People who were claiming he was the greatest had no understanding of track and field history. Those who do know that there is no question who were the top two HS runners in U.S. history, just who is first and who is second. Jim Ryun and Gerry Lindgren were both national champions, American recordholders, and Olympians while in HS, and both still rank very high on prep lists in their respective events despite running in an era without synthetic tracks, supershoes, or modern training methods.
Sorry -- meant to add that Sahlman nonetheless had a a very impressive HS career, wherever you place him on the alltime list, and 13:42 for 5000 meters as a freshman, with all the changes that come with going to college, is nothing to sneeze at, even if it's also not world-beating for his age level. Maybe he'll fade out like some who were great in HS (from my HS era Eric Hulst was a great example) or maybe he'll move on to greater things. We'll have to wait and see.
Sahlman was with Theo Quax until about 4k. Quax went on to run 13:29 while Colin fell off running a 3:20 last 1200. Not bad for a first track 5k, just needs to work on the last 3 laps
1 second per lap? Where the f did you see this garbage? Absolute nonsense.
Several analyses using different methods have come up somewhere around there. Not digging them all up as a diversion to a thread, but here's Geoff Burns' (a scientist doing shoe testing) take:
This is so sad. You (and other people) take what is basically a wild ass guess, dressed up in prettier language, and use it to denigrate what are really good performances. You're not doing the sport any favors.
Here's a hint, from a scientist: when Burns says, "As for the anticipated benefit, it is indeed difficult to quantify. But there are a couple things I'd take into account to ballpark it," what he means is, "I have no idea what the benefit is, but here are some untested hypotheses that may or may not pass for eventual truth." Until someone tests a dragonfly or another supposed track "super" spike, in a really rigorous way, your talk is nothing more than pulling numbers out of thin air.
There's no such thing as a "no name" runner going under 13:40. Maybe not nationally recognizable but those guys are probably hometown/home state heroes
Solid result I think for him, even if he was probably capable of running about that quick last spring. Hopefully is a good sign for him for the rest of this outdoor season.
13:42 for arguably the greatest high schooler of all time? Very mid race for his credentials.
There is no argument to be had, Sahlman is not even close to the greatest high schooler of all time. At Sahlman's age Ryun and Lindgren were among the best in the world at several events and as a college freshman, Jim Ryun ran 1:44x in the 800 and 3:51x in the mile. Gerry Lindgren as a college freshman ran 13:32 and 28:09. Notwithstanding the fact that those athletes competed in cotton uniforms, with spikes made of leather and steel. Sahlman was definitely a great high school athlete, but I don't like it when people are too quick to throw at the word 'greatest' without considering the history of our sport.
Several analyses using different methods have come up somewhere around there. Not digging them all up as a diversion to a thread, but here's Geoff Burns' (a scientist doing shoe testing) take:
This is so sad. You (and other people) take what is basically a wild ass guess, dressed up in prettier language, and use it to denigrate what are really good performances. You're not doing the sport any favors.
Here's a hint, from a scientist: when Burns says, "As for the anticipated benefit, it is indeed difficult to quantify. But there are a couple things I'd take into account to ballpark it," what he means is, "I have no idea what the benefit is, but here are some untested hypotheses that may or may not pass for eventual truth." Until someone tests a dragonfly or another supposed track "super" spike, in a really rigorous way, your talk is nothing more than pulling numbers out of thin air.
I said there are plenty of analyses, but I just picked the first thing that came up because it's off topic to this thread. I'm not denigrating performances. I'm being realistic. There wasn't a wholesale step increase in performances between 2019 (pre-superspike) and 2022 (a full track season year with wide availabilit of superspikes) because everyone suddenly trained better. I'm equalizing things by saying that the field in those two years is equal in quality, but their times will be different due to differences in spikes. Now how about we look at those times?
Here are stats from directly from the World Athletics stats database. Forget NCAA men, because everyone will point out extra COVID years. Just straight top US men. Let me pick the 100th fastest performer, because it's pretty close to Colin's time, and that's enough performances that there is less variability from low sample size than the single fastest time or 10th or 25th. 100th fastest US men's time in 2019 was 13:58.94 (Carson Hume). 100th fastest US men's time in 2022 was 13:46.28 (Frank Lara). There's no reason to assume that Lara's 100th best performance in 2022 is better than Hume's 100th best performance. After all, we don't want to "denigrate very good performances" like you say. There's a 12.66 second difference between those two performances. 12.66 divided by 12.5 laps is 1.01 seconds per lap. That's where 1 second per lap comes from.
13:42 for arguably the greatest high schooler of all time? Very mid race for his credentials.
There is no argument to be had, Sahlman is not even close to the greatest high schooler of all time. At Sahlman's age Ryun and Lindgren were among the best in the world at several events and as a college freshman, Jim Ryun ran 1:44x in the 800 and 3:51x in the mile. Gerry Lindgren as a college freshman ran 13:32 and 28:09. Notwithstanding the fact that those athletes competed in cotton uniforms, with spikes made of leather and steel. Sahlman was definitely a great high school athlete, but I don't like it when people are too quick to throw at the word 'greatest' without considering the history of our sport.
There were plenty of people happy to make the argument last year from the Newbury Park/Sean Brosnan fan club. You must be new to Letsrun or taken a hiatus for the Newbury Park golden era.
Sahlman ran an 8:13.03 for 3,000m, followed by his fastest lap of the race, a 63.92. He likely hit 3,200m in 8:44, picked up the pace and couldn't hold it past this. Not a bad first outing.
Sahlman was with Theo Quax until about 4k. Quax went on to run 13:29 while Colin fell off running a 3:20 last 1200. Not bad for a first track 5k, just needs to work on the last 3 laps
I think this is actually a pretty good indicator that we shouldn't be worried about Sahlman. Its very releastic that he's a couple hard sessions away from 13:29. Much more promising seeing him "bomb" the last 1200 then watch him run even splits and run 13:42. Colin may have been able to run 13:42 last year, but with a lot mor lactic and vo2 workout, as compared to a bunch of LT/AT work.
Solid result I think for him, even if he was probably capable of running about that quick last spring. Hopefully is a good sign for him for the rest of this outdoor season.
Coe ran 7 seconds faster which makes him look like a sprinter compared to a 1:47 runner, so of course Co would be slower than 14 minutes lets alone 13:42. The question is, what would the current WR holder with 12:37 do? I'm sure he could run 1:47, maybe even 1:46.00 in his track days. Look at some of his bell laps, even off hard paces.
A lot of star high schoolers don't adjust well to the combination of greater academic and athletic demands in college. The casualty rate isn't small. Rheinhardt Harrison and Cade Flatt might be in this category. Coming out of high school, I thought Flatt was at a higher risk of falling flat. He's probably better off just running as a pro and not messing with college.
As for Harrison, he hasn't been on the radar screen. Oregon can squash people pretty quick, plus Schumacher is weird; he often doesn't let his athletes compete very much. I don't agree with that restrained approach.
Track Coach was basically saying the same thing I said -- that those who made such an argument know nothing of track history. But to out-geek him, I should point out that Gerry Lindgren actually did not run 28:09 for 10000m as a college freshman. What he ran was 27:11 for 6 miles, then a world record, which I assume equates to roughly 28:09 for 10000 meters, in a race where he finished second to Billy Mills but was given the same time. Jim Ryun's times for 880Y and one mile also were both world records when he ran them.
Solid result I think for him, even if he was probably capable of running about that quick last spring. Hopefully is a good sign for him for the rest of this outdoor season.
Good to see Colin running a OK time after his lacklustre performances in the indoor season.
-------------
He, however, is still some behind the best young runners in Europe:
Dane Joel Ibler Lillesoe ran 13:40 at 17 and 13:29.6 last year at 18.
Dane Axel V. Christensen ran 13:44.5 at 17.
Not to mention Jakob who ran 13:35 just before turning 17 (in a championship race in a long weekend where he also ran heats and finals in the 800, the 1500m and the 3000m st.)
Jakob also ran 13:17 at 17 and 13.02 at 18.
And the Euro times have to do with what exactly? This isn't a thread about them. It’s about recognizing and acknowledging a young up and coming runner who is developing and running well. No one with any sense is saying he is the best ever at this age. Try to keep up in the conversation and have some respect.
What a great result for a kid with 1:47 800m speed. Freaking Seb Coe could only run 14:06 in his prime. And now I think he’s 1-second faster than Lex Young, which tells me Leo Young going to blitz a 13:37!
Well he is a 1500m/5k guy so that is to be expected