The H.S. 2-mile record is Kessler's for the taking

The 2 mile record was set almost 10 years after the 3:53.

There’s pretty much only one outdoors 5k that high schoolers run competitively and that’s at Texas Distance Festival which is way too early in the season for a kid to be running 13:36 or under. I think that 5k record is going to hold up for a lot longer than people think. Even Nico Young couldn’t break it and he is probably the best long distance recruit in ages. The shoes probably give anywhere from 5-10 seconds in a 5k, so maybe it’s a possibility.

Truth is that a 14 flat converts to around 8:37 for 3200. How many times does a 8:37 kid come around? It’s pretty rare, only a handful have done it. Take that even further, 13:37 converts to 8:22. Faster than the full 2 mile record by 7 seconds. That’s pretty ridiculous.

Think about it this way...put Galen Rupp in the 2019 Arcadia 3200 where Young and Sprout battled and ran 8:40, then Rupp runs another 1800m at that same pace. The 2 mile record is a little more doable imo.

yessirskiii wrote:

Didn’t know that’s where the 1500 and 3k events came from... pretty cool.

LV has a tough record to beat. His converted time from his 8:29 comes out to 8:25 for 3200 and 7:51 for 3k. So however you split it it’s faster than any other high schooler.

Kessler won’t have any trouble getting into a race, Willis Warhurst and U of M have the connections to do that easily. The hard part I would assume for Kessler would be to hold onto 4:14 pace from the gun, but I do think it is very doable for him.

He could do it somewhere like Pre.

I think 8:29 and 13:37 are about equivalent. 13:37 might be very slightly better. Both pale in comparison to Webb's record, obviously. I think Hobbs has a chance at any record he wants to go after. I think he can run sub 3:55 if he really wants it -- for 3:53, I think the conditions have to be perfect, from pacing to weather.

I think 8:29 seems easiest, and I think he could do that in a HS-only race. I think he would need to get in a college or pro 5000 to give 13:37 a go.

dsrunner wrote:

Kessler has a much better chance at the 5000m record.

Much easier to find pacesetters for that.

The 2 mile record is a soft, has been since the 3:53.

This has to be one of the most idiotic posts in a while.....

birdbeard wrote:

Eh honestly given we have 400m tracks, 1600 and 3200 make a lot of sense. It’s possible that we only run the 1500/3000 because a 500m track was used for the 1900 Olympics.

Given we have a 400m track, it’d be nice if we ran something like the 400, 800, 2000, 4000, and 8000 as events rather than the 1500/3000/5000 but it seems we’re in too deep to be reasonable at this point.

It's still a bit strange to optimise athletes for distances that are irrelevant globally, and athletics is a global sport. I can see the advantages of running off distances in training but what's the point for competition? I'm not a coach, but it seems better to me to get an athlete like Kessler optimised for the 3000m which he could run in international events. It would also be easier to put his times in global perspective since other countries run the 3000m regularly. Is Kessler a potential world class talent or just a US talent?

It's still a bit strange to optimise athletes for distances that are irrelevant globally, and athletics is a global sport.

Distance athletes aren't optimized for 1600/3200. They are optimized for distance running and are adaptable. The 3200 is functionally no different than the 3000. The big difference is doing time conversions in your head but there is no substantial difference once athletes understand pacing and strategizing splits.

At the global level there are standard track distances but there are also uncommon XC distances, 15k road races, and all kinds of distances. Good distance runners succeed across most of these distances.

All u guys r not thinking big enough. He can run 13:30 5k right now. Regardless of what everyone thinks he will progress at his own time and plan races according to his scheduled plan

rstranger wrote:

It's still a bit strange to optimise athletes for distances that are irrelevant globally, and athletics is a global sport.

Distance athletes aren't optimized for 1600/3200. They are optimized for distance running and are adaptable. The 3200 is functionally no different than the 3000. The big difference is doing time conversions in your head but there is no substantial difference once athletes understand pacing and strategizing splits.

At the global level there are standard track distances but there are also uncommon XC distances, 15k road races, and all kinds of distances. Good distance runners succeed across most of these distances.

+1.

And yes, given we have the 1500/3000 globally, it would be nice if the high schools started running them, but who cares. it's just a conversion, and it makes it easy on the (mostly) volunteers that run the run-of-the-mill HS track meets

michiganrunner55 wrote:

All u guys r not thinking big enough. He can run 13:30 5k right now. Regardless of what everyone thinks he will progress at his own time and plan races according to his scheduled plan

i doubt it, but that would be pretty dope if he could.

“I think.”

rstranger wrote:

It's still a bit strange to optimise athletes for distances that are irrelevant globally, and athletics is a global sport.

Distance athletes aren't optimized for 1600/3200. They are optimized for distance running and are adaptable. The 3200 is functionally no different than the 3000. The big difference is doing time conversions in your head but there is no substantial difference once athletes understand pacing and strategizing splits.

At the global level there are standard track distances but there are also uncommon XC distances, 15k road races, and all kinds of distances. Good distance runners succeed across most of these distances.

Yeah, I can see that in theory. But then I look at the 1500m and mile all-time lists and they are so different e.g. the top American in the 1500m is only 30th on the all time list but for the mile you have two Americans in the top 20. And Lagat's mile performance is relatively quite a bit worse than his 1500m. Maybe it's just the frequency which the mile is run in the US compared to the rat of the world but if the 1500m and the mile are really functionally the same then the top 1500 guys should be able to dominate the all time list

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

Unlike most runners Kessler also has serious upper body strength. He was a national class youth rock climber.

mmmm...no.

Serious upper body strength is benching say, 500 pounds (WR is over 1000 lbs)

doing pullup reps with two 45 pound plates strapped to your waist,

or pressing 300 lbs overhead, none of which Kessler would be remotely close to doing.

Kessler probably has decent *relative* upper body strength, but he knows that

efficient rock climbers rely on their legs, rookie rock climbers try to muscle up with their biceps and burnout before their second call for "up rope".

birdbeard wrote:

Eh honestly given we have 400m tracks, 1600 and 3200 make a lot of sense. It’s possible that we only run the 1500/3000 because a 500m track was used for the 1900 Olympics.

Given we have a 400m track, it’d be nice if we ran something like the 400, 800, 2000, 4000, and 8000 as events rather than the 1500/3000/5000 but it seems we’re in too deep to be reasonable at this point.

+1 your distances would make so much more sense given the 400m track, but like you said we've unfortunately gone way to far down the current path of 1500/3000/5000

Husky rusky wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

Unlike most runners Kessler also has serious upper body strength. He was a national class youth rock climber.

mmmm...no.

Serious upper body strength is benching say, 500 pounds (WR is over 1000 lbs)

doing pullup reps with two 45 pound plates strapped to your waist,

or pressing 300 lbs overhead, none of which Kessler would be remotely close to doing.

Kessler probably has decent *relative* upper body strength, but he knows that

efficient rock climbers rely on their legs, rookie rock climbers try to muscle up with their biceps and burnout before their second call for "up rope".

I can assure you that doing pull-ups with 90# is not an overwhelming challenge for him. At his level, one-arm pull-ups with reps are a given, meaning that he can do two arm reps with over 100lbs.. Even more relevant is that his upper body endurance, and his core strength is going to be remarkable.

That said, having a strong upper body is almost irrelevant to the two mile except the last 200-300m, so maybe he gets a few seconds at most from his overall fitness. OTOH his 400/800 strength is going to benefit noticeably from his climbing. That's where those few seconds can have an impact.

I have it on good word from the higher ups that Hobbs is being investigated by WADA. For what we do not know... Potentially related to shady political contributions?

Genuine response from a high schooler:

When I started track in 6th grade, the event was the 1600m. When I started high school, it was the 3200m. If 12 year old me was told to go run a 1500, I wouldn't be like "What the hell is a 1500", I'd run the damn event. If the NFHS, USATF, and high school governing bodies decided to make the change, there would be zero backlash from kids after maybe 4 years, when those who are used to it have left for college or quit.

Husky rusky wrote:

bartholomew_maxwell wrote:

Unlike most runners Kessler also has serious upper body strength. He was a national class youth rock climber.

mmmm...no.

Serious upper body strength is benching say, 500 pounds (WR is over 1000 lbs)

doing pullup reps with two 45 pound plates strapped to your waist,

or pressing 300 lbs overhead, none of which Kessler would be remotely close to doing.

Kessler probably has decent *relative* upper body strength, but he knows that

efficient rock climbers rely on their legs, rookie rock climbers try to muscle up with their biceps and burnout before their second call for "up rope".

lol this post showed that you know very little about weight lifting OR rock climbing

benching 500lbs is insanity -- anything in the 300+ range is some serious strength, and equivalent to pullups w/ plates.

as for the climbing suggestion--no, rock climbers do not rely on strong legs. they rely on good positioning of the legs and smart sequences to minimize the strain on the arms, but i've often heard it said that for elite climbers, if you have enough leg strength to climb a flight of stairs you have enough to climbg 5.14+.