Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Running a 3:49.80 mile

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    magpie
    Senior Member

  • magpie
    replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    perhaps the same thing that usually happens to it? historically, most footlocker finalists do not excel past high school (and certainly not past college) - either they max out their talent in high school or possibly have not developed the work ethic to get any better (which essentially amounts to peaking in h.s.) some old saw regarding pig's ears and silk purses might fit here.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Sorry for the double post. For some reason it didn't show up the first time I sent it.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Mr. B.S.

    Don't believe Dyestat? What about the other sources I sited.

    I know its hard to believe. What can possibly be happening to so much young talent?!

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Mr. B.S.

    Don't believe Dyestat? Check the other sources sited. Or, maybe you don't believe T&F News either.

    I know its hard to believe. What can possibly be happening to so much young talent?!

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Yes, check Dyestat for accurate statistics? That'll be the day.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    No, b.s. here,

    Since I don't have my T&F collection here with me at work I'll have to rely on memory. Check out May '03. Also I believe there was a mention of the race (and the fact that is was the deepest ever) in this month's issue - with a picture of Solinsky and the leaders. I think I said 2mi., or course it was a 3200m.

    You can also check Dyestat - it is mentioned there was well. Also, check out the depth of the '01 Arcadia 16, I think this was probably among one of the deepest prep 16s - at least in the last 10-15 years.

    This is some promising talent before they hit the NCAA black hole.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Cyril, how do you know the Arcadia 2 mile had the most ever under 9 minutes? What was the second best and when?

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    Andy- You're right about Krum possibly being able to stick around another 4-5 years however, the next 2 will probably be his best.

    His training and racing schedule should provide him with good longevity - not as many miles being pounded or seasons being raced as many others.

    If he starts running fast 15s he may be able to pull some other US guys along.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    If Krummenacker is as durable as either Scott or Spivey was he could be around another 5 years.
    Krummenacker did run a 3:35 this past summer showing his does indeed have the speed to be a competitive 1500-meter runner. I think he wants one more go at the 800 meters. After that he will probably run the 1500. Krummenacker could develope into a strong miler like a Tom Byers. Actually, looking at his 1500 meter times Krummenacker already is a 3:50 guy like Byers was. Krummenacker easily has the most inherent speed of any US miler today. I predict he may finish his career with either a 3:50 or 3:52 mile PR. In the early 80's the US had a half dozen distance runners with Krummenacker's speed. You could say Krummenacker is a throw-back to the good old days. For some strange reason the slower Jason Lunn has become Krummenacker's foe on the domestic 1500 meter curcuit. I think the whole US distance running community was shocked when Lunn beat Krummenacker at the Home Depot meet this past year. I suspect Krummenacker was still recovering from his injury then. Krummenacker later went on to run a 3:35 in Europe proving he has speed that eludes Lunn.

    The IAAF should take heat for the ridiculous standard for the 1500. It just excludes so many talented international runners. What was wrong with the old 3:36 standard? At least the IAAF should at least try to be consistent. Why just make the 1500 standard hard? The 8:30 "A" standard for the steeplechase is very slow compared to the 1500 standard. Every distance event should have
    e qualifying times of comparable difficulty. That is why we have distance tables. The IAAF must of made some type of tabulating error when coming up with the qualifying standards for distance events.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    11. Faster
    >US trial standards that pushes US 1500meter
    >runners to faster times during the season. A
    >3:37.5 qualifying time could force US runners to
    >shave a few seconds off their PR times.

    Question of the Day. Why is the
    >Olympic A standard for the 1500meters so hard,
    >while other Olympic distance event standards
    >comparatively easy. The 3:34.85 standard is
    >equivalent to a 3:53 mile. In fact the Olympic A
    >standard for the 1500 maybe the hardest of any
    >Olympic event to obtain! On-the-other-hand the
    >Olympic A standard for the 5000 meters is only
    >13:25.




    actually, the 5 standard is something like 13.21 or so.

    on the subhject of, "why don't we increase the standards", the problem is, american milers won't care anyway. theya re still going to get into the trials (they need 24-36 athletes to fill the field) because you can't run a "true" trials with like 5 guys or so (look at the lists for last year, 3.37 would basically make the team+alternate right there, no need for a race. look at last years nat's, pyrah and hesch both got in with 3.43-3.44 or so. they were next on the list. US guys know this is how it works, if they are in the top 24-36, no matter their time, they're in the trials. good idea though, just doesn't work in the US, not enough talent (not a deep enough 1500 pool in this counbtry).

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    >>Why is the
    >Olympic A standard for the 1500meters so hard,
    >while other Olympic distance event standards
    >comparatively easy. The 3:34.85 standard is
    >equivalent to a 3:53 mile.>>

    Standard is 3:34.90, which is equivalent to 3:52.1 mile, but your question is a really good one. I think the IAAF just flat-out blew the calculation and doesn't have the balls to admit it or adjust it.

    Those who were in Paris were treated to World Championships heats in which 4 men were eliminated in 3 races! And the guys who were eliminated were all people who got in via the by-nation qualifying rule. A Malawi guy who ran 3:51.61, and Pakistani at 3:51.34, a Guamian at 3:56.64 (a PR!) and a Somali at 4:10.42.

    This mean that a guy from Kirghizistan advanced to the smis while running 3:50.89! Ludicrous!

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    >I should of also used this reason.

    11. Faster
    >US trial standards that pushes US 1500meter
    >runners to faster times during the season.
    A
    >3:37.5 qualifying time could force US runners to
    >shave a few seconds off their PR
    >times.

    Or, would we just have fewer qualify for the trials? If few qualified it might be a good thing. It would eliminate the slower guys from the get-go. However, I don't think the once-ever-four-year standard is an issue when it come to the problem of lack of American miling talent.

    I would stick to the 10 you listed minus #1.

    I do hope Krummenacker pursues the mile with greater interest next year. His past performances and current training regime indicate he can compete on a wold-level. This can help younger US milers by showing them that, in fact, a US guy can compete. He may help to break the ice and establish a training blue print for future milers to follow - focus on the track and on speed. He is one US guy who trains like an international miler should train. Unfortunately, time is running out for him.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    I should of also used this reason.

    11. Faster US trial standards that pushes US 1500meter runners to faster times during the season.
    A 3:37.5 qualifying time could force US runners to shave a few seconds off their PR times.

    Question of the Day.

    Why is the Olympic A standard for the 1500meters so hard, while other Olympic distance event standards comparatively easy. The 3:34.85 standard is equivalent to a 3:53 mile. In fact the Olympic A standard for the 1500 maybe the hardest of any Olympic event to obtain! On-the-other-hand the Olympic A standard for the 5000 meters is only 13:25.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    >I think that you are missing one key reason.
    >There are not as many talented kids running the
    >mile or other distance races like there used to
    >be. At the high school level, a 10.8 100m kid
    >is content to run the sprints and be good at the
    >high school level instead of training for the
    >longer distances and becoming national or maybe
    >world class in the future. Go to a state high
    >school track meet and you will always see quick
    >kids without the musculature(sp?) to become
    >great sprinters, but they could be great middle
    >distance runners.

    Sorry, I disagree. Over the last 3-5 years we have seen great depth in our high school talent - unlike anything that has been seen in 20+ years. Consider the Arcadia 2m. last year. Most ever under 9. No, the hs talent is there, but for some reason the progression is halted at the college level. The transition to international class competitors is a very rare occurance even for the apparently gifted hs athletes.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Running a 3:49.80 mile

    I think that you are missing one key reason. There are not as many talented kids running the mile or other distance races like there used to be. At the high school level, a 10.8 100m kid is content to run the sprints and be good at the high school level instead of training for the longer distances and becoming national or maybe world class in the future. Go to a state high school track meet and you will always see quick kids without the musculature(sp?) to become great sprinters, but they could be great middle distance runners.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X