Blinky Bill wrote:
Not really wrote:
And most great runners were 'early developers' who continued to develop
Few truly great runners excelled hugely at a really young age like 15/16. Not if that's their real age anyway.
Running great times 'for a junior' mostly gets you nowhere. If you run great senior times as a junior then that's different. Like 3:34 at 18 for example like El G or Rudisha running 1:44 at 18.
So you need to be an average junior or really great junior to succeed as a senior, in between say 3.44 at 17 is destined for failure. What other theories do you have about our sport?[/quote]
No there's just no strong correlation between times as a junior and times as a senior.
The exception is that if you run 3:34 at 18 you can already compete with the seniors.
With 3:44 for example, you cannot compete as a senior, and so hope to develop to do so. Doesn't happen for everyone. Some kids will come from running 3:55 and make it.
Coe was running 1:56 or something at 16 and other greats like Rudisha were running 1:47 or something.
PBs at a young age depend so much on many factors like injury, opportunity, current training and physical development it's difficult to see strong correlation between the times run as a kid and what you can do as a senior.