I'm just curious. My son is in 8th grade and in the car this morning he says "hey dad, is a 1:06 for the 400 a good time?" He ran it in practice last night and said he beat the other kids by a decent distance. I told him I honestly didn't know! Opinions?
imo, under 60 is ok, under 57 is good, and under 55 is really good.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
I ran 58 several times in 4x400s and PE in 8th grade (14 years old) and I was a distance kid, though I was pretty dominant. Two sprinter friends of mine ran 54. They went on to run 48.x senior year of HS, as well as 1:51 and 1:52 in the 800m and something like 22.5 in the 200m. I think most of the decent 400m boys back then were running around 60s, though there was often random kids who'd run 56-58 at various meets.
Times at that age aren't always indicative of potential in hs for a lot of reasons. Just try to stay positive with the kid and encourage him however he does.
Guppy wrote:
Times at that age aren't always indicative of potential in hs for a lot of reasons. Just try to stay positive with the kid and encourage him however he does.
I was more wondering because he was. I told him if he wanted an idea he should swing by the gym and see what the school record is. He loves track and plans on running in HS, which is fine with me. I agree, I'm just glad he enjoys it and he gets a little better every year, which keeps him interested and excited about it.
Guppy wrote:
I ran 58 several times in 4x400s and PE in 8th grade (14 years old) and I was a distance kid, though I was pretty dominant. Two sprinter friends of mine ran 54. They went on to run 48.x senior year of HS, as well as 1:51 and 1:52 in the 800m and something like 22.5 in the 200m. I think most of the decent 400m boys back then were running around 60s, though there was often random kids who'd run 56-58 at various meets.
Times at that age aren't always indicative of potential in hs for a lot of reasons. Just try to stay positive with the kid and encourage him however he does.
This is reasonably true. If he is running 66 with no training he could potentially drop6-8 seconds with training. If he has a fairly fast 200 time like 27-28 he should break 60. At his age, under 60 is OK, its fair. to be competitive in regional meets he needs to be 56ish. Like guppy indicated though, it says nothing about the future. he may never run faster than 57 unless he has outstanding leg speed.
This post was removed.
Yea it all depends on training. 66 with no training is really good.
Yeah, a 66 is solid for an 8th grader, particularly this early in the season. It's not dominant, but it's solid.
44.86
suburbanxcore wrote:
Yeah, a 66 is solid for an 8th grader, particularly this early in the season. It's not dominant, but it's solid.
Solid?!? 66 for a 14 year old girl is solid. 66 for a 14 year old is poor. I was never fast at 400m, tapped out at 55 albeit as a 21 year old 14:41 5k runner, and I was running near 60-61 at that age when I just started running which I considered more tolerable than solid.
I wouldn't fret though, it's still too early to tell. People develop differently.
I would say that it is better than average but not super stellar. However, at that age it's really hard to say what can happen.
I had a friend who couldn't even break 75 when he was 14, when he was in his early 20's he could run 48.x which is decent for a distance runner. This notion that if you are not speedy when young, you will never be fast is not necessarily true.
I agree, it depends on his maturity as well. Is he a skinny kid or a pretty well developed kid. I was terribly slow until the end of high school. I couldn't break 60 until senior year and went on to run 48 in that same year. So it really depends, there's no way to tell.
I think some people might have "average" as a little fast....
My guess is low 60 (61-64) will have him finishing in the upper 1/3 of most races. and thats probably what he'll run with spikes and race day adrenaline.
remember most people on this board where good runners.
my 4x4 team in 8th grade had PR splits of 59, 58, 59, 55
i ran 1:07 as a freshman and ended up running sub 2, 4:20, 9:20 as a senior
/*Bombo*/ wrote:
suburbanxcore wrote:Yeah, a 66 is solid for an 8th grader, particularly this early in the season. It's not dominant, but it's solid.
Solid?!? 66 for a 14 year old girl is solid. 66 for a 14 year old is poor.
66 would've won my middle school girl's team's county meet by about two seconds last year. Our school record is 68.5 for under 105 girls and about 65-66 (I forget) for over 105 girls.
2 more cents wrote:
my 4x4 team in 8th grade had PR splits of 59, 58, 59, 55
You reminded me of my team. We won conference (admittedly weak competition) with splits of 58, 62, 62, 58.
One more thing worth mentioning, the 400 at that age is pretty much a distance event for a lot of kids who haven't done any running before. Just running 2-3 miles a day for a few weeks would help an untrained individual drop a few seconds off their time. Jr high really is a strange time though. I raced against kids in jr. high who ran 5:15 in the mile who I never heard from again in HS, and in HS (by sophomore year anyway) I ran against guys I'd never heard of in Jr. High who were suddenly 4:30-4:40 milers. A lot can happen (or not happen) in a short amount of time.
everyone is different wrote:when he was in his early 20's he could run 48.x which is decent for a distance runner.
No way in hell is 48 decent for a distance runner!
If you are a decent miler or above and run 48, you will run 1:44 or so. If you are more of a 400/800 type you may be about 1:48 or so (if you run 48 and can't break 1:50, you are better at 400m). Actual distance runners who can run 48 must be running in the region of 3:30 1500m, 7:30 3k, 13 5k and 27 10k. So if that is only decent, there aren't many decent distance runners in this world. I honestly don't know how some of you creeps come up with this stuff.