If somebody is really fast at 5000, they almost can't be bad at steeple. 13:20 in the 5000 at the worst is going to convert to 8:45 in the steeple. That's sort of just stepping on the barrier and stopping and starting again.
I'd love to see you stop and step on the hurdle at the water pit.
If somebody is really fast at 5000, they almost can't be bad at steeple. 13:20 in the 5000 at the worst is going to convert to 8:45 in the steeple. That's sort of just stepping on the barrier and stopping and starting again.
I'd love to see you stop and step on the hurdle at the water pit.
I was a 14:10 5000 runner who had no chance at conference so the coach had me work on steeple. I ran 9 minutes and was absolutely terrible. I essentially stopped and stepped on the barrier. I agree that that any 13:20 runner would run 8:45 in the steeple. An average steepler who can run 13:20 wold run 8:30 and a good steepler would run 8:15.
Because the steeple isn't a real event. It's a sideshow meant for guys who can't make it in the 15 or 5k. A consolation prize. Participation trophy event.
And you race the 1500 or 5k because you can't make it in the 100m or football or basketball.
10 points is 10 points. Most coaches don't train their steeplers and don't know how to coach hurdling. It's a sweet cherry to pick if you spend time learning hurdle technique and getting comfortable navigating barriers. You could beat significantly faster runners at the championships if youve worked on your hurdling.
This isn't a very accurate comparison. A 6'7" basketball guy probably isn't going to be a good distance runner, not because being tall is bad, but because being good at basketball is no indication on endurance sports performance. But there are a ton of good distance runners who never even attempt the steeple, but every steeple runner attempts some flat event. Show me Paul Chelimo, Woody Kincaid, Grant Fisher running steeple and doing terrible and I'll change my mind about the steeple not being as competitive. McGorty was predicted to being on the outside looking in for the 5k, so he tries his hand at the steeple without ever trying it and in one season becomes a US contender. Same for Jager a decade ago, wasn't a top 3 guy in 5k so switches over. There are likely a ton of people who would be great at steeple who never do it. Saying a sprinter would be good at distance events is not realistic. They're good at sprints because of their physical characteristics, and those characteristics aren't what makes a good distance runner.
Also, it’s obvious they could care less about track.
Oh, they could care less? So you’re saying they currently do care quite a bit, if they could afford to care even less? I see.
It amazes me how many people say could care less when they mean couldn't care less. Its almost funny that they say exactly the opposite to what they are trying to say because they don't even understand the phrase they are using.
if they're not competitive in sprints and field theirs not really any reason to train someone for an event that has a high risk for injury (acute and cumulative) for points that aren't going to win a title. especaly if your primary focus is on being dominant in Cross country. ie. say you take somewhere between your # 6 to 4 10k runner because he's got good 5k/mile speed and tall ass hips and train him for steeple. he just placed at nationals but now he's got a stress fracture going into summer and probably isn't going to have the best season. so long story short its a high injury risk event
side note: quit bashing steeple its a tough event and a fun event to watch and pretty fun to compete in
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I mean he's not wrong most good 5k's could be good steeplers with training. but those are really hard events to double because of the schedule and the amount of prelims each has at the national level
I was a 14:10 5000 runner who had no chance at conference so the coach had me work on steeple. I ran 9 minutes and was absolutely terrible. I essentially stopped and stepped on the barrier. I agree that that any 13:20 runner would run 8:45 in the steeple. An average steepler who can run 13:20 wold run 8:30 and a good steepler would run 8:15.
I appreciate the post. Steeple was my primary event. I never broke 14:40 in the 5k and barely broke 3:55 in the 1500, but ran 9:01 in the steeple. It takes some skill to go over the barriers efficiently and the ability to accelerate and jump (comfortably with either leg) every barrier, which are abilities that many good mid-D guys don't have.
At the World Track and Field Championships in 1987 in Rome, Francesco Panetta of Italy won the silver medal in the 10,000 meters followed by the gold medal in the steeple. His time in the steeple was 8:08.57 which 36 years later still stands as an Italian record. dimguss, I believe 1987 is still considered the modern era.
NAU is in middle of nowhere. Only distance runners who get benefits from elevation go there. It doesn't make sense for a mid distance person or a sprinter.
Not sure what you mean by being the middle of nowhere as if mid distance runners are looking for the busy city life or something. Flagstaff seems like a sanctuary for distance running and many mid d guys do decent mileage and it seems like Mike Smith would be coaching a mid d guy, so that seems like some pretty good motivation to go there. I know he's had primarily longer distance track guys but I doubt it's because he can't coach an 800/1500 guy. But it doesn't seem to attract many pure mid d guys so perhaps you are right.
If somebody is really fast at 5000, they almost can't be bad at steeple. 13:20 in the 5000 at the worst is going to convert to 8:45 in the steeple. That's sort of just stepping on the barrier and stopping and starting again.
I can't believe this got downvoted. 8:45 is a far weaker performance than 13:20. I don't see how it's a knock against the steeple to say most 13:20 guys could run 8:45.