is with the best track club in America. I would say both those are better than Tinmans situation right now
Yes, those are great merits and I think all three are great runners. It is pretty clear-cut Knight then Hunter then Fisher in terms of success to date in my book, but I know that people weigh those merits different than I do. Certainly I expect continued success for all of them and for my opinion of their careers to mix up from time to time.
Amory wrote:
fasciz wrote:
You're basically arguing that he should get bonus points then by saying "he was good enough" to go pro before the others.
I'm saying the opposite. He should get bonus points if he actually outperformed them. Which he hasn't. He's somehow behind them after going pro right out of high school. That sucks.
It doesn't make a bit of sense to penalize him for being successful as a high schooler. That's beyond poor reasoning.
fasciz wrote:
Amory wrote:
I'm saying the opposite. He should get bonus points if he actually outperformed them. Which he hasn't. He's somehow behind them after going pro right out of high school. That sucks.
It doesn't make a bit of sense to penalize him for being successful as a high schooler. That's beyond poor reasoning.
I am penalizing him for the decision, not his early success. Grant Fisher, Ed Cheserek, etc, also had similar success as high schoolers. Grant won 2 foot locker championships, sub 4 mile, etc... Yet, Grant chose the college route, while Hunter believed he was good enough to go pro. We can see now that Hunter made a worse decision.
But you are saying there is actual results are graded differently because he was successful enough to go pro after high school. That's ludicrous. Their achievements are their achievements. I wouldn't say that Fisher's achievements are discounted and have to be viewed from a different lens merely because he was faster than Hunter was in 7th grade, because that's idiotic. That's the same line of argument.
fasciz wrote:
But you are saying there is actual results are graded differently because he was successful enough to go pro after high school. That's ludicrous. Their achievements are their achievements. I wouldn't say that Fisher's achievements are discounted and have to be viewed from a different lens merely because he was faster than Hunter was in 7th grade, because that's idiotic. That's the same line of argument.
It's not the same line of argument at all. 7th grade has no bearing on his results today. The last 4 years of their development has obvious impact on their results. Grant spent his in college, Hunter spent his as a pro. It seems that even with 4 years of pro training, Hunter is not as good as Fisher. With only 1 year of pro training, Fisher has surpassed Hunter by quite a bit.
Again, you keep saying "successful enough". Many, many, many high school students (including Fisher, Cheserek, Nico Young, etc) are "successful enough" to go pro, but they go to compete at the top level in college instead. I think that is a good decision.
Amory wrote:
fasciz wrote:
But you are saying there is actual results are graded differently because he was successful enough to go pro after high school. That's ludicrous. Their achievements are their achievements. I wouldn't say that Fisher's achievements are discounted and have to be viewed from a different lens merely because he was faster than Hunter was in 7th grade, because that's idiotic. That's the same line of argument.
It's not the same line of argument at all. 7th grade has no bearing on his results today. The last 4 years of their development has obvious impact on their results. Grant spent his in college, Hunter spent his as a pro. It seems that even with 4 years of pro training, Hunter is not as good as Fisher. With only 1 year of pro training, Fisher has surpassed Hunter by quite a bit.
Again, you keep saying "successful enough". Many, many, many high school students (including Fisher, Cheserek, Nico Young, etc) are "successful enough" to go pro, but they go to compete at the top level in college instead. I think that is a good decision.
Whether or not it is a good decision is reflected in the results themselves, NOT by skewing the way you view the results.
Fisher shouldn't be judged harsher than Hunter for being faster as a 10 year old.
Brazier shouldn't be judged harsher than Murphy for going to a better college program.
Hunter shouldn't be judged harsher than Fisher for being able to go professionally out of high school.
The. Results. Speak. For. Themselves. When. Viewed. Equally.
Hopefully that helps.
Not to mention it is laughable to say that "Fisher has surpassed Hunter by quite a bit" in his one year as a pro.
Female coach having affair with male runner. Should I report it?
Post about women banditing Brooklyn half marathon going viral on X
If Daniel's and Pfitz are outdated..then where do I look for modern training plans?
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic