Runner #1: Starts out 8th grade track as a 7 minute miler with no training, finishes senior year at a 4:15 mile with only an average of 40 mpw.
Runner #2: Starts out his freshman year of track with a 4:40 mile with only 20 mpw.
In your opinion which runner is more talented?
Kids mature physically at different ages so you can't tell just by times, training, and age. There is also a huge difference between kids who have "no training" but played soccer, and kids who have "no training" and didn't play any sports.
BTW I would guess #1 because you know he's a 4:15 miler, a time few high schoolers ever reach.
Hardloper wrote:
Kids mature physically at different ages so you can't tell just by times, training, and age. There is also a huge difference between kids who have "no training" but played soccer, and kids who have "no training" and didn't play any sports.
Yes I should have been more specific
By no training, I mean literally "no training"....somebody who played video games, studied, spent most of the day on the couch
Dumbest question ever. Just because Runner #1 is running more miles per week, doesn't mean he's running a better quality of miles.
Maybe Runner #1 is jogging all 40 of those miles and is so naturally fast that he can bust out a 4:15 without any formal speed work, while Runner #2 is putting in tons of work on the track and yet cannot get any faster. In that case Runner #1 is way more talented.
There are too many variables to consider. You can't look at "mpw" and infer anything other than that the runner covers that much distance in a week at the minimum pace that he considers to be "running".
Emma Coburn to miss Olympic Trials after breaking ankle in Suzhou
Jakob on Oly 1500- “Walk in the park if I don’t get injured or sick”
VALBY has graduated (w/ honors) from Florida, will she go to grad school??
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
NY Times: Treadmill desks might really be worth it. Does anyone use one?