Its already been established that he has run sub 14 in a time trial. Explain what thickness has to do with running fast?
Its already been established that he has run sub 14 in a time trial. Explain what thickness has to do with running fast?
apolmb wrote:
his stride/gait is horrible for a 5k and up. not to mention his build. no time of note
^ Agreed.
His time for 5k is meaningless. What would be more interesting would be how he would fare in a marathon on a track. With his finishing speed, he could, no doubt, come back from being lapped to win.
Am I being trolled? wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, he's a British doctor who has an online calculator (which you can access for a small fee) based on horse racing statistics that he uses to predict times that people could run for various distances based on times from other distances. He often makes up ideal times that people could have run under the right circumstances to use in his predictions. He thinks Jim Ryun was good for 3:25 in the 1500.
If Symmonds was a horse, what kind of horse would he be?
I'll say a draft horse...
cccbc wrote:
Its already been established that he has run sub 14 in a time trial. Explain what thickness has to do with running fast?
How has it been "established"? Someone on a message board wrote it? Always question what someone says someone else did in a practice that nobody has on video. Hey, maybe it's true - I didn't say it was impossible but just gave my opinion on what was likely and given what I know I think he would only get to 14:xx.
As far as what thickness has to do with running - please name one runner with Symmonds proportions that has been world class in 5K or up - you can't as it hasn't happenned. All WC distance runners are thin. You never see guys of Symonnds proportions in WC races above 1500 (and for that matter not very often above 800).
cccbc wrote:
Its already been established that he has run sub 14 in a time trial. Explain what thickness has to do with running fast?
Established? Established by whom? An anonymous source on an internet message board that is rife with trolls.
And height-weight ratio does matter. When was the last time you saw a 5'4" 160 lb runner go sub 13:40? How many runners at 6' to 6'2 and 160 have done it?
Now if Symmonds took off the bulk and slimmed down yeah, we could see sub 14 and maybe well under that.
But that isn't going to happen so we are arguing a moot point, which is why ventolin is at it. He's pro at pontificating nonsense in pointless arguments. Doosh [sic].
co949achiee wrote:
cccbc wrote:Its already been established that he has run sub 14 in a time trial. Explain what thickness has to do with running fast?
Established? Established by whom? An anonymous source on an internet message board that is rife with trolls.
And height-weight ratio does matter. When was the last time you saw a 5'4" 160 lb runner go sub 13:40? How many runners at 6' to 6'2 and 160 have done it?
Now if Symmonds took off the bulk and slimmed down yeah, we could see sub 14 and maybe well under that.
But that isn't going to happen so we are arguing a moot point, which is why ventolin is at it. He's pro at pontificating nonsense in pointless arguments. Doosh [sic].
Fair enough on not trusting message posts.
Regarding the height/weight ratio, it doesn't matter. All that matters is the weight of the runner. Why would height to weight ratio matter? It's got nothing to do with gravity so what are you suggesting is the reason?
12:36 because of his speed and obvious endurance over 10,000m that he showed last year-- 27:02 (first 5k was 13:56)
2012xxx wrote:
I don't know Solinksky but do know that I have never seen a guy as "thick" as Symmonds run sub-14 or even close. Every sub-14 guy I've seen has been very thin. Then again, Symmonds is probably the biggest guy I've heard to run sub-3:40 1500 so who knows. Still I think 5K is too long for him and for him running low 14 is probably as good as it would get.
Except for when Nick Symmonds ran a 13:58 time trial...
Her is Nick's ultimate potential:
Mile 3:50
5000 13:47
10000 30:25
1/2 marathon 67:05
Marathon 2:24:16
wow, i think you are being a little harsh with the longer stuff. JUST A LITTLE.
Solinsky, Snell, and Mottram. Off the top of my head.
Nick Symmonds @NickSymmonds
"...I definitely could run sub 13:00...for 4,000 meters"
My post keeps getting deleted, but the notion of Nick Symmonds running THE AMERICAN RECORD FOR 3,000 METERS is a laughable!
i'm going to give nick a 47 flat for the 4. not faster.
and moving forward 143 flat for the 8. not faster.
in the right race, i see a 3:32 for the 15 in the right race right now, provided he focused on it and ran in several big races.
nick has to take another shot at a medal in the 8.
if nick peaks late in the season and has gas, maybe we'll see him take a legit shot at a quality 15.
i see nick as a specialist and not an aerobic guy.
it will be interesting to see how he reacts to the 15 training, the volume of track work at 54-57 sec quarter pace, several one to one and a 60-80 minute runs at 5 minute / mile pace per week.
i'd have him do 3 minute repeats up hill and hard - as the main pre-track workout.
so, ya, nick could be an animal in the 15.
silly me, i did not answer the question.
nick has to be running several miles at 5 min a mile pace in training.
so for the 5k, he surely can go 14 minutes mid to low.
breaking 14? not now anyhow.
Come on, guys, for those of you that have run with Symmonds, I think he'd have trouble getting under 15:00. He has never run close to sub-14, nor does he have the desire.
longjack wrote:
silly me, i did not answer the question.
nick has to be running several miles at 5 min a mile pace in training.
so for the 5k, he surely can go 14 minutes mid to low.
breaking 14? not now anyhow.
But, he ran a 13:58 time trial.
I'm still not sure why folks forget how difficult the 5000 is for true 400/800/1500 type runners. All this talk about 14 flat or 13-low is absurd. On a GREAT day, 15:25-15:40 would be realistic.
nick used to run cross though. i feel like he would have enough endurance to get under 15