Forums >Running 101>Monday runs...
Michigan, and no, we didn't run 3K races in 1975.
I don't see any reason not to believe shipo's 9:27. However, I do take issue with his chest-thumping with this kid who has probably never raced a 2-mile.
And I think, shipo, 9:27 as a high school senior IS pretty special. I understand that it's probably not going to win most state track meets, but as mikey pointed out, that's a time that puts any high school runner among the very best in his state.
- Joe
We are fragile creatures on collision with our judgment day.
This was all I was sayin'.
I believe shipo ran that fast, I just think he's downplaying how rare it is and tramping on some kid who's nervous about an upcoming time trial in order to humblebrag about back in the day.
Runners run
Given that the Michigan state meet record set in 1974 for the 2-mile is 9:00.4 for Class A (the others a good bit slower),
I'm glad I'm not the only one who looked that up.
And yeah, 9:27's fast, props if you ran it.
The way shipo said it the first time I took it as "eh, I wasn't that quick, (insert Paul Ryan estimate)"
Know thyself.
I hate to break it to you, but 9:27 is and always has been a rare talent. If there were 4 of you that or faster in a LEAGUE, not state meet, in Michigan no less, that is absolutely freakish.
Incidentally as an aside... this past spring my poor son's regional meet had the top 3 guys in the state -- yes, freakish and a bit unfair, but sometimes that's how the dice tumble. So, everyone else was racing for 4th and the last State qualifier. These guys blew out the mile (1600) in something like 4:14, 4:17, 4:24, so their 2-mile times that evening weren't that "stellar" (but still all under 9:50). All three of them had gone 9:20 during the season. At State the following weekend they went 1-2-3 again.
MTA: Looking below it seems I should clarify. These guys I'm talking about ran these times in the 1600 race, not as first splits of the 2-mile. They were all doubling, and two of them were tripling (with the 800). Actually, they ran the first 1600 split of the 3200 very slow, around 5:05, but the point I was making was I think those sub-4:20s in the mile race took some of the starch out of a couple of them.
Latent Runner
This was all I was sayin'. I believe shipo ran that fast, I just think he's downplaying how rare it is and tramping on some kid who's nervous about an upcoming time trial in order to humblebrag about back in the day.
Seriously, "...tramping on some kid who's nervous about an upcoming time trial..."
I never did anything of the sort, in fact, we haven't even ascertained that the OP is a kid. All I was responding to was the assumption that it was a high school kid based upon the 12:00 3200 meter goal, which I took to be a bad assumption . The way I interpreted the original post, I was reading from an adult who had set himself or herself a 12:00 goal.
Fat old man PRs:
I had a race like that, burned through the first mile in 4:34, which in and of itself probably wasn't that big of a deal; the problem was when my brain processed the split it realized I'd just run my fastest single mile of my life (to that point in the time), and I still had a mile to go. Long story short, my brain tanked before my legs did; if I recall correctly, I barely broke 10:00 on that run.
In this day and aged, even a descent middle-school runner should be able to run under 12 minutes.
That's tramping on someone, when they're worried about 12:00,
When there's at least 3 of us here who are "decent" runners, who didn't break 12 until sophomore/junior year of high school
The way I interpreted the original post, I was reading from an adult who had set himself or herself a 12:00 goal.
Oh well, that makes it all better then. According to you then this adult should certainly be able to get out there and run a 9:30. I don't know what his problem is worrying about 12:00! What a loser! BTW, when was the last time you ran a 9:30 2-mile? I'm guessing it might have been in the 1970s. Have you done it as an adult, then? You know, on 40-50 miles per week?
It seems you're inclined to misinterpret my words regardless of what I write; thanks for that.
A few points:
That's tramping on someone, when they're worried about 12:00, When there's at least 3 of us here who are "decent" runners, who didn't break 12 until sophomore/junior year of high school
Hmmm, something doesn't sound right; my middle school track team had not one, not two, not three, but four different runners all under 12:00, and not one of us finished in the top 3 in the league meet (I finished 4th with an 11:03). So now it appears I'm guilty of an assumption as well; my assumption was that in the 40 years since I left my middle school era behind, runners had become faster. Sorry, my bad. Once again, I never intended on tramping on anyone with a 12:00 3200m goal, and if my words were taken that way, I'm sorry.
Bingo.
Let's set aside the assumption that the OP is a high school kid--a decent enough guess since high school xc starts on Monday in a lot of places, but still irrelevant.
Whether the OP is a 14 year old girl, a 17 year old boy, a 32-year-old male police academy cadet, or something else altogether, to say that "even a descent (sic) middle-school runner should be able to run under 12 minutes" simply because you ran 9:27 in high school is insulting. Not to mention incorrect.
...my middle school track team had not one, not two, not three, but four different runners all under 12:00...
If you actually have respect for his (or anyone's) goals and aren't trying to pound your own (era's) chest, writing like this doesn't get that across at all.
Also with regards to the training, my best 3k in college was a 9:13, which converts to ~10 for 2 miles, off of 70 mpw, while training for 5ks, over the 10:20's I was running for 2 miles in high school on 30-40 mpw.
MTA: And you yourself were running faster at 2 miles while training for 10k, and I'd also say your 2 mile time is far and away faster than your 10k
I think there is no question of the fact that I was a better 2-mile (and shorter) runner compared to longer races, however, back in 1982, I could find a 10K race to enter in the Chicago area almost every (spring, summer, fall) weekend, finding a 2-mile race was challenging to say the very least. Were it that I was in fact training for 2-mile racing, I would have cut back some of the mileage I was running back then and gone for much more speed work.
Bingo. Let's set aside the assumption that the OP is a high school kid--a decent enough guess since high school xc starts on Monday in a lot of places, but still irrelevant. Whether the OP is a 14 year old girl, a 17 year old boy, a 32-year-old male police academy cadet, or something else altogether, to say that "even a descent (sic) middle-school runner should be able to run under 12 minutes" simply because you ran 9:27 in high school is insulting. Not to mention incorrect.
Once again you're being deliberately obtuse, the only reason why I used my high-school time was as a reference point for a high-school runner, and show why the assumption that the OP was a high-school kid was a bad assumption. It has nothing to do with who the OP is or why he or she set the 12:00 goal.
At this point I'm done with this discussion, if you want to continue being a jerk, be my guest.
[A] 32-year-old male police academy cadet...
...is probably going to Sportsjester for all his training.
...running 40-50 miles per week (more like 25-35), that's just too many miles per week when training for a 2-Mile(ish) event.
I did it all wrong.
There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.
We are always running for the thrill of it
Always pushing up the hill, searching for the thrill of it