Seriously, you’re bringing up skateboarding?! LOL
-
12
-
Stanford Rules wrote:
My apologies. I’ll share my explanation now for any high school studs who are weighing their options:
1. The NCAA is a proven American talent development system. Look at Meb, Rupp, Centro, Fisher, Brazier, Hocker, Teare, Hoppel, Murphy, Mantz, Kastor, Flanagan, Simpson, Coburn, Sisson, Cranny, Schweizer, Mu, and many, many others.
2. The high school to pro route is risky and not nearly as proven. Wilson and Jager did well but look at Hunter, Cain, and Efraimson. Ouch
3. Running for top level programs like NAU, Stanford, and NC State (for women) enables you to train with excellent athletes in your own age group, develop friendships with your peers, and enjoy a healthy transition into adulthood.
4. By running in college, you can learn racing tactics against people at your level and, more importantly, learn how to win. If you run in the pros straight out of high school, you’re just going to learn how to lose by getting your doors blown off by pros who are at a higher level than you. Look at Kessler. Last year he could have been running in the NCAA 1500 final and vying for a high place. Instead he got bounced in the heats of the US championships.
5. In college, you can develop gradually without the pressure of a pro sponsor evaluating your results or docking your pay.
6. In college, you can experience the thrill of winning a team championship and running for something greater than yourself. Look at how happy the runners for NAU and NC State looked after winning the team titles at last fall’s NCAA cross country championships.
7. In the NCAA, you can be a star, maybe even as a freshman. If you go pro early, you’ll just be an also-ran.
8. In the NCAA, you have a set planned racing schedule that lets you know what to expect. As a pro, you’ll be at the mercy of how good your agent is at getting you into meets, which is unpredictable and volatile.
9. By running in the NCAA, you’ll develop an affinity with your college that’s much stronger and long lasting than what’s possible in any pro group that could dissolve in a year or two. Look at the Nike Oregon Project.
10. By running in the NCAA, you’re making a natural progression from one level to the next. If you jump straight to the pros, you’ll be skipping an important step in your development. People who skip steps tend to trip and get hurt.
Once you’ve proven you can dominate NCAA competition, then it makes sense to go pro. Not before.
It’s obvious we won’t reach a consensus on this debate today, so we’ll just have to wait and see how Kessler does in the future. I will bookmark this thread so we can revisit it later. In the meantime, I am reposting my 10-point explanation for why American middle and long distance runners should spend at least a year in the NCAA before turning pro. I hope current and future high school stars read this.
414 -
If they read this thread they would laugh at you. So congrats I guess.
73 -
bank account wrote:
Kessler guy wrote:
Nah. He made about $50k already thi month.
if you think Kessler will have a bigger bank account at the age of 40 compared to Stanford grads, then you should be checked into a mental institution.
In just one sentence you manage to be so wrong on so many levels.
00 -
Stanford Rules wrote:
Runner1218 wrote:
1. Oversized track. 2. Of course he would. 3. They're also in the middle of the season while he begins his, and (4.) they are all older.
1. Who cares about the track “size.” They all raced the same distance, didn’t they?
2. No, he would not make their DMR team if it was based on this year’s performance.
3. Today was Stanford’s indoor track season opener. It was their rust buster! Kessler has already raced this year, so he should be sharper.
4. Who cares if they’re older. Kessler is the one who is a professional. A pro should be faster than collegians.
Very embarrassing day for Kessler.
1. you are already on the wrong side of this discussion, there is no need to go further.
31 -
Stanford Rules wrote:
Runner1218 wrote:
IDK every relevant statistician who manages performance lists yearly and historically?
Stanford would be looking for a coach if they put someone ahead of a 1:46/3:34 guy. Unless you know something most don't.
Stanford had a competitive XC season. What did Kessler do all fall and December?
4. Flat no. Troll confirmed. Pros do not need to be beating peaked battle-ready collegians at every race. Especially ones who also have a lot more to LOSE by going balls to the wall and basic invitationals.
Yeah, Stanford guys run a bunch of 8,000 and 10,000 races in the fall. They were focusing on strength. Kessler recently ran a 1,000 which indicates he’s been focusing on speed. Shouldn’t the pro who has been focusing on speed be able to run a faster mile than the collegians who have been focusing on strength?
because he ran a local 1000? Troll confirmed.
71 -
Stanford Rules wrote:
You resorted to a flippant response because you couldn’t refute my points. You must be a Stanford reject like the many envious haters on this board.
NO! Not one person is buying your silly points. Just drop it. Stanford is an awesome school, they have a great team right now...we all agree. But nobody has yet to agree with anything you have said about Hobbs. Come into the light.
51 -
Not pr'ing in his main event 1 1/2 years after high school would be concerning if he were not improving in multiple fundamental areas (physical strength, aerobic fitness, recovery time, form). But he is improving in all those areas. I expect big things from him this year. All the signs are very good. If he had not run at all in early January, there'd be no possibility for criticism. We're lucky that he's competed twice already, and we're also lucky he hasn't run exceptionally fast this early because that means he is being built slowly for the outdoor campaign, as he should be.
70 -
I think the college situation is better than the pro situation for young distance runners. Yet, it's hard to argue with Kessler's decision, given that he is running with Ron Warhurst, that they have now assembled a good quality training group around him, and that Warhurst got him to a high school 3:34 record that beat the in-season NCAA record.
100 -
No, they will not likely break the AR. Did Hocker & Teare do that after running 5s faster than the best of these guys? Did they even break 3:50?
There has been a shift in race times with the new shoes. These times look outstanding by the standard we are accustomed to seeing. However, Mile times are 2-3s faster now. Longer distances are 3-5s/mi faster. Just look at the NCAA qual lists. Yes, the shoes may help someone run a new AR or break 3:50, but the number of sub 3:55s is still very small - equivalent to number of sub 3:57 a few years back. 3:55 is a long way from sub 3:50. And 3:50 is even further from 3:46 despite the smaller time difference.
44 -
dontForgetTheShoes wrote:
No, they will not likely break the AR. Did Hocker & Teare do that after running 5s faster than the best of these guys? Did they even break 3:50?
There has been a shift in race times with the new shoes. These times look outstanding by the standard we are accustomed to seeing. However, Mile times are 2-3s faster now. Longer distances are 3-5s/mi faster. Just look at the NCAA qual lists. Yes, the shoes may help someone run a new AR or break 3:50, but the number of sub 3:55s is still very small - equivalent to number of sub 3:57 a few years back. 3:55 is a long way from sub 3:50. And 3:50 is even further from 3:46 despite the smaller time difference.
Look..I am not as big a "gotta be the shoes Guy" as others..One certain data point regarding lower NCAA Q times is obvious..if you look at the top 10-15 list, see how many guys are at least 23..there are more 5 and even 6 year guys running in College today than every before, they should be good by now...You have red shirts plus CoVid year give back, some guys are literally 25. Way more, way more races are now set up than ever before, pacing is fact and its even, you have to run 1 400(if that) on your own..or 600(if that) at 3K.
To be clear, do the shoes matter? Yes, so did going from Cinders to artificial, to Mondo, to Hydraulic bouncy speedway Indoor Tracks, and way better training and more of it.
91 -
Yet, no 3:26s or 3:27s for years now--and the last guys to do it were EPO-Asbel and Silas Kiplagat, whose performance cycle--typically great on the circuit, not on the heavily tested champs--was suspicious to me. So, if the shoes are worth 1-2 seconds in the 1500m/mile, why not more sub-3:29s? Other than Jakob and Timothy, the only guys under 3:29 since 2004 are Kiprop, Kiplagat, Makhloufi (3:28.75), Katir (3:28.76), Iguider, Elijah Manangoi-suspended, Mo Farah of Al Salazar and Sabadell fame, and Ronald Kwemoi. Shoes don't look too magic. Doping does.
52 -
Stanford Rules wrote:
I meant top 4 as a team
It should've been blatantly obvious we were all being trolled after this
21 -
cxzvzxcv wrote:
Yet, no 3:26s or 3:27s for years now--and the last guys to do it were EPO-Asbel and Silas Kiplagat, whose performance cycle--typically great on the circuit, not on the heavily tested champs--was suspicious to me. So, if the shoes are worth 1-2 seconds in the 1500m/mile, why not more sub-3:29s? Other than Jakob and Timothy, the only guys under 3:29 since 2004 are Kiprop, Kiplagat, Makhloufi (3:28.75), Katir (3:28.76), Iguider, Elijah Manangoi-suspended, Mo Farah of Al Salazar and Sabadell fame, and Ronald Kwemoi. Shoes don't look too magic. Doping does.
This, I completely agree with .
42 -
To me, it's pretty silly. Kessler has won his two opening races. That's all you can ask.
If people across the country on a different track in a different ran a faster time than you, that doesn't mean they beat you or would beat you in the same race.
The Stanford boys did a great job, but it doesn't diminish Hobbs Kessler at all.120 -
So many are jealous of Kessler and Hunter making moe per year than they ever will.
52 -
king999 wrote:
dontForgetTheShoes wrote:
No, they will not likely break the AR. Did Hocker & Teare do that after running 5s faster than the best of these guys? Did they even break 3:50?
There has been a shift in race times with the new shoes. These times look outstanding by the standard we are accustomed to seeing. However, Mile times are 2-3s faster now. Longer distances are 3-5s/mi faster. Just look at the NCAA qual lists. Yes, the shoes may help someone run a new AR or break 3:50, but the number of sub 3:55s is still very small - equivalent to number of sub 3:57 a few years back. 3:55 is a long way from sub 3:50. And 3:50 is even further from 3:46 despite the smaller time difference.
Look..I am not as big a "gotta be the shoes Guy" as others..One certain data point regarding lower NCAA Q times is obvious..if you look at the top 10-15 list, see how many guys are at least 23..there are more 5 and even 6 year guys running in College today than every before, they should be good by now...You have red shirts plus CoVid year give back, some guys are literally 25. Way more, way more races are now set up than ever before, pacing is fact and its even, you have to run 1 400(if that) on your own..or 600(if that) at 3K.
To be clear, do the shoes matter? Yes, so did going from Cinders to artificial, to Mondo, to Hydraulic bouncy speedway Indoor Tracks, and way better training and more of it.
This thread is about NCAA times. Agreed that there are more >23 runners, but that should normalize and times should follow. We will see, but I think the shoes changed things.
Pro times have also benefitted. The 5k, 10k AR and WR are all in new shoes. How many guys broke the previous Olympic 1500 record in Tokyo? Age is not a factor there. Can't make an accurate estimate of dopers.
There are always multiple factors, but certain division lines in the race times exist such as track surfaces, new drugs, and shoes.
11 -
dontForgetTheShoes wrote:
king999 wrote:
Look..I am not as big a "gotta be the shoes Guy" as others..One certain data point regarding lower NCAA Q times is obvious..if you look at the top 10-15 list, see how many guys are at least 23..there are more 5 and even 6 year guys running in College today than every before, they should be good by now...You have red shirts plus CoVid year give back, some guys are literally 25. Way more, way more races are now set up than ever before, pacing is fact and its even, you have to run 1 400(if that) on your own..or 600(if that) at 3K.
To be clear, do the shoes matter? Yes, so did going from Cinders to artificial, to Mondo, to Hydraulic bouncy speedway Indoor Tracks, and way better training and more of it.
This thread is about NCAA times. Agreed that there are more >23 runners, but that should normalize and times should follow. We will see, but I think the shoes changed things.
Pro times have also benefitted. The 5k, 10k AR and WR are all in new shoes. How many guys broke the previous Olympic 1500 record in Tokyo? Age is not a factor there. Can't make an accurate estimate of dopers.
There are always multiple factors, but certain division lines in the race times exist such as track surfaces, new drugs, and shoes.
Since 2020, there are 2 marks inside the top 20 1500M marks all time, none in top 7. If shoes were the driving component, and everyone has those..we should be seeing way more all time marks, no?In the 800M , None in the top 20, top 20!! Drugs trump the shoes argument every time, in my opinion
Shoes are better, guys should be improving a bit at a time , even at 800 and 1500M ,in a sport now with perfect pacing set ups. and fast as sh-t tracks.And the almighty improvement prop...shoes!!
40 -
Testing got better and shoes got better. Most runners got better due to shoes. World records were set with drugs which isn't happening to the same extent. Multiple high school kids will break 4 this year. Only a handful in history had done it until several years ago.
20 -
Ok7272 wrote:
To me, it's pretty silly. Kessler has won his two opening races. That's all you can ask.
If people across the country on a different track in a different ran a faster time than you, that doesn't mean they beat you or would beat you in the same race.The Stanford boys did a great job, but it doesn't diminish Hobbs Kessler at all.
In those races he's also beaten: 3:30 guy Charlie Grice (twice), NCAA champ Ben Flanagan, 3:35 guy Eric Avila, 3:52 guy/NCAA mile runner-up Morgan Beadlescomb (twice), and olympian Mason Ferlic (twice). But yeah, he sucks because he didn't fly across the country to a faster paced race in mid-January
21
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
Of General Interest
-
Irish gymnast shows you can have sex in the "anti-sex" cardboard beds in the Olympic village (video)
-
Finishing a mountain stage in the Tour De France vs running a marathon: Which is harder?
-
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
-
George Mills' dad: "Watching athletics is the worst on the planet."
-
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
-
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach