Why is it kids real young running very impressive times never really do much after that

the young wrote:

I have seen it time and time again. A little girl or boy running incredible times at 9,10,11 or whatever. I am talking times that are good regional times for pro women in some cases, but you will probably never hear about them after that. There was a family of kids in the 80s who ran very impressive times, but never did anything as adults, basically they just gave it up. I can't think of any fast kids doing anything as a pro. I don't recall any 14 year old running super impressive times, and end up making the Olympics. I know they might be one or two out there, but most never do anything, infact most never get any faster.

They burn out because they do to much to early and they either lose interest or their bodies break down because they are putting a lot of strain on a growing body which can't be healthy but an exception I would say is Jakob who started training from a very young age and had help due to his older brothers to train with being opened up to a elite training group from a young age

On the other hand, you have fast 16 year old middle schoolers like Verzbikas and Mantz who turn out pretty good.

they're old wrote:

On the other hand, you have fast 16 year old middle schoolers like Verzbikas and Mantz who turn out pretty good.

All over the internet and back in the day before internet, you would hear about incredible times by kids, but they just never did anything. I know lots of kids that ran TAC and AAU in the 80s and destroyed other kids. Their dad would say they are going to the Olympics, but if you look them up on Facebook it appears they probably never ran a step past 14 or 15.

the young wrote:

they're old wrote:

On the other hand, you have fast 16 year old middle schoolers like Verzbikas and Mantz who turn out pretty good.

All over the internet and back in the day before internet, you would hear about incredible times by kids, but they just never did anything. I know lots of kids that ran TAC and AAU in the 80s and destroyed other kids. Their dad would say they are going to the Olympics, but if you look them up on Facebook it appears they probably never ran a step past 14 or 15.

Yep, I remember Wesley Paul"s dad telling me exactly this.

the young wrote:

I have seen it time and time again. A little girl or boy running incredible times at 9,10,11 or whatever. I am talking times that are good regional times for pro women in some cases, but you will probably never hear about them after that. There was a family of kids in the 80s who ran very impressive times, but never did anything as adults, basically they just gave it up. I can't think of any fast kids doing anything as a pro. I don't recall any 14 year old running super impressive times, and end up making the Olympics. I know they might be one or two out there, but most never do anything, infact most never get any faster.

You don't see it with really young athletes under 10 but there are quite a few young teens that went on to become top pros and ever WR holders.

Here are some examples of current international age records by young athletes who went on to win Olympic or WC medals:

Shaun Crawford 100 meters - age 11

Usain Bolt 200 meters - ages 15-18

Kirani James 400 meters - age 14

Jakob Ingebrigtsen 1500 meters - ages 15-19

Armand Duplantis pole vault - ages 7-12

Raevyn Rogers 400 meters - age 14, 800 meters ages 11-12

Mary Decker 800 meters and mile - age 14

Sydney McLaughlin 400H - ages 14-19

Don't overplay the "burn out" card...

1. Improvement is curvilinear not linear. Maybe they were never going to get faster.

2. Your body at 10 is different than 16 and different than 25.

3. Inflated self-worth due to minimal competition. It's easy to look fast and break records as a 10 year old when most don't start training until middle or high school.

4. Genetic limitations. We all don't improve at the same rate. We all don't have the same ceiling.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

Don't overplay the "burn out" card...

1. Improvement is curvilinear not linear. Maybe they were never going to get faster.

2. Your body at 10 is different than 16 and different than 25.

3. Inflated self-worth due to minimal competition. It's easy to look fast and break records as a 10 year old when most don't start training until middle or high school.

4. Genetic limitations. We all don't improve at the same rate. We all don't have the same ceiling.

Alan

All of what your saying comes under burning out wether it be physical like you have said with how the body develops or genetic limitations or the non linear progression the mental side of burning out

is brandon miller still "burnt out"

I have a cousin whose body was completely messed up from running so hard when she was young. Non-stop chronic injuries.

I have two thoughts ... 1. Regression toward the mean. More outliers at a younger age, but as they mature the gap closes between them and their peers.Just like a 3 year old reading Harry Potter is not necessarily going to be a Rhodes Scholar.

2. It's easier to out-train your peers at a young age. Young runners/athletes are less likely to be training seriously and consistently. If you get a 7th grade runner who is logging 35 mpw and doing supplemental weight work, etc. They are going to be well beyond avg performances because most 7th graders don't train that way. It's mostly training stimulus; not necessarily genetics. Then as they mature and all of the peers are doing the same work, you can't out-train them anymore. Same goes for HS runners that are logging lots of miles compared to their peers.

I will counter you by stating that very very few Olympians weren't stand our runners at an early age.

Read the bios of most (not all but most) high high level runners and it will read something like this:

"Well I was playing (soccer/basketball/swimming) and my friend went out for XC/Track so I did, I won the region that year and then after I really started training the next year I won state and got to go to (insert National Meet)....."

Making it to the Olympics or similar level takes an amazing amount of work and an amazing amount of ability in combination.

the young wrote:

. . . good regional times for pro women . . .

???

Well, ok then

I remember racing against this 13-14 year old girl in my first 5K ever. I was 26 at the time and she beat me by 30 seconds, running sub-20. She absolutely dusted me at mile 2.

I then remember reading all these articles about how good she was and how she was going to be one of the best in the state, midwest, etc. I was really impressed. I saw her several years later at the same 5K thinking she was going to run 17's and I don't think she even broke 19, even after years of HS training.

The next year, she was running 20:30 in community college and I think quit not long after that. Burnout? Injuries? Poor training? A body maturing and not being so "runner-like" anymore? It's hard to really say. I can't imagine her frustration after the amount of attention she was getting so early on.

For many girls their peak years will be when they are young and scrawny. Their full potential will be realized then.

Slaney was an outlier because she still had the same build as an adult.

Jakob is several years younger than his brothers. Did they jog together when he was in middle school?

There is burnout and for boys puberty changes everything, but another factor is that not that many kids are competing at 10. It's a small subset of kids. So it shouldn't be a surprise that when lots of other kids are brought in, those who were the best at 10 have been surpassed by others.

NotPC wrote:

I will counter you by stating that very very few Olympians weren't stand our runners at an early age.

Read the bios of most (not all but most) high high level runners and it will read something like this:

"Well I was playing (soccer/basketball/swimming) and my friend went out for XC/Track so I did, I won the region that year and then after I really started training the next year I won state and got to go to (insert National Meet)....."

Making it to the Olympics or similar level takes an amazing amount of work and an amazing amount of ability in combination.

^This. The reason that very few kids running fast at a young age become Olympians is that there are very few Olympians in the first place.

Make a list of all the current Oly and WC medalists and world record holders. I suspect all of them showed tremendous talent when they first started out in the sport.

I think you see this much more often with girls. Sometimes they are FASTEST in like 7th grade and they actually get slower in highschool.

Boys seem to usually get faster but sometimes they are so well trained that they seem like they are much more talented than they really are and then progression is really slow

Runningart2004 wrote:

Don't overplay the "burn out" card...

1. Improvement is curvilinear not linear. Maybe they were never going to get faster.

2. Your body at 10 is different than 16 and different than 25.

3. Inflated self-worth due to minimal competition. It's easy to look fast and break records as a 10 year old when most don't start training until middle or high school.

4. Genetic limitations. We all don't improve at the same rate. We all don't have the same ceiling.

Alan

It's not "burning out," that's impossible.

You have different improvement curves. Example, me and two buddies in junior high and high school. We all were similar in 7th grade. In 9th grade, one was fast. By junior year, he was no longer fast, but the second kid was. By senior year, I was fastest of all. And, as I was older, I was stronger and even better. It's a linear thing.

The other kid who was real fast in 5th and 6th grades, and shaving in junior high, ran track his freshman year and quit. He ran the same speed he'd run three years earlier, which was slow now.