Sub 9 3200m runners, how fast did you end up running in college?

Good joke big time, so youre saying your classmate ran a world record and nobody else has heard about it?

don't need to be such a douche mr. sub 29.

'I was fatique'

That's a new condition similar to excuseeitus

I did not run sub 9:00 in HS, but for what its worth to you...

I ran 10:14 in HS (injured alot, about 30mpw)

Ran 8:01 3k two years after college, about 70mpw

Drunner! wrote:

Good joke big time, so youre saying your classmate ran a world record and nobody else has heard about it?

actually, his imaginary friend still didn't beat Danny K's 7:58

crap I know, I looked the world record up right after I posted that, whoops forgot that Komen beat Bekele's record!

i hate off-topic motherf***ers

Rene the Cart wrote:

traskers wrote:

A guy from my hs (I think his name was Tagercamp, or something like that) he ran 8:53 in hs and ran 7:51 or so in college; I believe he has the American record in the 2 mile now (8:07), so I guess he improved quite a bit.

yeah, but that loser can't even finish a 10k!

Hey, he just ran a 12k last month at the U.S. XC Trials in San Diego (I know, he only finished 4th, so yes he is a loser)

cransterly wrote:

Hey, he just ran a 12k last month at the U.S. XC Trials in San Diego (I know, he only finished 4th, so yes he is a loser)

Stay on topic, jerk.

So is there a thing on LetsRun where people get ragged on for asking a thread to stay on topic? Kind of like how there are grammar nazis on these boards? Or is it just whodat and his friends just trying to get a reaction out of me?

Also stay on topic please :).

jsully wrote:

147.

32% of the 453 done by US high schoolers.

OK where can I find the list of these runners. I might be able to find it but think that asking you may be faster. Thanks for the information.

sub9 wrote:

So is there a thing on LetsRun where people get ragged on for asking a thread to stay on topic? Kind of like how there are grammar nazis on these boards? Or is it just whodat and his friends just trying to get a reaction out of me?

Also stay on topic please :).

Douche...

sub nine isnt that fast wrote:

http://www.cs.uml.edu/~phoffman/nats/gods.htm

There are tons of runners on here most people have not heard of, and did not become professional runners. Running sub 9 minutes in high school does not mean a darn thing in the long run.

I would have to disagree. Look at the top 20, nearly every one of those people became great runners after being a great HS runner. The ones that did not, like Hulst or Eric Reynolds, almost universally had injuries that help them back almost completely, or in Hulst's case completely. There are very few people on the sub-9:00 list that ran 4-5 yrs in college and just didn't progress much running between 8:10-20, and 14:20-40 and 30:00-31:00 in college. There are some (like Cormier - although I don't think he broke 9:00) who just quit or gave up, but very few (percentage-wise) that stuck with it and stayed at their HS level or got worse.

This statement: "Running sub 9 minutes in high school does not mean a darn thing in the long run." is just false. Over the decades from the 60s with Ryun, Lindgren, Liquori, Prefontaine, Bjorklund, etc.; the 70s (too many to mention); the 80s (the first half anyway); not the 90s (not enough sub-9s); and the 00s (for some it is too soon to tell) if you take great college milers, steeplers, 5k and 10k look back in time to their HS marks they are nearly ALWAYS sub-4:10 / sub-9:00. The ones that aren't are usually 9:00-9:20.

I am from Michigan and we have bad winters that make getting into top shape by May, when racing non-stop in March and April, hard to do. We also rarely have that great dry, 60-65, windless weather for meets that parts of the country enjoy. So some of the best East Coast and Midwest and Mountain runners don't break 9:00, but like I said, they are the ones that run 4:10-20 and 9:00-20.

I wish that the statistics were more forgiving, but the list you posted just lends more support to THE OPPOSITE of what you say is fact.

I could go through the list one-by-one but it would just be a waste of time and embarrassing for you.

sub9 wrote:

thanks, and now he's run 13:16, incredible progression.

Is it really "incredible" as in "so good as to not be believed"? I think not.

Look at the US all-time 5k list. Look at all the guys who have run 13:16 or faster. Now look for those who ran slower than 4:05.75 OR 8:46.80 in HS.

There weren't many were there? And the ones you found have all gone a LOT faster than 13:16 right? So that is just about when you would expect for a top-talent like Bumbalough isn't it? It isn't "incredible" is it?

In fact if you look at the all-time US 5k list, all the guys (without exception) from 12:55-13:10 all had similar or better HS marks, so you would expect them to go faster (also, many or them are done competing or done with the 5k, Bumbalough is supposedly just getting started). Look at those from 13:10-13:17 and ONLY Liquori has better HS marks than Bumbalough, all of the rest were slower in the Mile or 2Mile or BOTH.

So, it is not like he is outperforming other runners historically, yet.

13:16 is GREAT though and I hope he stays healthy and keeps improving. Just two years ago we all kept saying that Ritz was NEVER gonna run sub-13 and it didn't look good for anybody else either.