Age and Distance revisited

[LissaJous]

In case any interested parties didn't read my race report from Olla de Núria, this is a ~3000m altitude AL race in Catalonia, and the winning woman was almost a 15 year old girl from Basque Country. I say 'almost' only because she was disqualified at the finish for being under 16!

Her time was about 2h55, with Kilian's record being 2h15 and the women's record 2h36 (Mireia Miro-Varelo), with the next best women's time being a lot slower.

Interesting both in the exceptional abilities of this particular girl, and that 16+ are allowed to run anything with parental permission.

[Mike T]

How many 15 year olds with exceptional abilities are still running at that level 5 years later? - not many!

[Witton Park]

How many 15 year olds with exceptional abilities are still running at that level 5 years later? - not many!

I'd just be interested for you to explain what you mean by that Mike

[DrPatrickBarry]

Yes, Witton Park, I suppose most truly great athletes begin to demostrate greateness from quite a young age.

[Witton Park]

I really don't know, but I've come in to athletics and been "educated" that we should start later, develop multi skills and you here the sort of comments that Mike has come out with all the time.
I'm not persuaded by this.
But in the 70s, 2 kids were taking lumps out of each other in 800m races at junior champs level and one developed at 15/16 to be to heavy to run other than as a casual club member whilst the other went on to Olympics.
The one who lapsed in her teens wouldn't have you take away her medals, experiences and anecdotes.

Who are we to decide to put a lid on a junior athlete and save them for their adult years, when they may not be there.

Mike may not mean it that way. I think there's a lot to be said that any endurance athlete has a window of a few years - maybe 3 - 5 where they are at a peak. That seems to vary age wise from athlete to athlete, but there's few exceptions to this.
Some have that window late teens and some mid-30s.

[Mike T]

Several issues here - what percentage of really good mid teen runners are still really good as adults; why this happens; and should the aim be success as adults over success as teenagers, assuming we may have to choose between the two.

I cannot quote definite figures but I have heard from many different sources about "star runners" who just vanished from the scene - but I guess that is a bit like the fish that got away. One american coach's figure of 99% failure comes to mind but I cannot recall the exact context - it is on a UKA video or podcast.

The reasons for lack of ongoing success are legion - most youngsters who are really good have a temporary advantage - early developers who are really adults but have not yet put on weight; late developers who do not yet have to cope with lactic acid; those still under the influence of their parents; those who are over or "narrowly" trained and shortly to become sidelined by repeated injuries; those who have not yet been distracted by the opposite sex/mobile phones/facebook .....

As to whether we should hold them back as teens because of the remote possibility of success as adults - very philosophical - and it partly comes down to the definition of success - a teenager will almost certainly be delighted to be best in club - but will an adult?