Curious, who do you think has the chance? I figure Tuliamuk will have a decent showing, but likely hasn't had enough time post-pregnancy to regain peak form. Molly Seidel has potential, but she's seems to often be on the point of breaking, so I wouldn't be surprised if she flamed out in some manner.
If I had to choose, my money would be on Kipyego.
Gentleman Savage wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
In college with I had teammates that had played football as a HS freshman but when they discovered their talent, it was a no-brainer to switch to distance running. You're "throwing a bone" theory is only speculation on your part. The football players I knew in HS were muscular guys that could never have been distance runners. Outliers like McMullen are outliers and he ended up being a distance runner anyway.
The Rupp only took up distance running because of Salazar is not a fact. Rupp's mother was a former distance runner and it's likely he would have eventually chosen distance running without Salazar's involvement. Some posters have opined that potential distance runners are attracted to popular sports but soccer is less popular than track in the U.S. I don't know what the situation is now, but soccer was an invisible sport at my HS. We had a team but I can't remember a single guy that played on it while I can easily name a dozen guys in each of the other sports.
That's cool, we just had differing experiences. I'm certainly not speculating, however. I know there were guys riding the pine in football and basketball who could have been really good in track. They wanted to show coaches they were serious about getting playing time so they stuck to those sports' off-season conditioning rather than try track. I'm also talking about suburban big schools high school in Texas 30 years ago, though college teammates also came from small schools. Not California or the Northeast or Mid-Atlantic. "Friday Night Lights" Football was the focal cultural draw, basketball and baseball were clearly next behind that. Soccer was definitely more popular than cross country there even back then. That team had tryouts and cuts! Not so in track or xc. It's not like it was a crap program with arrogant/dispassionate coaches, either, we were 2nd at the big schools state track meet junior year and one of those guys wound up an Olympian. AYSO existed and there was certainly pressure for the best players to do that in the HS off-season. We had a few guys come over for track, sure, including a guy who wound up on the state meet podium as an individual medalist. There were a couple guys who did switch from soccer to xc, though that was at least in-part fueled by scholarship prospects. Those three did wind up with college scholarships for track/xc. Knowing them, their families probably couldn't afford or justify the expense of AYSO travel soccer, either. We had one guy come over from swimming, I think he just wanted less practice time for an activity that he didn't see going past high school. There were probably many kids with wealthier families who stuck with soccer because of the team aspect, among other social and cultural benefits. Track certainly didn't outdraw soccer for home meets though it was probably about even with swimming!
Unless there is a study of what sports, if any, the kids who ran 5 flat in middle school chose, it's all speculation. I believe that being so much faster than the other kids is intoxicating and for talented kids, distance running is kind of fun. With a 5:30 mile, I was the fastest in my middle school and from that point on, I was obsessed with running.
On the flip side, there were kids with significant talent for the "popular" sports who dropped out to get part-time jobs to buy crap they didn’t need. The HS basketball coach lived across the street and I remember him commenting on how stupid it was to do that given they were going to later work for 40+ years. On a side note, his daughter went on to become a legendary U.C.L.A. basketball player and made two Olympic teams. A guy a year ahead of me also made Olympic teams is considered to be the world's GOAT water polo goalie.
I like your stories, genuinely.
One of the kids who was top 5 varsity runner as a sophomore quit during his junior year to spend more time with his sh*tkicker pals. Yeah, a cowboy (he wore the costume and liked to dip) living in a wealthy, suburban tract home. He should have been our 2nd runner that year based on his previous form and progression. Seemed like he was remaking his image in a fit of rebellion. He had actually begun slowing that season and some runners who had never finished ahead of him before were starting to beat him in competition. We knew it had a lot to do with his runner dad, who had him in youth track from an earlier age than the rest of us and put a lot of pressure on him. Sometimes it goes deeper than just being fast, there needs to be resilience and support to weather down times.
Our best track/xc runner in my time there (he got a D1 full ride but college coaches rode him into a chronic injury cycle) felt like trying tennis as a sophomore rather than run track. He made the team though wound up not sticking with it. Despite ability, sometimes social influences and even youthful boredom will override an "intoxicating" feeling.
bugattiaron wrote:
Considering that quite a few African countries have a better environment for running, a culture more focused on running, and a cultural diet better suited for running, why does it surprise you that America is not as good at distance running?
Plus, think about the logic behind your numbers. Yes the US is a much bigger country, but only a small minority of Americans focus on distance running. A massive proportion of people in Kenya and Ethiopia grow up running. So there are probably more people in Africa who focus on running than America by quite a bit. So again, why are you surprised America isn't as good?
Do you know which the biggest sport by far is in Africa (including Kenya)? Soccer.
The soccer league in my small country is drenched with African players, and even on this very modest level they make more money than runners who a borderline world class.
It's true that the best athletes go out for other sports or none at all. It's also true that if the best athletes went into the distances, they'd get destroyed by the skinny ones. The only way they'd show their quality would be if they had the toughness to train for years. There are some potentially good runners in the other sports, though most of the best runners in other sports are better suited for 800m on down, especially 100m-400m, and the jumps. Case in point, Erriyon Knighton. He was discovered on the football team as a freshman after never having run track. Less than three years after that discovery, he's the world under 18 record holder (maybe even world under 20) in the 200m. There's some xc and mid to long distance talent on the football, basketball, and baseball teams, some on the bench, which we see examples of every year, and a lot on the soccer teams, but in the distances you don't usually get the immediate results, so you have to stick with it for years and have the right coaching. Most of those kids aren't willing to run more than 400.
These threads do a great job showing how bad most people are at statistics.....the question is not why isn't the US (a country of 332M) better than country B (smaller!) in a event or set of events but rather what the odds of the US producing someone better than the rest of the world in any given event? Olympic medalists are by very definition huge outliers and therefore should be spread randomly around the world. Random events tend to cluster - giving the appearance of causality when its really usually coincidence and at best correlation. Now environment does play a huge part - if it didn't the US would be much worse - at best we have 10% of the worlds pop - if we got 10% of the Oly athletics medals that would be like 14 or 15 medals - imagine the uproar then!! And that is ignoring the fact we don't get 10% of the entries. All those advantages we have allow us to punch way above our statistical weight from a medal or placing standpoint - do we get every possible medalist? Of course not, but that's true of every sport and will never likely change - at least until you can find a foolproof method to test at birth for what specific thing each kids will excel the most at and then send them off to a lifetime of training.
As an aside , my favorite is stories of athlete A who was so good - well compared to us at least - then quit to go hang with his buddies or just didn't take the sport seriously - in what possible world would a kid who didn't even have the will to go to HS practices or hated the sport be able to find the fortitude to do olympic level training? And why should mental talent be viewed any differently than physical talent? You have to have both otherwise you really are not going to make it.
Gentleman Savage wrote:
I like your stories, genuinely.
One of the kids who was top 5 varsity runner as a sophomore quit during his junior year to spend more time with his sh*tkicker pals. Yeah, a cowboy (he wore the costume and liked to dip) living in a wealthy, suburban tract home. He should have been our 2nd runner that year based on his previous form and progression. Seemed like he was remaking his image in a fit of rebellion. He had actually begun slowing that season and some runners who had never finished ahead of him before were starting to beat him in competition. We knew it had a lot to do with his runner dad, who had him in youth track from an earlier age than the rest of us and put a lot of pressure on him. Sometimes it goes deeper than just being fast, there needs to be resilience and support to weather down times.
Our best track/xc runner in my time there (he got a D1 full ride but college coaches rode him into a chronic injury cycle) felt like trying tennis as a sophomore rather than run track. He made the team though wound up not sticking with it. Despite ability, sometimes social influences and even youthful boredom will override an "intoxicating" feeling.
Different rules apply for Texas. I traveled there on business frequently and I was told that anything besides football was "trash".
The climate there was brutal for distance running. Sometimes during the summer there, I would get up at 6 to get in a run before my first meeting and would be drenched before even completing a mile. One time in Dallas I saw the Trinity River outlined in green on a map and thought it looked pretty good. It turned out there was absolutely nothing green there and it was one on most miserable runs I've ever taken. The guys I met with the next day said it was a popular place to dump bodies.
Women's Marathon wrote:
Curious, who do you think has the chance? I figure Tuliamuk will have a decent showing, but likely hasn't had enough time post-pregnancy to regain peak form. Molly Seidel has potential, but she's seems to often be on the point of breaking, so I wouldn't be surprised if she flamed out in some manner.
If I had to choose, my money would be on Kipyego.
I like Seidel. Been following her training on Strava and she seems very ready. Seems like it has been an ideal buildup and given the number of marathons she has under her belt she seems at the optimal point to really pop one.
I still think it is improbable but if I gambled that is probably where I would put money on a medal at the 1500+ line on it that I am assuming exists.
BS wrote:
These threads do a great job showing how bad most people are at statistics.....the question is not why isn't the US (a country of 332M) better than country B (smaller!) in a event or set of events but rather what the odds of the US producing someone better than the rest of the world in any given event? Olympic medalists are by very definition huge outliers and therefore should be spread randomly around the world. Random events tend to cluster - giving the appearance of causality when its really usually coincidence and at best correlation. Now environment does play a huge part - if it didn't the US would be much worse - at best we have 10% of the worlds pop - if we got 10% of the Oly athletics medals that would be like 14 or 15 medals - imagine the uproar then!! And that is ignoring the fact we don't get 10% of the entries. All those advantages we have allow us to punch way above our statistical weight from a medal or placing standpoint - do we get every possible medalist? Of course not, but that's true of every sport and will never likely change - at least until you can find a foolproof method to test at birth for what specific thing each kids will excel the most at and then send them off to a lifetime of training.
As an aside , my favorite is stories of athlete A who was so good - well compared to us at least - then quit to go hang with his buddies or just didn't take the sport seriously - in what possible world would a kid who didn't even have the will to go to HS practices or hated the sport be able to find the fortitude to do olympic level training? And why should mental talent be viewed any differently than physical talent? You have to have both otherwise you really are not going to make it.
Love this last point, so spot on. It's not nature vs. nurture, it's where the two meet. Which is why outlier talent distribution alone isn't a predictor, it has to meet opportunity which comes in the form of supportive social, familial, nutritional, financial support to no insignificant degree. Fortitude can be both innate and developed. If you're a good distance talent but the school's cross country and track coaches are disinterested history teachers or football coaches picking up an extra paycheck, you might understandably find that overwhelmingly discouraging. If a community largely looks at cross country as falling between golf and chess, those with athletic ability and aspirations may tend to overlook it.
For the USA being so horrible of developing runners the Tokyo Olympic 5k final has 6 trained runners in the final. Can any other nation claim that.
oldoldrunner wrote:
For the USA being so horrible of developing runners the Tokyo Olympic 5k final has 6 trained runners in the final. Can any other nation claim that.
It was already said somewhere on the board: Our NCAA system has distance folks prepared for heats such as these.
And of the 6, only Chelimo stands a chance. In the final, Woodrow or whatever his name is and Grant will look just like our 5K ladies, trying to outsprint one-another 18 seconds back. And that's only if Chelimo doesn't go from the gun - which I think he realizes he needs to.
RomexKipruto wrote:
here we go again...
if it were strictly a numbers and resources game then china would be mixing it up in every track event.
yes, some east africans have doped. guess what? so have a lot of white people. if i were putting together a cross country team and i could pluck fresh, undeveloped talent from anywhere in the world you best believe i would be going straight to the rift valley.
galen rupp shows that the only way you're gonna get a white person to mix it up with the EA runners is to literally treat them like a science experiment from age 16 onward.
Not sure what post you intended to respond to, but... way to make it a racial issue, you racist!! OP mentioned nothing about race asssssssshat!
I know we don't like to talk about race or ethnicities, but the Olympics make it obvious that some races are more adapt at certain activities than others due to those races having more of the body type that you need to succeed.
East African distance runners
Asians in gymnastics
West African sprints jumps
Scandinavian throwers and strength events
Caucasian and Chinese swimmers
Elephant in the Room warning
Come on guys the real answer is doping!
Seriously you want to produce better d runners? Walk like an Egyptian but dope like an African.
EPO is just the starter kit.
Figure out how the us can relax it's doping tests like Jamaica and Nigeria et al. All this talk about athletes, and training, and ncaa over racing really misses the point. When other countries have a history of doping the only way to level the playing field is doping better. I'm not kidding.
Even Lance figured that out? Italy and Belgium had the best cyclists? Lance said, 'Not anymore'
Wanna beat the best? Dope like the best.
JosePublico wrote:
Manbearpig15 wrote:
Also, all those scrub 48-50 second 400 meter runners that clutter up college meets need to think about their distance potential.
That's the speed needed to finish distance races at the global level. I'm sure there's American 400m runners that are really distance runners in disguise.
Not really, just a little to slow for sprints and middle distance and too thick for distance.
Correct. This thesis only holds for the 800m - no further. It's true that some 48-50 sec 'scrubs' would be better in the 800 BUT you are forgetting the main factor. There is a huge coolness factor barrier between sprints (400 and below) and 800+. It's a whole 'nother sport when you have no lanes and adding significant 'boring' mileage to your program. No more sprinters swagger. There's a reason so few people try it.
Well you go two right.
- Gymnastics global effort-pool on the mens side is so tiny it's hard to prove Asians are remarkable there. Asian women hardly dominate!
- Scandanavian Throwers - not really much data to prove they have a genetic advantage.
- Swimming is pay-to-play. For rich (or state sponsored) countries only.
AP5000 wrote:
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
if anything, Americans train way too much and way too hard, and the subtle burnout factor is probably a factor in why they underachieve once on the world stage. Elites in other countries don't train this hard this much. They do a lot more easy training on non-workout days. They don't try to pile on killer workouts. They do enough each day to get the needed stimulus and move on. They diversify their training. Americans still don't get it on the elite level let alone below that, and they're always going to underachieve as a result.
This. No matter how many times you tell someone to go look how slow Kipchoge runs his easy runs they won't do it. These idiots will insist that running steady is helpful or running sort of slow is helpful. Then they'll point to some guy who ran 2:10 or 27:40 as evidence that it works. I've been told Kipchoge is sort of good at running so maybe that's the better training to replicate.
Then why did Canova have Sheheen running mile repeats at sub 4 minutes or "special blocks" where he did 4 hard workouts in 2 days or some of his non workout runs at 3,20/km (steady pace for a sub-8 steepler)?
Well, I hope you did put money on it! Good call. : )
coach wrote:
Cerutty called us fat and lazy 60 years ago. Young athletes do not go out for our sport.
Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Cerutty was a nutjob.
BS wrote:
… what the odds of the US producing someone better than the rest of the world in any given event?
Random events tend to cluster - giving the appearance of causality when its really usually coincidence and at best correlation.
Little curious how you are defining an event? Is it the production of a world-class athlete?
Then you could easily develop a Bayesian model that takes nutrition, culture, training environment and so forth.
If it’s a world class performance, then surely the clustering is not random, no?