??
??
Yes it is decent, not that it means much of anything.
-RS
Not outstanding. But he has 20+ years to reach his full potential. Desire to run is more important than "talent", especially in middle school. Please encourage him to keep running, and have fun with it and join the track and XC teams if he's interested.
That's amazing.
People around here will say otherwise "just let him enjoy his running", bla bla, etc. But no. Get him on 25 miles a week minimum right now, mostly easy but but one real hard rep session per week.
You think the Williams sisters got to the top by simply having fun or hitting a ball when they felt like it? No they did not!
Good luck with your investment.
Bullet the Blue Sky wrote:
Not outstanding. But he has 20+ years to reach his full potential. Desire to run is more important than "talent", especially in middle school. Please encourage him to keep running, and have fun with it and join the track and XC teams if he's interested.
It's extremely unlikely that he trains seriously for 20+ years. Hopefully, he'll stay with it through HS.
No. That is below average.
No, the time in and of itself is pretty poor, like 8:15/mi average.
How fast did he go out? Did he run a 5:45 first mile and die? If so, running "smarter" might mean he could have run 22 if he went out at 7:20 instead.
But if he was consistent around 8:15, I'd say it does not indicate any particular ability....but again, if he happens to be a high responder, you never know, with real training he might all of a sudden be above average.
Anecdotally, my daughter ran about 27 flat at just under 10 years of age and having recently recovered from radiation treatment due to melanoma and having just been diagnosed with celiac disease. I "trained" her for about 1 month with no more than 2 mile walk/runs.
Unfortunately she hated running and after that summer, she never ran again. Oh well.
No.
It would not mean anything to try to predict talent from completely sedentary base fitness, anyhow.
No
Arturo Barrios ran 17 min 5K with no training during a gym class. He went on to run 27:16 10000.
Chasonmesinar wrote:
??
No.
It either indicates nothing [we don't know what effort was required or expended for one thing].
or
it indicates the individual has average or less ability.
I ran 18:00 for my first 5k at age 14. But whatever.
Omygod why are you all putting this kid down when I did my first 5k in eight grade it was in 41 minutes by the time I was a junior my time was 1530
No you did not. Name??
Wait a second. He asked the question.
Am I fast if I can run a 30 minute 5k as a 20 year old male? Are you supposed to say "yes"?
No it's not good. But it doesn't mean it can't improve by a lot.
Not at all
RunnerSam wrote:
Yes it is decent, not that it means much of anything.
-RS
The idea that untrained (which can mean anything from playing soccer 3 hours/day to sitting on your butt) mean anything is stupid. It is all about how you respond to training. Jim Ryun ran some average mile time (well for the 60s. Now a days it would probably be the fastest) in PE class. Put in like 6 months of training and he was running a 4:10 mile. Not many people respond to training like that. And there is no way to know how some will react to training until it is done.
On Thanksgiving, my 10-year-old ran a 22 min 5K wearing Chuck Taylors and he doesn’t train.
He did puke 30 minutes later though.