12 y/o runs 2:56

Yes, I can say this kid will either burn out, or not have knees, by the time he makes it to college.

Tim

Or he will have a wonderfully developed aerobic capacity and will run very well in high school and if he develops any speed, possibly even run in college...imagine that!

Just curious, are there any other positively thinking, optimists on this board? Or does everyone just love bashing accomplishments and doesn't want to see anyone succeed?

I make this post everytime someone touts a young runner, but I never get a response. There is not enough data out there to know if 2:56 for a 12 year old is tremendous, average, or poor. How many 12 year old marathoners do we have for comparison? Few to none. And why do we have so few 12 year old marathoners? Because most responsible adults realize it is in most cases detrimental to the child. What could have KK, Geb, Komen, etc. done at age 12? What about the 6:40 high school miler? We don't know! If my 3 year old runs a 100 in 19.4, is this good? We don't have a data base for comparison. Let the youngsters be without fanfare & support them if they are doing it on their own will, but don't overload the attention when we really don't know much about their performance. Please, give me some feedback.

didnt some kid run like 2:40 at a utah downhill marathon when he was very young? myabe he was running at BYU but nothing special last i heard

training for marathons this early will definitely take a toll. on the other hand, 2:56 is undisputably an amazing feat for a 12 year old. go canada!

I have to agree with Just the Facts on this one. It reminds me of people who participate in 24 hour and 48 hour runs. So few people are interested in running that type of event that it is difficult to judge whether the number of miles run is significant or not. Very few 12 year olds run marathons so a comparison to times for other 12 years olds is not easy to make. From reading the article I wasn't sure whether the boy's father was more interested in letting his son run because he loves to run or whether he allowed his son to run for the attention it would bring. There is always the possibility that the boy runs for the attention he gets from his father.

what impresses me is his lack of injuries. he's bee running marathons since he was nine and hasn't had any.

how many people here have gone 3-4 years without any injuries?

and about the burn-out thing, does it really matter?? what people enjoy changes with time, simple fact. I used to be a pretty good soccer player, and who knows how far I could have gone with it, but i got "burnt-out". yet you don't hear people complaining when parents are putting their kids in organised soccer at 4 of having them in elite leageus at 11.

If the kid wants to run, then i don't see a problem with it. I'ld rather see a kid run 10k a day then see a kid(and i do see this) doing track workouts twice a week.

This kid will either turn out a superstar or fall to a series of career ending injuries.

Who knows, He could be running 2:30s one in junior high and 2:20s or faster in high school!

Doesn't the article say that he runs only 10k per day? If that is true, this kid has a lot of talent. And I'm more optimistic in that I believe that a 12 year old can handle that if he is in good health.

Barring injuries or lack of interest that kid could very will be a future olympian. Cathy O'Brien ran a 2:34 marathon in high school and stayed around several years after (improving her PR by over 4 - 5 minutes). Only time will tell abou his future!

Look, the kid could grow into the incredible hulk in within 6 years. Check the parents bios before predicting anything at this stage. There are so many stories about young stars finding themselves too heavy near senior level.

I don't necessarily see anything wrong with him running marathons at that age. I am a bit surprised, I believe most marathons have an 18 year age limit.

I say, so what if he gets "burned out" and quits running at an early age. It is not such a horrible thing, he just becomes like the other 99 percent of the population.

We had a thread like this about a year ago when some kid popped a decent marathon. In '77 or '78, 12 year old kid in Virginia ran 2:48 at the Richmond Marathon. He became and ,I believe, is still one of the top ranked rowers in the US.

Just The Facts,

I was going to post the same exact post. Now I don't have to. Good post.

As far as having to be 18 to run in a marathon, I don't know if they changed things or not, but in 1981 I entered my first marathon - The Columbus Marathon at age 15. I was so undertrained it wasn't funny and had never experienced difficulty, discomfort or pain with running at all until that day. I hit the halfway point in 1:23 and was announced as the leader in my age group. I dropped out two miles later - the only time I have dropped out of a marathon. Wasn't until 1988 at the Columbus Marathon again that I trained for and completed my first one.

I've said this before--the Utah kid is Golden Harper who ran 2:45 at the St. George marathon as a 12 year old and then 2:44 as a 13-14 year old. The course drops about 2600 feet. He is running for BYU and is currently on a mission but he was a high school state champion. The verdict is still out, he doesn't seem the worse for wear. He comes from a family of runners and does have a short, runner's body.

Just the Facts,

To contribute to your data on young runners and to answer your question of whether a 2:56 by a twelve year old shows great talent:

First the answer to issue number two: I do not think that time suggests great talent, especially since it was run on a flat course.

My brother, Andy Hill, ran Palos Verdes Marathon in 1975 at age 6 in just over five hours. He then ran 3:53 at age 7 and 3:46 at age 8 on the same course, which most agree is not a flat course. He then never competed again, so we won't know if his early running stifled his later times.

I am Andy's brother, so its accurate to say I share some of his genetic predispositions. I ran Palos Verdes Marathon in 1974, at age 8, in 3:54, then 3:15 at age 9 and 3:04 at age 10, 2:58 at age 11 and 2:54 at age 12, 3:02 at age 13 and I can't remember many of the other times. When I ran these times, my mileage was higher than the twelve year old described (40 miles/week), but not by that much.

In high school, at age 16, I ran 2:46. I ran 2:46 a few more times over the next five years, but never faster. I also ran a fifty mile race at age ten, in 6:49 (see the Oct 12, 1976 issue of Sports Illustrateds' "Faces in the Crowd"), as well as a 50K in 3:54 at age eleven. But those earlier times did not auger great times in high school. In fact, my times were really quite mediocre - just under 5 for the mile and 10:35 for two miles. But I had plenty of enthusiasm - I wasn't burned out mentally.

In college, I ran for the school, but was not good enough to compete except in some very minor meets. We had a sub-4 miler and lots of guys under 9 in the steeple. No dormant natural talent finally emerged.

I've run the Palos Verdes Marathon every year since 1974, except one year when I missed it due to a Saturday exam my instructor would not let me miss when I was studying for an MBA. I ran other marathons, too, but not much faster - a 2:43 was my best at age 19.

My other times are really quite mediocre, too - 5K in 16:19, 10K in 33:15, half marathon 1:13. 800 meter best 2:11, mile 4:38.

I'm not burned out and I haven't had knee problems ever. In fact, the only serious injury I've had was a stress fracture of my femur caused in college after I had done over 20 weeks above 100 miles.

This week'll be over 70 miles. I'm 37 now. I was 3rd overall at PV marathon this year. The time was nothing to brag about, but it was my fastest in about six or seven years.

So in a round-about way, I'm telling Just the Facts that 2:56 by a twelve year old could auger a blazing 4:38 mile in the years ahead. It also may not auger burn out - my post here perhaps that in and of itself.

Greg, Thanks for the feedback. You sound like a good person to be fielding many of these questions. I will stick with my original theory. You did not progress the way you had hoped, but there have not been enough Greg Hill's for comparison's sake. Many ran what we believed were great times young, but had nothing to verify what level they are at. As you demonstrated, unless a time by a youngster is already at a top level (Mary Decker) we really don't know what a 2:56 12 year old or in your case a 3:54 8 year old really means. Greg, You obvious loved running. With the experience and hindsight you have now, would you have done things differently and if so what? If you have/had a child with a love for running, how would you try to guide him/her? Thanks for your input. Your perspective has helped me learn.

What was Mary Decker's marathon time at age 12 anyways?