Seventh Grader Dolan Owens Qualifies for SC AAA State Meet in 800 and 1600

Surely this is approaching national records for 7th graders. Heck, I don't know if I've ever heard of an 8th grader running that fast.

This kid is good however lets see what he does over the next few years. The coaches at JI are great coaches, however, many athletes (mainly the girls) peak as 8th and 9th graders....

Track nuts wrote:

162430 wrote:

One of the dumbest posts that I have seen in awhile. For an experienced runner aged 20+, you would be spot-on. This kid is in 7th grade though. Even for high schoolers, 2:00 is roughly equivalent to 4:30 (based on # of kids who achieve those times). In my state the D2 qualifying times are 2:00.xx and 4:30.xx. This is the norm.

Agree. 2:00 and 4:30 are pretty much spot on with "charts" both equal in performance. 7th grader as well! Geez

I would say that when you are a young runner, the the 800 should be about 10 seconds off your 800 pace for the 1600. I have to say it worries me to see the speed, but not the prolonged speed. In my opinion, people just don't know how to run the 1600 compared with the 800, and that is why the 1600 times are not that fast when you take into effect how quick their 800 is. I would say a 2:00 is about the same as a 4:15-4:18

Get outta here. Seriously, leave. That is utter nonsense. Hs 2:00 800 runners are a dime a dozen. Not many can run 4:15.

qwe wrote:

Track nuts wrote:

Agree. 2:00 and 4:30 are pretty much spot on with "charts" both equal in performance. 7th grader as well! Geez

I would say that when you are a young runner, the the 800 should be about 10 seconds off your 800 pace for the 1600. I have to say it worries me to see the speed, but not the prolonged speed. In my opinion, people just don't know how to run the 1600 compared with the 800, and that is why the 1600 times are not that fast when you take into effect how quick their 800 is. I would say a 2:00 is about the same as a 4:15-4:18

And another idiot throws his hat into the ring

kthiuthck wrote:

801 dude wrote:

Obviously the point was to differentiate the race from the 1600 and perhaps more so to make it clear he meant a mile and not a 1600 which is the far more commonly run distance.

A 1600 is a 1600. A mile is a mile. No need to complicate things.

Do we say "full 1600" to make sure no one thinks we are talking about the 1500 (or the less popular 1590)?

Actually there is the need. The fact of the matter is many HS kids run the 1600 and don't know there is another 9.x meters in a mile. People use the two interchangeably incorrectly all the time which is why the differentiation is needed. Your 1500 example is ridiculous and just way off base. Until the day when the 1600 doesn't exist and people stop confusing the two , extra clarification is useful whether it seems dumb or not.