For the last few years, some of the freshman times have become more and more insane. I know that the evolution of the shoe technology has made a difference, so here’s what I would like to know:
For the last few years, some of the freshman times have become more and more insane. I know that the evolution of the shoe technology has made a difference, so here’s what I would like to know:
For the last few years, some of the freshman times have become more and more insane. I know that the evolution of the shoe technology has made a difference, so here’s what I would like to know:
the good freshman are running anywhere from the low 17's to mid 16's these days. The great freshman are running low 16's to mid 15's. The outliers are running low or sub 15.
I think a few more freshman are coming in having run 40-50+ miles a week in middle school. They can get to 16's freshman year on the mileage and not talent. I would rather bet on someone who ran 15 mpw in middle school are are running 16-17 5k's on 20-30 mpw freshman year. they have more upside if progressing smartly through high school.
the good freshman are running anywhere from the low 17's to mid 16's these days. The great freshman are running low 16's to mid 15's. The outliers are running low or sub 15.
Goofy take. A solid respectable time for a freshman rookie would be in the 17-18 minute range, maybe under 17 if the course is friendly.
the good freshman are running anywhere from the low 17's to mid 16's these days. The great freshman are running low 16's to mid 15's. The outliers are running low or sub 15.
Goofy take. A solid respectable time for a freshman rookie would be in the 17-18 minute range, maybe under 17 if the course is friendly.
hundreds and hundreds of freshman have run under 17 this year. over 800 of them. Over 300 have run under 16:30.
Maybe our definitions of "good" are just different
Goofy take. A solid respectable time for a freshman rookie would be in the 17-18 minute range, maybe under 17 if the course is friendly.
hundreds and hundreds of freshman have run under 17 this year. over 800 of them. Over 300 have run under 16:30.
Maybe our definitions of "good" are just different
According to there are around 4.2 million high school freshman in the United States (probably as of the 2020 census). So "over 800" under 17 minutes is really not a large sample size of the total population. While the vast majority of those "over 800 under 17 minutes" are male and are competitive cross country runners, my point still stands; hundreds of people is simply not a lot when compared to 4.2 million. So should we define "good" relative to the entire freshman population, the athlete-only freshman population, or a XC/track-only population?
Also, we should define a different standard of "good" for the female population. Assuming the gender ratio is roughly equal, you split the 4.2M value in half for roughly 2.1 million male HS freshman and 2.1 million female HS freshman, and define "good" based on each gender's respective entire freshman population, athlete-only population, and XC/track-only population.
I think a more realistic "good" HS freshman time for guys is anywhere from 18:00 to 19:00. For girls, anywhere from 20:00 to 21:00.
Also, it was never specified if this was a road 5K, track 5K, or cross country 5K, though we can probably assume the original question was for the latter.
While there are certainly great freshman out there running anywhere running sub 16s and sub 17s, the average high school male freshman is not doing that. So if we are defining good based on an average HS male freshman time as opposed to the upper echelon of runners, "good" will definitely be slower (18:00 to 19:00).
hundreds and hundreds of freshman have run under 17 this year. over 800 of them. Over 300 have run under 16:30.
Maybe our definitions of "good" are just different
According to there are around 4.2 million high school freshman in the United States (probably as of the 2020 census). So "over 800" under 17 minutes is really not a large sample size of the total population. While the vast majority of those "over 800 under 17 minutes" are male and are competitive cross country runners, my point still stands; hundreds of people is simply not a lot when compared to 4.2 million. So should we define "good" relative to the entire freshman population, the athlete-only freshman population, or a XC/track-only population?
Also, we should define a different standard of "good" for the female population. Assuming the gender ratio is roughly equal, you split the 4.2M value in half for roughly 2.1 million male HS freshman and 2.1 million female HS freshman, and define "good" based on each gender's respective entire freshman population, athlete-only population, and XC/track-only population.
I think a more realistic "good" HS freshman time for guys is anywhere from 18:00 to 19:00. For girls, anywhere from 20:00 to 21:00.
Also, it was never specified if this was a road 5K, track 5K, or cross country 5K, though we can probably assume the original question was for the latter.
yeah, we just have different definitions of what "good" means. Comparing to the entire grade level population is completely asinine.
If you can't break 18 for a freshman then you are not good for a freshman. By any definition. That doesn't mean you can't become good at a later point in your HS or college career. It just means that right now you are not good.
You are correct. Somebody is asking on a worldwide site so they are comparing themself to the top runners, not a percentage of the population. My opinion is that sub 16:30 is good for a freshman. Sub 16 is very good. Sub 18 is pretty common at any school that is not tiny.
Goofy take. A solid respectable time for a freshman rookie would be in the 17-18 minute range, maybe under 17 if the course is friendly.
hundreds and hundreds of freshman have run under 17 this year. over 800 of them. Over 300 have run under 16:30.
Maybe our definitions of "good" are just different
800 out of the approx. 80,000 who signed-up for, trained, and tried to run an all-out effort in cross country. So I would say that is "good" if you are in top 1%.
Another metric is, what would it take to make varsity at your school? If a freshman does that, they are automatically "good" for your school since they are better than the other options (e.g. the slower guy who is bumped down to JV).
So I would say you can say objectively good - sub-17 at at 14.
Relatively good - making varsity at their school (unless the school only has like 9 kids and no coaching).
You (like all posters) didn't define the perimeters of your question. Did you mean "good nationally" or "good locally"? This is why it is impossible to debate in America. Everyone just assumes we are talking about the same things and we rarely are.
hundreds and hundreds of freshman have run under 17 this year. over 800 of them. Over 300 have run under 16:30.
Maybe our definitions of "good" are just different
800 out of the approx. 80,000 who signed-up for, trained, and tried to run an all-out effort in cross country. So I would say that is "good" if you are in top 1%.
Another metric is, what would it take to make varsity at your school? If a freshman does that, they are automatically "good" for your school since they are better than the other options (e.g. the slower guy who is bumped down to JV).
So I would say you can say objectively good - sub-17 at at 14.
Relatively good - making varsity at their school (unless the school only has like 9 kids and no coaching).
You (like all posters) didn't define the perimeters of your question. Did you mean "good nationally" or "good locally"? This is why it is impossible to debate in America. Everyone just assumes we are talking about the same
Who gives a singular sh*t if someone is "good locally". There are regions of this country where you can win a small school state title as a senior only being a 17:00 runner. When you post on letsrun you should expect to be compared to everyone in the US if not the World.
Who gives a singular sh*t if someone is "good locally". There are regions of this country where you can win a small school state title as a senior only being a 17:00 runner. When you post on letsrun you should expect to be compared to everyone in the US if not the World.
Well, I think a lot of HS runners would be happy to be make varsity, win a meet, win an invite, or win state. Those kids are "good runners."
The fact that "everyone basically sucks compared to Rocky Hanson and Connor Burns" is sort of immaterial to 95% of runners and their friends/families who are proud of what they see at the meets where they live.
Would you be proud to win a US championship knowing that you had no real shot to beat Kajelcha or Kerr or Jakob when the "real racing" starts? Would you consider yourself to be "good" if you made an Olympics team but had zero chance of even making the final in your event?
Why do you even love the pursuit of self-improvement if, for example, you know and admit that a 17 year old Jim Ryun from 60 years ago is still better than all the sucky HS runners who have ever come after him (except for Webb and Kessler)?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.