Am I too short to beat out the tall runners?

Ed Wood wrote:

How tall is schul? lemay is pretty tall.

Lemay was pretty tall yes, but again, not quite world class. I'm really serious about this actually. It's not that I'm to lazy to do my own digging. I can't really find anyone who is truly world class over 6'3." Elly Rono was a good find, but even he boasts a marathon PR of "just" under 2:11. Not chump change, that's for sure, but even he has to make his living as a road whore winning lots of second and third-tier marathons. Don Kardong is the only other tall guy I can think of that was great during his generation.

Let me ask this another way... how many runners in the world over 6'3" have run a 10k in under 28:00 or a marathon in under 2:09?

Rono's 6'4" at the very shortest, I'm 6'3 and he is definitely taller than me.

One reason you don't see a lot of tall runners is that a very small percent of the world's population is above 6'2". Probably on the order of 5%. And among the top running nations, the percentage is probably even smaller--now we could chase all day the question of which caused which, and I'm not going to deny being that tall could bring some mechanical/thermodynamic disadvantages, but I think it is less of a problem than people assume.

As for short runners, look at Boaz Cheboiywo, NCAA cross champ a few years ago and run low 13's recently. I doubt if he's over 4'11", although he's probably listed at 5'xx for obvious reasons.

I believe Dan Lincoln and Matt Tegenkamp are around 6'3", and I would consider them world class runners.

Yeah, I thought about Lincoln too, though he is more of a middle-distance guy. I really think it only matters above 10,000 meters, like cross-country and the marathon. That's a good point about the demographic argument, but there should still be some tall, elite distance runners in cross or at the marathon distance if height wasn't a disadvantage when it comes to running economy and the ability to sustain high volumes of training. I simply don't think you are at a disadvantage being small. The smaller, the better.

Le May - 6ft 4inches, 165 pounds.....and ran 28:20 (10.000) and 2:13 marathon.

Kjell Eric Stahl, Sweden, third in the World Championship Marathon in 1980 - in 2:10, and the world's most prolific sub 2:20 marathon in the early 80's running many many consecutive sub. 2:20's in a season, often back to back..!

Stahl was 6.2 or 6.3, with a very economical stride.

He is still going strong today at age 60......in Sweden. He had a light body weight, about 150.

Eduardo Henriques.....4th in the World Half Marathon a few years ago, is 6.2 and 145 pounds.....he is a great cross country runner, often finishing in the top 20 in the 12km world cross......

Cross country skiers are the worlds' fittest athletes, and most of them are around 6 feet tall, and 170-180 pounds, but they carry more muscle compared with most distance runners. Some of those 'big guys' - Norwegian elite cc.skiers, sometimes 'jump' into a 10km road race in the summer, and run around '30' to '31' minutes......with little specific training, aside from roller skiiing on the roads for about 3-5 hours a day....huge vo2 max capacities, and much more athletic than your average 'stick' runner.

coach:

christophe_moulton@yahoo.ca

to say that limb length is unimportant is foolish...

i would wager a great deal of money that almost all elite runners have a inseam/height ratio that is significantly above normal.

and for what its worth (nothing satisticaly), no caucasian to have broken 13min in the 5k, has been under 6ft....Tegenkamp may soon be a member of this club, and i would geuss he is over 6ft.

Let's go the other way, who's the shortest world class distance runner in the last 30 yrs?

How short can you go before reduced stride length becomes a disadvantage? Are their some potential record breakers among the pygmy population in Africa?

Sam F wrote:

to say that limb length is unimportant is foolish...

i would wager a great deal of money that almost all elite runners have a inseam/height ratio that is significantly above normal.

I would take that bet. I don't see it.

ryan dick.

I'm short too, 5"4. I used to, when I was about 9, wish I was taller as I was convinced I'd be quicker if I was taller. I even used to force myself to have as long a stride as the taller guys,almost springing from foot to foot, it developed my current bouncy stride. Anyway, as I got older I realised that my height wasnt making me slower than the tall guys, I was always in the top 3 or 4 in the school and not far off the top guys. I'm now 30 and the shortest guy in my club, but the quickest. The only excuse I have now for not being as fast as other guys from better clubs is that I simply dont do enough training. Anyway, in my experience the longer distance guys have always been fairly short, and the middle distance track guys a little taller, although still short. Theres enough examples of shorter runners, heres another: ultra marathoner Bruce Fordyce, arguably the best ultra runner ever. Won the Comrades a record 9 times, was a multiple London-Brighton winner and still world record holder for 50miles set in 83, according to this link

http://www.runningusa.org/cgi/wldrec.pl

He's about 5"4

How tall was Jim Ryun? Wasnt he like 6'2 or 6'3?

Boda wrote:

How tall was Jim Ryun? Wasnt he like 6'2 or 6'3?

Yeah, he was pretty tall. I think tall guys may actually have an advantage over middle distances. I would just love to see a 6'5" dude run a 2:07 to place in the top three at a major marathon. It'll never happen though.

Jim Fortner/"Jim2" = the hackiest hack in print.

dmiller wrote:

Try running a marathon carrying a 10 pound sack, and a marathon without. Which do you think is going to be easier?

The obvious answer is without. At the thinnest I can get healthily, 150, at 6'3", I will have to cart 30 extra pounds than an equally thin 5'6" individual. This takes extra energy, and hence, it is more calorically dependant (especially with events such as the marathon).

Brian is correct.

You also have proportionately more space to store those calories and larger lungs and muscles.

kartelite wrote:

Rono's 6'4" at the very shortest, I'm 6'3 and he is definitely taller than me.

One reason you don't see a lot of tall runners is that a very small percent of the world's population is above 6'2". I believe Dan Lincoln and Matt Tegenkamp are around 6'3", and I would consider them world class runners.

THe guy who won boston this year, Cheryiout, is 6'2" and 140lbs. I agree with your theory on height in runners being proprtional to the population. Lots of distance guys are well over 6'; Walker, Cram, Ovet, Paul Ereng. I think Roger Bannister was 6'1"

Lots of fast Canadians over 6'2" like Weber and Consiglio.

Rono is just under 6'3"; as dumb as it sounds I stood back to back with him in Ottawa; Bouradane measured and said Rono was 1/4" taller and I'm 6'2".

My coach used to say if you feet reached the ground you were tall enough to run!

Jizzmo wrote:

nik wrote:

even mottram is only about 6'2, and he looks like a giant on the track. the fact that 6'2 is considered exceedingly tall says a lot.

perfect answer. 6'2 would be a short QB, and nothing in the NBA.

MUGSY!

don't good examples just kick your ass?

kartelite wrote:

I believe Dan Lincoln and Matt Tegenkamp are around 6'3", and I would consider them world class runners.

They are both maybe 6'1" at the most. Teg is not that tall, sorry.

Most of the "semi-elite" runners I know tend to be fairly short. One 64 minute HM runner and his training partner are both around 5' 5/6'' and the number one junior runner in my county is a steeplechase and he's about 5'4'' and has run 9:04 for 3k s/c.

Generally, having started as a 61 minute 10k runner and now at 33 minutes, I've found that the runners as I've progressed around me have definitely seemed to get shorter.

On the other hand during that period I've grown from about 5' to 5' 10'' so that may have something to do with it...

Do people think track runners are marginally taller because that necessitates a "sprinter-like" finish, and being taller means they're more likely to have that sprint speed ( as majority of sprinters tend to be taller?)

What about foot size? Sprinters tend to have big feet.

Looks like Teg got big feet for a distance runner US 12?

Hey man, being tall has everything to do with it. What's with the extra weight a tall carries crap? A taller guy having more weight means more muscle and should be able to carry their own weight. Sure, increasing the stride speed can help but then it means the shorter guy is actually tiring out quicker to cover the same distance in the same time. Think about it. A taller guy with a longer stride takes so many strides to cover 1km in a given amount of time, say 5 minutes. Shorter guy running in the same fashion but a shorter stride(ratio of height/leg length to actual stride) , will actually be running faster to cover the same distance in the same time as the longer guy. So if they're running side by side, you will see the shorter guy legs moving faster than the taller guy. The shorter guy can increase his stride length to match the taller guy but it will take more effort and the impact on his legs will be harder as he would be pushing harder to cover the same stride. I'm a sort guy and tested this by running against a taller friend. It's not the case of who can win or who is fitter, simply the mechanics of the extra repetitions required for a short guy to cover the same distance.