I know Youth1 from their rankings for baseball, hockey, etc. Now that my kids are starting to run in middle school I like that they came out with rankings for youth cross country runners. Unfortunately I do not know a lot about the 13-14 running scene, do you guys think this list is definitive?
StridinAndSmilin wrote:
http://www.youth1.com/other-sports-latest-features/boys-cross-country-rankings-september-10-6.htmlI know Youth1 from their rankings for baseball, hockey, etc. Now that my kids are starting to run in middle school I like that they came out with rankings for youth cross country runners. Unfortunately I do not know a lot about the 13-14 running scene, do you guys think this list is definitive?
There were some good times and decent runners in that link, but their success at ages 13-14 is not necessarily indicative of future success. With the boys it's a safer bet than with the girls though of course.
I have an 11-year-old son who when he was 10 posted a 3,000 time that was equivalent to about the 40th fastest time for 10 year olds in the country. My son only runs on average about 2 days a week right now, so he's not even really trained. Does this mean I can expect that he will be one of the top 40 runners in the country when he's in high school? NO WAY! Maybe he will or maybe he won't, but the fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of the 10 year olds who will eventually be great high school runners, haven't really even tried running at any level yet. That is also true for MANY 13-14 year olds. Often middle school is when they get their first taste of distance running, and the kids who do well there often are the ones who hit puberty first, but by high school, usually that evens out a bit.
We could list the good runners before age 15 all day long who never really amounted to much and also the runners who were average at age 14 who became stars (Scott Fry for one there).
I'd look at it as interesting information, but you never know what the progress will be. The kid who runs 4:33 at age 14 might only get down to 4:22 by the time he's a senior, or he might run 3:57...just WAY too early to tell anything.
Hey, Flagpole, you are absolutely right. It might be worth pointing out that 4:22 still smokes my best HS mile time by a good 40 meters haha.
StridinAndSmilin wrote:
Hey, Flagpole, you are absolutely right. It might be worth pointing out that 4:22 still smokes my best HS mile time by a good 40 meters haha.
Yeah well, no offense intended, but we don't know who you are from your running.
4:22 is a decent high school time, but it's not national level for high school...that's my point. A kid who is at the top of the heap at age 13 or 14 may not still be there when he's 17 or 18.
Flagpole wrote:
There were some good times and decent runners in that link, but their success at ages 13-14 is not necessarily indicative of future success. With the boys it's a safer bet than with the girls though of course.
I have an 11-year-old son who when he was 10 posted a 3,000 time that was equivalent to about the 40th fastest time for 10 year olds in the country. My son only runs on average about 2 days a week right now, so he's not even really trained. Does this mean I can expect that he will be one of the top 40 runners in the country when he's in high school? NO WAY! Maybe he will or maybe he won't, but the fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of the 10 year olds who will eventually be great high school runners, haven't really even tried running at any level yet. That is also true for MANY 13-14 year olds. Often middle school is when they get their first taste of distance running, and the kids who do well there often are the ones who hit puberty first, but by high school, usually that evens out a bit.
We could list the good runners before age 15 all day long who never really amounted to much and also the runners who were average at age 14 who became stars (Scott Fry for one there).
I'd look at it as interesting information, but you never know what the progress will be. The kid who runs 4:33 at age 14 might only get down to 4:22 by the time he's a senior, or he might run 3:57...just WAY too early to tell anything.
What the hell is the point of this response?
haha YO wrote:
What the hell is the point of this response?
Leave it to Flagpole to write a half page response that no only doesn't answer the question asked, but completely changes the subject. The guy likes hearing himself talk.
Maybe you should read it again. It was perfectly on point and directly related to the question asked.
haha YO wrote:
Flagpole wrote:There were some good times and decent runners in that link, but their success at ages 13-14 is not necessarily indicative of future success. With the boys it's a safer bet than with the girls though of course.
I have an 11-year-old son who when he was 10 posted a 3,000 time that was equivalent to about the 40th fastest time for 10 year olds in the country. My son only runs on average about 2 days a week right now, so he's not even really trained. Does this mean I can expect that he will be one of the top 40 runners in the country when he's in high school? NO WAY! Maybe he will or maybe he won't, but the fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of the 10 year olds who will eventually be great high school runners, haven't really even tried running at any level yet. That is also true for MANY 13-14 year olds. Often middle school is when they get their first taste of distance running, and the kids who do well there often are the ones who hit puberty first, but by high school, usually that evens out a bit.
We could list the good runners before age 15 all day long who never really amounted to much and also the runners who were average at age 14 who became stars (Scott Fry for one there).
I'd look at it as interesting information, but you never know what the progress will be. The kid who runs 4:33 at age 14 might only get down to 4:22 by the time he's a senior, or he might run 3:57...just WAY too early to tell anything.
What the hell is the point of this response?
No, the question was whether that is a definitive list of 13-14 year olds RIGHT NOW, not if those on the list will become the best runners in the future.
Of course some will improve more than others.
StridinAndSmilin wrote:
http://www.youth1.com/other-sports-latest-features/boys-cross-country-rankings-september-10-6.htmlI know Youth1 from their rankings for baseball, hockey, etc. Now that my kids are starting to run in middle school I like that they came out with rankings for youth cross country runners. Unfortunately I do not know a lot about the 13-14 running scene, do you guys think this list is definitive?
Pedophile...
coach bigfoot wrote:
Pedophile...
An adult who is into 13 and 14 year olds would be a hebephile, not a pedophile.
I will also not respond to the original question but only add that such lists are, in my opinion, only detrimental to the sport. Let the kids who want to explore the regional/national/global competition themselves as they grow into high school and beyond; this isn't so hard now with the advent of the internet. I can only imagine that such lists fuel the often frightening parental lust for college athletic scholarships.
Indiana1600 wrote:
No, the question was whether that is a definitive list of 13-14 year olds RIGHT NOW, not if those on the list will become the best runners in the future.
Nope. My answer was on point.
Let me get this straight: the OP asks if people think the list he's linked to is definitive, and you answer in typically long-winded fashion about possibilities for development etc, and you think you answered the question? An "on point" answer would sound something along the lines of, "Yes, I know the midget/age-class running scene in the US well and this shows the top runners currently in that age group." Or, perhaps, "No, I'm pretty familiar with the performance of boys born in '97 and there are a lot of impressive runners left off of this list." You raised a relevant issue that could be a viable topic of interest to those reading this thread, but you did not answer the question nor, sir, was your answer "on point."
Flagpole wrote:
Nope. My answer was on point.
Flagpole's response reminds me of those ads for the Bing search engine. The ones where someone would hear a word and start rambling about something related to the word but completely outside of the context in which the word was initially used. Like where the mention of the word "breakfast" prompts the other person to start rattling off a description of The Breakfast Club.
The only thing that Flagpole's response has to do with the original post is that the response and the original post both generally discuss the topic of national performance lists for 13-14 year olds. Other than that, the response has nothing to do with the question.
i knew a kid who ran 4:36 as an 8th grader. he did not pan out due to a particular love for the all-too-famous, demotivating mary jane.
Yep. On point.
Er... wrote:
Let me get this straight: the OP asks if people think the list he's linked to is definitive, and you answer in typically long-winded fashion about possibilities for development etc, and you think you answered the question? An "on point" answer would sound something along the lines of, "Yes, I know the midget/age-class running scene in the US well and this shows the top runners currently in that age group." Or, perhaps, "No, I'm pretty familiar with the performance of boys born in '97 and there are a lot of impressive runners left off of this list." You raised a relevant issue that could be a viable topic of interest to those reading this thread, but you did not answer the question nor, sir, was your answer "on point."
Flagpole wrote:Nope. My answer was on point.
why don't you Bing me wrote:
Flagpole's response reminds me of those ads for the Bing search engine. The ones where someone would hear a word and start rambling about something related to the word but completely outside of the context in which the word was initially used. Like where the mention of the word "breakfast" prompts the other person to start rattling off a description of The Breakfast Club.
The only thing that Flagpole's response has to do with the original post is that the response and the original post both generally discuss the topic of national performance lists for 13-14 year olds. Other than that, the response has nothing to do with the question.
Moms Who Wear Jeans To Match Their Teen's Jeans
Definitely not definitive. Cody (James) Jones from Oklahoma not even in the top 10? Really? Check his results in the 1500/3000 and you'll see. Also his 5K time missed the U.S. record for 12 year olds by 6 seconds last year.
I think all this talk about kids slowing down is crap. Im a head coach of a cross country team and theres a local kid who runs a 18:14 5k at age 10 on 15-18 miles a week, I know because I put together the kids program...if he was running varsity right now he'd be doing 50 mpw and Im betting he'd be 90 seconds to 2 min faster right now. Now add at LEAST another minute based on growth factor from 5th grade to senior year and thats putting him at around 15 min 5k...pretty legit for a high schooler...
See Flagpoles response:
There were some good times and decent runners in that link, but their success at ages 13-14 is not necessarily indicative of future success. With the boys it's a safer bet than with the girls though of course.
I have an 11-year-old son who when he was 10 posted a 3,000 time that was equivalent to about the 40th fastest time for 10 year olds in the country. My son only runs on average about 2 days a week right now, so he's not even really trained. Does this mean I can expect that he will be one of the top 40 runners in the country when he's in high school? NO WAY! Maybe he will or maybe he won't, but the fact is that the VAST MAJORITY of the 10 year olds who will eventually be great high school runners, haven't really even tried running at any level yet. That is also true for MANY 13-14 year olds. Often middle school is when they get their first taste of distance running, and the kids who do well there often are the ones who hit puberty first, but by high school, usually that evens out a bit.
We could list the good runners before age 15 all day long who never really amounted to much and also the runners who were average at age 14 who became stars (Scott Fry for one there).
I'd look at it as interesting information, but you never know what the progress will be. The kid who runs 4:33 at age 14 might only get down to 4:22 by the time he's a senior, or he might run 3:57...just WAY too early to tell anything.
Read more:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4234978#ixzz1YXvK9pqu
Buy your shoes from LetsRun and save 20% everday