One would think these great 3:50 milers would have a chance to win NCAA Cross Country. Or at least place top 10.
One would think these great 3:50 milers would have a chance to win NCAA Cross Country. Or at least place top 10.
Moron#5 wrote:
One would think these great 3:50 milers would have a chance to win NCAA Cross Country. Or at least place top 10.
Tell us again how 1609 meter track fitness translates to 12000m trail fitness
Disko Eric wrote:
Moron#5 wrote:
One would think these great 3:50 milers would have a chance to win NCAA Cross Country. Or at least place top 10.
Tell us again how 1609 meter track fitness translates to 12000m trail fitness
WHAT is this about 12000m? These guys are not 1:45 800m runners. They actually could place quite high in a 10000m collegiate race.
Disko Eric wrote:
Moron#5 wrote:
One would think these great 3:50 milers would have a chance to win NCAA Cross Country. Or at least place top 10.
Tell us again how 1609 meter track fitness translates to 12000m trail fitness
Two completely different events. Hard to have both great speed and endurance.
Jeboris (not a sheep) wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
Tell us again how 1609 meter track fitness translates to 12000m trail fitness
Two completely different events. Hard to have both great speed and endurance.
Oh really. If you are an endurance based 3:50 miler, which these guys are, they likely can both run around 13:20 or faster. They can place high in a 10000m cross country race.
Cooper was already 6th last year
SIlver24 wrote:
Cooper was already 6th last year
Nope. The race was not conducted last year.
SIlver24 wrote:
Cooper was already 6th last year
So he was 6th in 2019 and he has improved quite a bit. He would have to be a top contender now.
Moron#5 wrote:
Disko Eric wrote:
Tell us again how 1609 meter track fitness translates to 12000m trail fitness
WHAT is this about 12000m? These guys are not 1:45 800m runners. They actually could place quite high in a 10000m collegiate race.
IAAF championship race is 12k. Unless they race with the big boys, that local 10k distance doesn’t mean anything.
Disko Eric wrote:
Moron#5 wrote:
WHAT is this about 12000m? These guys are not 1:45 800m runners. They actually could place quite high in a 10000m collegiate race.
IAAF championship race is 12k. Unless they race with the big boys, that local 10k distance doesn’t mean anything.
Not sure about your reading comprehension though. The thread is about NCAA Cross Country, a race that has been won before by the best runner in the world at the time.
A sub-3:51 miler &/or 1500m equivalent will be an athlete capable of (46.25 to 49.75) 400 metres at peak 1500m fitness. There are some elite 10000m athletes capable of sub-49 400m, but that is rare. Most sub-3:51 milers or 1500m equivalent athletes will not be great 10000m athletes.
look what you're asking ... wrote:
A sub-3:51 miler &/or 1500m equivalent will be an athlete capable of (46.25 to 49.75) 400 metres at peak 1500m fitness. There are some elite 10000m athletes capable of sub-49 400m, but that is rare. Most sub-3:51 milers or 1500m equivalent athletes will not be great 10000m athletes.
OK and yet that is not relevant or likely even correct. Both of these 3:50 milers can probably run 28:00 for 10000m which makes them contenders.
3:50 milers have a shot at Olympic teams in an Olympic year.
pavement88 wrote:
3:50 milers have a shot at Olympic teams in an Olympic year.
Correct. Unless 3:50 is not what it once was due to the shoes and faster indoor tracks. In general you are correct though.
Disko Eric wrote:
Moron#5 wrote:
WHAT is this about 12000m? These guys are not 1:45 800m runners. They actually could place quite high in a 10000m collegiate race.
IAAF championship race is 12k. Unless they race with the big boys, that local 10k distance doesn’t mean anything.
Doesn't mean anything?
There is no point in arguing with the OP of this one. He's right. Someone with 3:50 mile fitness could place very highly in XC, and to prove his point, they have.
What's the point of the thread? I don't know, but it's not wrong.
Moron#5 wrote:
look what you're asking ... wrote:
A sub-3:51 miler &/or 1500m equivalent will be an athlete capable of (46.25 to 49.75) 400 metres at peak 1500m fitness. There are some elite 10000m athletes capable of sub-49 400m, but that is rare. Most sub-3:51 milers or 1500m equivalent athletes will not be great 10000m athletes.
OK and yet that is not relevant or likely even correct. Both of these 3:50 milers can probably run 28:00 for 10000m which makes them contenders.
What is not correct? You are guessing without merit in regard to 28:00 10K. Just because many people race 10000m app. 2.08 times 5000m P.B. does not mean all 5000m runners. I would assume sub-3:51 milers would be less apt to race 10000m 2.08 x 5000m P.B.
Yeah, all of those NCAA runners out there who run 3:50 for the mile.
Teare and Hocker would both be top 10.
There is no point to the thread EXCEPT to prove how little some people know about the sport. You and several others do appear to know however.
converts by 1.08x to 3:33.27.
The 27 last lap suggests these boys can be contenders in the 1500m this year but you still have to bet on the experienced runners with rounds and perhaps the shoes are playing a role here as well, which would mean that you'd have a bunch of sub 3:35 caliber guys all of a sudden. But they've shown a leap up in quality here from 2:49/3:54 and 7:44 to 3:50. Very impressive.