The general consensus for many years seems to have been that you should do shorter distances when you are younger and then move up to the marathon when you are older. Many have had success this way and Lopez is often referred to as proof of this.
But thinking about Paula's Olympic failures, I can't help but wonder if her best chance of gold was actually in Sydney 2000. She wanted a track gold too though and so tried, and failed, to do that. Then when things didn't work out in 2004 and 2008 maybe she didn't have the time she thought.
My thoughts on this are along the lines of whether Paula, clearly being gifted to run the marathon, should have focused on her ideal distance sooner.
When I look at Ryan Hall I wonder whether the earlier distance shift for another natural marathoner might show itself to be more favorable?
And look at Samuel Wanjuri - Olympic Gold at 21!
Maybe if a youngster is clearly gifted at endurance events, maybe getting them to run HM at 17 and the full 26.2 at 18 should be a viable option rather than the "stick with 5K and 10K until your 30" approach that has been so popular up to now?
Or maybe Sammy can do it because he has run more miles from a younger age and those who run less miles in childhood (such as Paula) need more time to get to peak marathon age?
I wonder how long Wanjuri's career can be having started marathons so young?
Thoughts anyone?