Why do U.S. runners tend to run the shortest distance for which they have the speed?

Zat0pek:

Arthur Lydiard said in his first book, "Run to the Top", that you have to determine your basic speed and pick the distance that you can be great at; then develop stamina to capitalize that basic speed. He believed Snell could have been even greater miler but he started out as 800m runner. Magee was a track runner who, because of the type of training he did, moved up to the marathon and won the medal. Same can be said with Rod Dixon. John Davies, he thought, would have been a great 5000m runner had he not been forced to retire prematurely due to Achilles problem and he won the bronze medal in Olympic 1500m.

I remember talking to Bob Sevene as earlier as 1985 and he said the best 5000m runners in the US are running 1500m; best 10000m runners in the US are running 5. So there had always been some who pointed that out all these years.

You take a look at many of the threads here. Most young American runners don't want to train long and hard. They want to blast around the track and run fast. They don't want to pile up "junk miles"; they want to cut short and work on the "LT runs" or whatever it may be. Like you pointed out, if you're a 3:38 1500m guy in the US, you'll be one of the best and pick up some sponsorship. Why work harder and slog all those 100 miles a week? In other words, why move up the distance?

What intrigues me, however, is why Bob Kennedy didn't move up to 10000 earlier... I don't think he had that mentality. I think he could have picked up bronze had he competed in 10000 at Atlanta.

Well, if you're a 3:40 guy, you're on the cusp of being an Olympian. All you need to do is drop 3.5 seconds and you're in Lomong-Manzano territory (both ran mid-3:36 last year). Don't you see how trying to drop 3.5 seconds seems a lot more attainable than completely changing events?

logician wrote:

Well, if you're a 3:40 guy, you're on the cusp of being an Olympian. All you need to do is drop 3.5 seconds and you're in Lomong-Manzano territory (both ran mid-3:36 last year). Don't you see how trying to drop 3.5 seconds seems a lot more attainable than completely changing events?

Because by switching events, they may go from being on the cusp of becoming an Olympian at 1500 to being on the cusp of becoming an Olympic medalist at 10,000.

Come on Nobby, you know Sev heard someone else say that and just repeated it. Quit slurping Sev.

I like this type of observation, but besides Hall which of today's current sub-world class crop would you identify in this category?

Bumbi? Torrence? Wheating? Bobby Curtis? Craig Miller? Jack Bolas? Sam Bair? Pifer?

I can understand not moving up, but I can't understand not even trying a longer event. Webb looks to be staying with the 1500 (for better or worse), but he has done longer and shorter events. Someone like Nenow or Pat Porter had marathoner written all over them, but they never even tried one anywhere near their prime.

On the women's side, Kara Goucher has moved up quite nicely.

I agree with what you are saying; as it is probably true in most cases. However, you also have to consider the body type of the athlete in question.

A lot of 400 meter runners are very muscular and would have a hard time making the transition to even the 800. Some of our best current 800 meter runners would also have a harder time moving to far up in distance. You can clearly see that the 800 is Symmonds ideal distance. Wheating can, and most likely will, become a great 1500 meter runner; but he too is of a larger frame and I don't seeing him running a great 5000.

Guys that have the "classic" distance runner's frame, who currently focus on the 1500 are perfect candidates for what you are suggesting.

Agreed, Geb is a 331 1500 guy, sub 27 like 8-9 times, blah blah.Bash away with my idea, Alan Webb could be running 26:45 & 12:51, having a chance at the top of his sport.

If you're a good miler and you like recognition and you watch televised track you may notice that you've got a much better chance of racing on TV than if you run the 3,000-10,000. I think it was Steve Scott who said that financially you're better off as the number ten 1500/miler in the world than you are as the fourth ranked 5,000 man. So there's that.

And I think you run into the American tendency to be satisfied to a large degree by being one of the best in the US and not paying as much attention to what goes on internationally. So if you're among our best at the mile that may be enough for you even if you could rank higher internationally in some longer event.

Zat0pek wrote:

Because by switching events, they may go from being on the cusp of becoming an Olympian at 1500 to being on the cusp of becoming an Olympic medalist at 10,000.

I wasn't asking why they should switch, I was asking if you can understand why someone wouldn't want to. "Maybe you'll be a medalist at 10,000" - that's a pretty big maybe. Seems like a bigger maybe than trying to lose those 3.5 seconds in the 1500.

I don't know how productive it is to speculate about particular individuals, but back before the ever-popular "Teg don't run the 10,000" routine, I raised it about Teg right after his 13:04:

Here's the full text of what I wrote back then:

And if you read Grimes' article, Teg is one of the ones he offers as having great 10,000 potential based on his 3:34 1500 PR.

I'm not picking on Teg; there are a lot of guys who should be looking up distance.

at the limit wrote:

Agreed, Geb is a 331 1500 guy, sub 27 like 8-9 times, blah blah.

Bash away with my idea, Alan Webb could be running 26:45 & 12:51, having a chance at the top of his sport.

The thing is, Webb is already that good at the mile.

logician wrote:I wasn't asking why they should switch, I was asking if you can understand why someone wouldn't want to. "Maybe you'll be a medalist at 10,000" - that's a pretty big maybe. Seems like a bigger maybe than trying to lose those 3.5 seconds in the 1500.

No, I don't understand that at all.

If I'm a "maybe" Olympic medalist at 10,000, then I'm almost lock to make the U.S. Olympic team at 10,000. So by switching, I'd go from being a "maybe" Olympian at 1500 with no shot at medaling to a practically a lock at making the U.S. Olympic team and a "maybe" medalist.

If I'm in that situation, I'd switch events in a New York minute.

I really don't get it. The trend (obvious exceptions, of course) is guys only move up when they don't have success (usually defined as making national teams or placing high at nationals). That means that most of our 10,000 guys are 1500 washouts. But if you look around internationally, most of the top 10,000 guys can run 1500s in the range of what would make a U.S. 1500 team.

I'll never understand why someone would "settle" for making a U.S. team (no small accomplishment, don't get me wrong) at 1500 when the potential is there to medal or place much, much higher if they moved to 10,000.

This may seem harsh, but it seems like the reason is that we're risk-averse, not want to risk a "good" thing for possibly a "great" thing. And no one will ever be great at anything unless they are willing to take that chance.

HRE wrote:And I think you run into the American tendency to be satisfied to a large degree by being one of the best in the US and not paying as much attention to what goes on internationally. So if you're among our best at the mile that may be enough for you even if you could rank higher internationally in some longer event.

I think that's it in a nutshell.

Plus Webb has a larger frame than they ideal skinny 10k runner. He might not be the best candidate.

I think a lot of U.S. runners could be successful if they moved up in distance. But, it is possible to move up too quickly. Focusing on racing shorter distances for a few years before moving up is probably the best way to do it. Look at Rupp running 800s and miles, Teg getting his 1500 down as far as possible, Goumri running 12:50s and Gebreselassie spending years running 1500s, 5000s and 10000s before seriously trying the marathon. Developing speed by focusing (at least in part) on shorter distances is the way to go. The marathon can wait, if you are young and have plenty of time.

Some will point to Wanjiru and how he is young and a fast marathoner. Kenyans and Ethiopians can run fast at the marathon at a younger age the most U.S. distance runners because they already have the base down. Wanjiru has focused on speed though too, running 26:4x for 10000m.

Also, once you have that base and start trying marathons, at least try and maintain your speed. I think Ritz has done a good job of this, as shown by his 8:11 2 mile. Even if you don't have a shot at winning at a shorter distance, occasionally racing a distance far below your target race could help-ie 400 and 800s for 1500-5000m guys and 800s, 1500s and 3ks for 10k/marathoners.

The best plan is to "test the waters" of longer distances at a time when it will not effect your current race focus-in a non-championship year or during the off season. Webbs 10000m in '06, Haile's early London marathon, etc. Some people are suited to the longer distances and some are not. You can't just say that someone should move

a miler wrote:

Plus Webb has a larger frame than they ideal skinny 10k runner. He might not be the best candidate.

True, but also a good example of how success at the 1500/mile doesn't preclude success at the 10,000.

Webb took one crack at it and, even with his body type, still cracked the U.S. all-time top-ten or so.

While I might agree with your comment, I can't think of any examples. For example: I think Webb, Lagat, Fam, Teg, Ritz, Hall, Symmonds, Rupp, Abdi,... have all found a pretty good niche in there event. So while I might agree generally with this comment, I don't think its really true for most elite American runners (who this is really important for).

the rocket wrote:

While I might agree with your comment, I can't think of any examples.

And you wouldn't be able to because a lot of guys have never made a serious attempt updistance to find what they might have. Grimes' article is spot on.