Blanks may have a future on the track. But making teams will be tough. In the 5k, he’s going to have to contend with Fisher, Hocker, Strand, Nur, and Wolfe, not to mention Teare, Jacobs, and Gilman. In the 10k, you have Fisher, Young, and others. Can Blanks kick with those guys? I think the jury is still out. Personally, I’d like to see him move to the marathon (along with Hicks) sooner rather than later. Team USA needs talents like him in the marathon if we’re ever going to compete with Kenya and Ethiopia in that event (as we’ve done in the 1500-10,000).
I mean...
In the 5k he got fourth last year after being injured all winter and he still made the team. He beat Teare, Jacobs, Hocker, Gilman, etc. and I think would've given Wolfe a better run for his money had the race been a few weeks later. The amount he improved between NCAAs and the Olympics was almost staggering. He went from 5th in the NCAA to 9th in the world, beating studs like Krop (2x World medalist), Nordas (1x World medalist), Oscar Chelimo (1x World medalist), and many guys with European Championships medals. He's also mentioned that he's an altitude responder and I think spending six months a year in Flagstaff will improve him even more.
In the 10k you said "Fisher, Young, and others," because the "others" is the crux of the issue here: there aren't really any others. We don't have more than 3-4 guys who can run the standard. It won't be that difficult for Blanks to make the 10k team.
You are right that we should be sending talents like him to the roads if we want to bolster our marathon team—he would be a great marathoner, probably among the best American marathoners ever. But his ceiling is so high that I think he could also be among the best American track distance guys ever too.
Fair enough on the 10k, although I assume some of those 5k guys I listed will also be running it soon enough. Hicks and Maier may also be factors there. And Kincaid is still a force when it comes to domestic-championship 10ks.
I think his ceiling as a marathoner is higher than it is as a 5k/10k guy. I question whether he can develop a world-class kick for the track. And I’d also like to see an American of his age commit to the marathon early, like so many Africans do.
Hicks is much more American than he is British. American parents, grew up mostly in America, lives in America etc. I always found it a bit contrived that he competed for the UK. Duplantis at least has a Swedish parent although it’s similiar.
Hicks is 23, he moved to America when he was 12, meaning he’s still lived more than half of his life in the UK.
Maths must not be your strong suit champ
Ah, yes the formative years of 0 - 12.
Of course he had a significant part of his childhood in the UK, but both of his parents are American, and he went to middle school, high school and college in the states. He Infinitely more American than he is British.
I grew up abroad with American parents and know the difference between someone who has one American parent but grew up abroad, two etc. There are huge differences, you can end up completely cultural American, or not culturally American at all and just speak english, or you can not even speak english that well. That said, the people I know who grew up abroad with two American parents are always culturally American. Home language and culture is extremely dominant. I have friends who grew up in France from 0-18 or even longer and still have a slight American accent when they speak French.
He certainly has a strong connection to the UK but he is probably much more culturally American shows no interest in living the UK. When you watch interviews with him you can tell instantly that he is 100% American.
People on these threads seem super confused by these concepts. Hicks is as American as someone born and raised in the states.
Cairess is unbelievable, but Sesemann is pretty human (and 32) and Mahamed is extremely human.
Rowe and Dever both have marathon potential and have done halves, flirting with moving up, but if they do that, than that just leaves the 10K absolutely wide open for Hicks, and if they stay, Hicks has the marathon to work with.
But if you come to the US:
Mantz is 28 and ridiculously good. Young is legit. Albertson is a crazy person, but has ran 2:08. Panning is sub 2:10 (I think). Richtman randomly ran 2:07. Klecker is thinking about moving up, and it's somewhat likely either Blanks or Fisher will in the next five or so years.
And Maier, the guy who Hicks just barely beat, is also a factor.
If this is about 2028 or even 2032, GB is the better path, regardless of event.
It's true, it doesn't make sense
But when it comes to something like national representation, it doesn't need to be particularly rational. Perhaps he would just prefer to represent the United States instead of the UK. Roisin Willis could be representing Ireland right now instead.
Cairess is unbelievable, but Sesemann is pretty human (and 32) and Mahamed is extremely human.
Rowe and Dever both have marathon potential and have done halves, flirting with moving up, but if they do that, than that just leaves the 10K absolutely wide open for Hicks, and if they stay, Hicks has the marathon to work with.
But if you come to the US:
Mantz is 28 and ridiculously good. Young is legit. Albertson is a crazy person, but has ran 2:08. Panning is sub 2:10 (I think). Richtman randomly ran 2:07. Klecker is thinking about moving up, and it's somewhat likely either Blanks or Fisher will in the next five or so years.
And Maier, the guy who Hicks just barely beat, is also a factor.
If this is about 2028 or even 2032, GB is the better path, regardless of event.
It's true, it doesn't make sense
But when it comes to something like national representation, it doesn't need to be particularly rational. Perhaps he would just prefer to represent the United States instead of the UK. Roisin Willis could be representing Ireland right now instead.
It makes some sense if he wants to be a pro athlete. If he's planning to go to the roads, there's good prize money in US races and especially the huge number of national road titles (15k, 10 miles, 20k, half marathon!!). There's nothing like that in the UK. If you're very lucky, you might get a decent appearance fee from the GNR or London Marathon. But elsewhere, prize money is awful here. Top prizes of £2,000 are considered "big money." Contrast with what he'll get twice a year from NY and Boston, plus all the other prize money on the circuit, there is a strong financial incentive to run for the US.
Hicks is 23, he moved to America when he was 12, meaning he’s still lived more than half of his life in the UK.
Maths must not be your strong suit champ
Ah, yes the formative years of 0 - 12.
Of course he had a significant part of his childhood in the UK, but both of his parents are American, and he went to middle school, high school and college in the states. He Infinitely more American than he is British.
I grew up abroad with American parents and know the difference between someone who has one American parent but grew up abroad, two etc. There are huge differences, you can end up completely cultural American, or not culturally American at all and just speak english, or you can not even speak english that well. That said, the people I know who grew up abroad with two American parents are always culturally American. Home language and culture is extremely dominant. I have friends who grew up in France from 0-18 or even longer and still have a slight American accent when they speak French.
He certainly has a strong connection to the UK but he is probably much more culturally American shows no interest in living the UK. When you watch interviews with him you can tell instantly that he is 100% American.
People on these threads seem super confused by these concepts. Hicks is as American as someone born and raised in the states.
My comment wasn’t about anything you’ve just mentioned, you’ve literally wrote an essay arguing against nothing.
I was simply pointing out the mathematical error of the comment I was responding to. He has spent more than half of his life in the UK.
Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit champ.
The Trump administration is taking its fight to nullify birthright citizenship to the U.S. Supreme Court. To date, every court to have considered Trump's executive order, issued on day one of his administration, has blocked it. But he is persisting. President Trump's contention that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional is widely considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago, and that decision has never been disturbed. Indeed, the 14th amendment says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Trump, however, has long argued that there is no such thing as automatic citizenship, at least not for all children born in the U.S. Sponsor Message Already, three federal judges in three different states have blocked Trump's executive order voiding birthright citizenship, and three separate appeals courts have refused to unblock those court orders. Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee in Washington state, was the first judge to block Trump's executive order, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional." But Thursday, in three separate — but nearly identical — filings, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the lower court orders, which apply nationwide, so that the administration could begin planning to put into effect its new policy against birthright citizenship. Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired immigration law professor at Cornell and the co-author of a widely used treatise on immigration, said the court might well be willing to grant that temporary narrowing request. But he added, "I think that would cause chaos and confusion as to who was included in the court rulings and who is potentially subject to the birthright citizenship ban if the case goes in favor of the Trump administration on the merits." Interestingly, the Trump administration's Supreme Court filing spends far more time on the power of lower court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, as in this case, than it does on the question of birthright citizenship. That may be because some of the Court's justices have often complained about such nationwide rulings, and rather than deal with the birthright citizenship question, where the administration faces an uphill battle, it may think it has a better shot with a frontal attack on nationwide injunctions.
In the Wong case, the parents had legal permanent resident status. There has never been a challenge regarding children born in the U.S. of illegal or tourist immigrants.