which is better: a sub 4 mile or a 40 inch vertical jump?

More Americans break 4 minutes in the mile every year than test a 40 inch vert.

http://www.coachesclipboard.net/VerticalJumpClaims.html

(summary, in 2007 and 2008, no NBA players tested a standing vertical jump over 40 inches)

Granted, people actually care quite a bit about breaking 4, and most players are only worried about vertical height as an aside from their actual training. If the Vertical Jump became an Olympic event, more people would break 40. Hard to say if it would be more or less than 4 minute milers.

Either way, running sub 4 is probably more athletically impressive, because genetics can be beaten by hard work and dedication (to an extent). Whereas if you aren't born a few standard deviations ahead of the bell curve in terms of type II muscle fibers, you will never have a 40 inch vert. I personally feel that makes it less impressive, because all you did was have good parents and train a bit.

Vertical leap is usually exaggerated because it doesn't measure the movement of the actual center of mass.

There is no evidence that genetics have anything to do withc mile ability or jumping ability.

There is no evidence that genetics have anything to do with mile ability or jumping ability. And regarding "all you did was have good parents and train a bit", couldn't you say the same thing about mile performance?

randomcoach is randomly angry wrote:

Why are you so angry about vertical jumping? Anyway, here's a picture of a guy with his head above the rim in the middle of a game with a ball in his hand. I'm sure he could squeak out a few more inches if he was attempting a vertical jump in the more relaxed environment of a max vertical jump test. Do you not agree?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jHaXKR4GbJc/T3CxmgjT1lI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/j3VLxP3Lss4/s1600/gerald-green-head-above-rim.png

Here's another of the same guy I think:

http://ballislife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Untitled-26.jpg

For some reason I get angry when I read the nonsense people are claiming.

The first pic shows great vert in the mid 40"s based on his listed height of 6'8.

The second pic uses camera angles and player proximity to make it look like he is higher than he actually is. If you watch the video that pic is extracted from you'll see in his alley oops he is getting his head 1-2" above the rim when jumping without the ball.

This might be relevant:

http://nbadraft.net/2012-nba-combine-athleticism-results

Perception-wise a sub-4 Mile is more understandable and relatable than a 40 inch vertical jump to the average American. Who was the Roger Bannister of the 40" vertical jump? So, sub-4 Mile by a Mile!

randomcoach wrote:

This might be relevant:

http://nbadraft.net/2012-nba-combine-athleticism-results

What point are you trying to make? I can't figure out what your position is in this discussion.

I addressed your second point in my post. More people have the potential to run sub 4 than have the potential to jump 40 inches, because training makes a larger impact. If you really think that genetics don't play a role in athletic performance, I can't help you.

SCIENCE! wrote:

I addressed your second point in my post. More people have the potential to run sub 4 than have the potential to jump 40 inches, because training makes a larger impact. If you really think that genetics don't play a role in athletic performance, I can't help you.

Your points are unfounded. How do you know that more people have the potential to run sub? There has been no scientific research that states that genetics have anything to do with limiting athletic performance.

Out of the two I'd prefer a sub-4 mile. A 40" jump will get you some money if you can make the NBA, but then you'd have to play basketball. And no amount of money would make me want to play that awful game or be around people who play that game.

For arguments sake, I will concede a lack of evidence as to potential for either accomplishment. I was making an educated guess based on the brief research I did about this subject and the numbers available to me. Call it an opinion.

There are a myriad of studies, however, demonstrating the scientific belief that an individuals fiber typing is set at birth and largely unchanged by training status. The currently held belief is that Muscle Fibers cannot change from Type I to Type II and vise versa. I tend to disagree with this somewhat, as I feel that limited fiber type conversion is possible under specific circumstances (a handful of studies have shown type I fiber increases after electric stimulation at low frequencies for longer durations), but that is also an opinion.

In either case, genetic potential is absolutely an iron clad concept, through both empirical evidence (which cannot be over looked in these situations) and actual scientific research. Do you honestly believe that the only thing holding back a high school senior who ran every season of high school and boasts a 4:45 1600m PR is lack of dedication or effort? Because I don't, and I feel that belief belittles their accomplishments. It just isn't in the cards for some people.

iggy wrote:

There has been no scientific research that states that genetics have anything to do with limiting athletic performance.

How much scientific research does it take to recognize the difference between a dolphin and a kangaroo is the result of more than just training and environment?

I like the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph.... I don't like.

Dedication and effort are only two variables of many that influence running performance. For some reason many people refuse to acknowledge that there are other variables. It's not only dedication and effort. You can be 100% dedicated to beating your head into a wall at 100% effort but it will not help your running. In fact, it will probably cause death or brain damage. It's important to the the RIGHT work.

Being dedicated and going 100% isn't enough. Another huge variable is nutrition. How many high school kids really know anything about nutrition? How many of them can even tell you the exact minimum requirement of say just 5 important nutrients? Nutrition is by far the biggest determinant of athletic performance.

So yes I believe that the only thing holding back your high schooler is a lack of dedication and effort. A person who really cared would learn about training and nutrition.

I appreciate the conversation with you thus far. I find that nutrition is indeed important as it relates to health and recovery. If you eat right, you maximize your ability to train at a higher level (less inflammation, better response to oxidation, more energy stores, increased enzyme production).

However, I would still maintain that nutrition will let someone train harder, and that it is ultimately training that brings about increased performance. The debate as to which of those two steps in the same direction is larger is irrelevant to our discussion.

I still believe that even with proper nutrition and training, to quote Once a Runner, "it is possible, despite your best efforts and a hundred goddamn miles a week, not to even exist." Or, you know, not break 4 in the mile.

David Thompson stood 6-4 had a vertical jump of 42 which allowed him to extend a foot and a half above the rim.

The best recorded was Darrel Griffith in 1976 (47 inches). Only handful of players could actually exceed 42 inches. Jordan and Wilkins were in the 36 to 40 range.

Spud Webb 5-7 has a vertical of 42 to 45 inch range.

Jay Shidler (L) G So. 6-1 185 Lawrenceville, IL had a 42 inch vertical while at UofKentucky...1976

I'm sure some of these pro athletes have 40" verticals. The average person would believe I have a 40" vertical because I can do a 40" box jump. What they don't realize is the fact that my vertical is 40" only if I land on that box with completely straight legs from a complete dead stop two-foot jump. Show me more than about a dozen people anywhere on the planet that can do that.

Sub-4 mile, and I'd prefer doing that too.

Sub-4 mile is rarer, and it actually guarantees that you're good at a sport. A high vert jump helps in basketball / football / high jump but you could have a 40 inch vertical and still be terrible at sports.

crazy raisin wrote:

Sub-4 mile, and I'd prefer doing that too.

Sub-4 mile is rarer, and it actually guarantees that you're good at a sport. A high vert jump helps in basketball / football / high jump but you could have a 40 inch vertical and still be terrible at sports.

I disagree that the sub is rarer. Have you read this thread? Only a handful of NBA players have 40 inch verticals. There are more than a handful of sub 4 milers every year.

I also disagree that a sub 4 guarantees that you're good at the sport. The goal is to win medals. Not to run sub 4.