jmog;1004082 wrote:What I was saying that if a big out of shape guy like me can train for just a couple weeks and run a 10k in under 40 min, it says something.



Wrestling has to be in just as good shape (muscular endurance instead of cardiovascular), AND has to have great strength, and great technique that takes over a decade of training to obtain.

XC isn't something that starts at 4 and 5 years old to teach the sport like wrestling, no one picks it up until junior high at the earliest. So in just a couple years you can be great, no one wins state titles in wrestling if they didn't start back in grade school.

Depending on your age, a 40 minute 10k may be below the average.

Ty Morgan (3x state champ) did not start wrestling til Junior High. We could not remember if he started in 7th or 8th grade. Did confirm Ty's late start with a former Graham wrestler from around Ty's time.
Granted, this does not happen often. Wrestling has a lot more technique involved then distance running, no doubt about it.

ccrunner609;1003661 wrote:like I said.....8 year old girls can play soccer at a decent level............

ccrunner609;1003645 wrote:Running 45 minute 10k doesnt give you the ability to understand what a top tier runner goes through.

I like how you make your point by (a) bringing up youth sports for a sport that isn't pure running AND THEN (b) immediately jump into the best of the best for running.

I can make any sport look like the best if I compare an elite professional in it to a child in another sport. Back in his prime, Randy Moss totally owned that 6-year-old doing a one-mile fun run, so FOOTBALL RULES!!!!

Easiest sport- Cross Country/Track.

I really don't want to get caught up in this debate which is basically just a huge pissing match but I ran cross country and track in high school and college. At my HS we had a lot of wrestlers who also ran CC. My junior year I decided to try it out because we would wrestle before practice and they all thought I'd be pretty good at it. Wrestling was a lot tougher and harder than running was and their is no question about it. Sometimes I wish I could have continued to do it because it was a lot of fun and I was even pretty good at it but I quit doing it at the start of the season and got a job to help out my family after my step-dad had been laid off. My favorite thing was always when we ran in our HS for wrestling and everyone would just call me insane and crazy. I was also always told a lot by wrestlers and football players that they just never could imagine running as much as I did. Now if you want to ask me which is harder wrestling full out for 6 minutes or running a sub 16 5k or sub 32 10k I'm going with the sub 16 5k/sub 32 10k.

OSH- Maybe it depends on what school you go to but at my HS you didn't get a varsity letter for just "going out and running." In Cross Country you had to be in the top 7 on the team for at least 50% of the meets to get a varsity letter and in track our coach had a certain number of points you had to get throughout the year to get a varsity letter I believe it was 150 though.

Iliketurtles;1004402 wrote:OSH- Maybe it depends on what school you go to but at my HS you didn't get a varsity letter for just "going out and running." In Cross Country you had to be in the top 7 on the team for at least 50% of the meets to get a varsity letter and in track our coach had a certain number of points you had to get throughout the year to get a varsity letter I believe it was 150 though.

That is true. To my knowledge, I know of several schools that just require running in a specific number of meets. You don't have to be top 7 or anything. Maybe you have to get a specific number of points or something. I don't remember exactly. I know my girlfriend in high school ran cross and she was awful...but she had 4 letters! She was also a track "runner." I got recruited by the track coach by those few things: easy letter, no bench in track, and have fun/feel good about yourself.

OSH;1004519 wrote:That is true. To my knowledge, I know of several schools that just require running in a specific number of meets. You don't have to be top 7 or anything. Maybe you have to get a specific number of points or something. I don't remember exactly. I know my girlfriend in high school ran cross and she was awful...but she had 4 letters! She was also a track "runner." I got recruited by the track coach by those few things: easy letter, no bench in track, and have fun/feel good about yourself.

Yeah I think thats kinda dumb to just give it to everyone who participates in a certain number of meets. I mean for cross country at least you know that top 7 is considered Varsity. Some meets they even have a varsity and open races and in the varsity race you can only have a max of 7 guys in it.

Iliketurtles;1004402 wrote:
Now if you want to ask me which is harder wrestling full out for 6 minutes or running a sub 16 5k or sub 32 10k I'm going with the sub 16 5k/sub 32 10k.

:thumbup:

ccrunner609;1004645 wrote:Said you cant argue with people taht wont listen. They try to discredit you and when you counter them with a solid post, they change their discredit criteria.

When people cant see past the end of their nose its no use. We can all agree that wrestlers and CC runners that reach the top of their sport are all tough and are probably equally so. To just participate at either still takes some fortitude but not that much.

How did you ever become a teacher?

OSH;1003918 wrote:Don't get me wrong being a top XC runner is tough. Just like being a top athlete in any sport is tough. But the majority of cross country runners are not "tough." The majority of track participants are not "tough." It is a lot easier to be a participant in cross country and/or track than it is in any other sport.

Kind of a bold statement to make. Some people run a 15 minute 5K and it's tough for them. Others run a 22:00 minute 5K and it's tough for them. Just because they aren't "good" doesn't mean they aren't having a tough time with it. I think your last sentence is way off. IMO, it's one of the toughest sports to just do for participation.

friendfromlowry;1004707 wrote:Kind of a bold statement to make. Some people run a 15 minute 5K and it's tough for them. Others run a 22:00 minute 5K and it's tough for them. Just because they aren't "good" doesn't mean they aren't having a tough time with it. I think your last sentence is way off. IMO, it's one of the toughest sports to just do for participation.

While I do agree that people have different forms of "toughness," track and cross country aren't "tough" to participate in.

Everyone else has given their past experiences with various sports, and I've given mine with it. I have seen many members of track and/or cross country teams...it's not "tough" by any means to participate in. Again, that's my experiences with it. My high school flame, is the best example I can give...she ran 4 years of both and was not good at either -- although I think she did do well one year at a league cross meet. She never won an event in track. Probably never even came in the top 4-6. But yet she continued to participate all 4 years. I know, this can be said for other sports and other peoples' experiences.

You can join track and be a participant for one event. How is that tough? You are called upon to maybe jump into a pit of sand...a couple of times. You are called to shot put...a couple of times. Throw discus...a couple of times. Participating in those aren't tough. Now, competing...to be a top competitor, absolutely it takes more. But to just participate, in high school, it doesn't take a lot of time and dedication. The same cannot be said for wrestling, football, basketball, soccer, or really even baseball. Those coaches don't want to put up with individuals who won't make the team or their teammates better. Whereas, track and cross country, the coach may only put so much into those individuals who are out to "participate" rather than "compete." It is really up to the individual in those sports in how well they will compete.

But it is tough to be great at it. No one can credibly post on this thread that they can "train" for two weeks and run a sub 16 5K, particularly at a difficult SE Ohio course like Jackson or Rio Grande. Participation isn't the question, and shouldn't be unless we're talking basketball where most HS cut due to the roster limit. Just because someone can participate in a 5K and finish 149 out of 150 doesn't detract the time and effort it took for the guys that finished at the top.

I can credibly tell you that with no training or experience, I can not only participate in soccer, but no embarrass myself and my team won't overly suffer, hence IMO why it is the easiest sport.

Manhattan Buckeye;1004826 wrote:But it is tough to be great at it. No one can credibly post on this thread that they can "train" for two weeks and run a sub 16 5K, particularly at a difficult SE Ohio course like Jackson or Rio Grande. Participation isn't the question, and shouldn't be unless we're talking basketball where most HS cut due to the roster limit. Just because someone can participate in a 5K and finish 149 out of 150 doesn't detract the time and effort it took for the guys that finished at the top.

I can credibly tell you that with no training or experience, I can not only participate in soccer, but no embarrass myself and my team won't overly suffer, hence IMO why it is the easiest sport.

It is tough to be great at ANY sport!

Participation is part of the equation. You don't see many people "participating" on any team (like football, baseball, basketball, and soccer) sport rosters in high school OR college. There are plenty of "participants" and "competitors" that are on rosters of high school AND college track and cross teams. It happens. I see it happen every day.

So, those actual high school and cross country teams and their participants trump your intramural and rec league experiences, in my opinion.

"So, those actual high school and cross country teams and their participants trump your intramural and rec league experiences, in my opinion. "

Forget my experience, take a school's, any school's best CC runner and have them play on the college's soccer team for a day. On the other hand, take the soccer's team best runner and put him the CC's team next meet. The soccer player will undoubtedly finish last in the meet, while at worst having the CC player on the soccer team may end up in one more goal for the opponent.

Manhattan Buckeye;1004851 wrote:"So, those actual high school and cross country teams and their participants trump your intramural and rec league experiences, in my opinion. "

Forget my experience, take a school's, any school's best CC runner and have them play on the college's soccer team for a day. On the other hand, take the soccer's team best runner and put him the CC's team next meet. The soccer player will undoubtedly finish last in the meet, while at worst having the CC player on the soccer team may end up in one more goal for the opponent.

Not true.

I even gave an example of an all-conference soccer player who ran a half marathon...in the middle of the season. She ran 10 miles the day before (maybe 2 days before) a half marathon. She wins it in 1:31ish. She also almost was an All-American in the marathon. She qualified for the marathon in December, which would've been a month and a half after our season ended. She beat the A-standing by 5+ minutes. She finished the marathon 2-4 spots out of All-American status. Not too bad. She had never ran cross or track EVER before. She played soccer all her life. She was almost an All-American in less than 6 months. She qualified for the marathon in less than a month of "training."

She also qualified for the Boston. So...the best soccer player was essentially one of the best runners on the track team at Nationals, in a matter of months/weeks. I also guarantee you that MOST college track coaches try to pick up athletes from other sports. Many football players are also sprinters or throwers. Soccer players are usually mid-distance runners. An assistant basketball coach at my university now jumped 6'10" high jump -- he probably could've played basketball elsewhere but probably got a nice offer for jumping. I have yet to see ANY basketball, football, or soccer coaches going to track or cross country coaches "recruiting" their runners to participate in their respective sports. Why? If it is so easy...

I sort of stopped reading with "she" and stopped reading completely at 1:31 half. A runner on a Div I college's MALE CC team is routinely pulling a sub 35 10K. No soccer, football or basketball player is doing that on a whim without training. As for the 1:31, whoopty-freaking-do, the 90 minute time is usually the goal for 40 something male runners that enjoy the sport. If she won the race with that time that was one terrible field. Most halfs have a female winner between 80-85 minutes. It doesn't seem like much of a difference but it is.

OSH;1004840 wrote:It is tough to be great at ANY sport!

Participation is part of the equation. You don't see many people "participating" on any team (like football, baseball, basketball, and soccer) sport rosters in high school OR college. There are plenty of "participants" and "competitors" that are on rosters of high school AND college track and cross teams. It happens. I see it happen every day.

So, those actual high school and cross country teams and their participants trump your intramural and rec league experiences, in my opinion.

Just for the record, I never vouched that the track & field kids were tough. I'm claiming that running is what's tough. As for what I bolded above, those sports all have roster limits. They have to cut kids. When I was in high school, there were like 30-40 kids who went out for varsity basketball. If the team wasn't required to cut, then you'd have a team of like 10-12 players and then 20+ other kids just hanging out, never playing, etc.
I will agree with you that track is the slacker's sport. Suppose you're a 15 year old kid and your parents are demanding that you do some type of sport...you're kind of slow, lazy, overweight....you have a couple of buddies on the track team already, what's the logical solution here? You join the team, throw discuss, maybe you're actually good at it, but more importantly no one expects anything out of you -- as long as you show up, you're on the team. More than likely, there's probably already a handful of shotput throwers on the team who are good and want to be there, so if track was like any other sport, they would then just tell you to get lost. But for some reason they let everybody stick around...

If track did have cuts, and they only kept two-three athletes per event, it would be considered a lot less of a participation sport.

"If track did have cuts,"

It does. I went to a small division school and we had four guys that wanted to run the 3200. We could only field two so the coach started his best runner (and ironically, also his son) every meet at the 32 and the three of us took turns while the others ran the 1600 and the 800.....I would consider that being cut. It wasn't fun finishing at the bottom 25% of the 800 (a very, very difficult race to train for), but it made up for it for the times I could run (and place) in the 3200.

Manhattan Buckeye;1004936 wrote:"If track did have cuts,"

It does. I went to a small division school and we had four guys that wanted to run the 3200. We could only field two so the coach started his best runner (and ironically, also his son) every meet at the 32 and the three of us took turns while the others ran the 1600 and the 800.....I would consider that being cut. It wasn't fun finishing at the bottom 25% of the 800 (a very, very difficult race to train for), but it made up for it for the times I could run (and place) in the 3200.

What I meant was literally cut from the team. What you described is basically how a lot of long distance teams work, mine included. We had about 15 guys competing for a spot on the 4x8, 800, 1600, 3200. And considering the best athletes will double events, you have about six guys running all those spots, while the others hung around, competed in the quad meets, and wasted space. So what I meant was you keep six-eight guys then cut the other half completely (as in they don't have a jersey, they don't compete period, they don't travel to meets -- they're just not on the team) then track is viewed as less of a participation sport. You have a lot less "dead weight" hanging around.

Manhattan Buckeye;1004869 wrote:I sort of stopped reading with "she" and stopped reading completely at 1:31 half. A runner on a Div I college's MALE CC team is routinely pulling a sub 35 10K. No soccer, football or basketball player is doing that on a whim without training. As for the 1:31, whoopty-freaking-do, the 90 minute time is usually the goal for 40 something male runners that enjoy the sport. If she won the race with that time that was one terrible field. Most halfs have a female winner between 80-85 minutes. It doesn't seem like much of a difference but it is.

Oh here we go, continuing to alter the discussion to fit within your parameters of your argument.

A sub-35 in a 10k? So you are saying DI men are only running 6.2 miles in 35 minutes? Shouldn't the goal be much less than 35 minutes? You should've done your research...if you ran much over 33 minutes then you wouldn't even be in the DI cross national championships. I understand you said "sub-35," but even I know that it should be at least two minutes less and really aiming for 5-7 minutes less is the time they should be "routinely" running.

Running a 1:31 is quality. No training. In the middle of soccer season. A day (or two) after running 10 miles. You cannot downplay that for ANY gender or ANY age. That is solid. Those 40-something male runners that "enjoy the sport" also train to run 13.1 miles and aim for that 1:31. Her goal was to finish the race (and probably win). Looking at MANY half marathon results, she would finish in the top 30-40 total competitors when the field is over 300...that's pretty good for a first time competitor. Most halfs do not have a female winner between 80-85...and even if they did, that winner is not running in her first half marathon and has probably also trained.

Keep inventing the rules as the discussion continues.

ccrunner609;1004910 wrote:Couple things........your soccer player friend should be runniing and not playing soccer then if she did that right out of the box. Also any great "athlete" can jump to other things like sprinting in track.

I do agree, she probably could've been suited to run more than play soccer. But her dedication to soccer made her an incredible runner. She was a 4-year all-conference player and should've been player of the year once.

friendfromlowry;1004921 wrote:Just for the record, I never vouched that the track & field kids were tough. I'm claiming that running is what's tough. As for what I bolded above, those sports all have roster limits. They have to cut kids. When I was in high school, there were like 30-40 kids who went out for varsity basketball. If the team wasn't required to cut, then you'd have a team of like 10-12 players and then 20+ other kids just hanging out, never playing, etc.
I will agree with you that track is the slacker's sport. Suppose you're a 15 year old kid and your parents are demanding that you do some type of sport...you're kind of slow, lazy, overweight....you have a couple of buddies on the track team already, what's the logical solution here? You join the team, throw discuss, maybe you're actually good at it, but more importantly no one expects anything out of you -- as long as you show up, you're on the team.

If track did have cuts, and they only kept two-three athletes per event, it would be considered a lot less of a participation sport.

No one has to actually "cut" kids. I know rosters of soccer teams that are in the 50s and 60s! That's large. High school football teams can carry hundreds. Basketball may "cut," but they can also get away with having one or two freshman teams, maybe multiple reserve teams, and then a varsity team -- so that could mean they have 40-50 in the basketball program (at least 10 for each team, and carrying 4 teams).

My argument has always been that track and cross country are the easiest sports for people to "participate" and "compete" in. That's my experiences in high school and college. I have seen MANY more student-athletes recruited by track and cross coaches that are predominately athletes of another sport. I have rarely seen any athletes recruited FROM a cross or track team. Have I ever downplayed top track or cross runners? Nope. But there is a drastic difference in the members of high school cross/track teams and that of the "team" sports. Same goes for my experiences in colleges/universities. Track and cross can be done, and can be done competitively from other athletes of other sports.

Manhattan Buckeye;1004936 wrote:"If track did have cuts,"

It does. I went to a small division school and we had four guys that wanted to run the 3200. We could only field two so the coach started his best runner (and ironically, also his son) every meet at the 32 and the three of us took turns while the others ran the 1600 and the 800.....I would consider that being cut. It wasn't fun finishing at the bottom 25% of the 800 (a very, very difficult race to train for), but it made up for it for the times I could run (and place) in the 3200.

Really? That's called "depth." They have it in every sport. If you can't be the number one guy, then you are somewhere below OR you get better than the number one guy OR you choose another position/race OR you choose another sport. Simple as that.

This instance is nowhere close to being the same thing as actually being "cut."

OSH;1004948 wrote:No one has to actually "cut" kids. I know rosters of soccer teams that are in the 50s and 60s! That's large. High school football teams can carry hundreds. Basketball may "cut," but they can also get away with having one or two freshman teams, maybe multiple reserve teams, and then a varsity team -- so that could mean they have 40-50 in the basketball program (at least 10 for each team, and carrying 4 teams).

My argument has always been that track and cross country are the easiest sports for people to "participate" and "compete" in. That's my experiences in high school and college. I have seen MANY more student-athletes recruited by track and cross coaches that are predominately athletes of another sport. I have rarely seen any athletes recruited FROM a cross or track team. Have I ever downplayed top track or cross runners? Nope. But there is a drastic difference in the members of high school cross/track teams and that of the "team" sports. Same goes for my experiences in colleges/universities. Track and cross can be done, and can be done competitively from other athletes of other sports.

RE: Paragraph #1: Is this common for teams to be this large or just exceptions that you know of here or there? And I'm asking that out of curiosity, not being a smartass. I can only go by what I experienced in high school, and that was they had three basketball teams (freshman, JV, V) and STILL cut kids. I know cheerleading (not a sport, I know I know) and volleyball also cut. Not sure about football or soccer.

RE: Paragraph #2: I agree with your argument. It's easiest to participate and essentially just hide and make it look like you're active and try when really you don't care. But I still don't think that should carry the stereotype that track and field athletes are lazy or not tough or whatever you said earlier. I would guess that for every one kid out there who was just killing time, there's four others who love it and work their asses off.
Cross country, IMO, is just a whole different ballgame -- that is, it can't be compared to track. I ran XC for six years and there was no "hiding" in practice. Between mile repeats, hill runs, long distance runs -- every day was a challenge. You had to be tough mentally and physically to do it every day. I know that athletes from other sports can come out and survive it, I saw it happen all the time. But I think anyone who is out there doing it has to be tough.

Stop beclowning yourself, yeah if you want to be a champion you need to hit around 30 at the NCAA level, or in money-paying competitive 10Ks a 28, but there are very good runners at the collegiate level that are around 35, here is the SEC top runner results, note not every team is an Arkansas that recruits Africans.

http://sec.xosdigitallabs.com/Portals/3/SEC%20Website/crosscountry/Men%20Top%20Times.pdf

I don't why you have an issue with me, or the sport of distance running, but I'm guessing few people here have ever ran ONE sub 35 minute 10K, let alone several in a cross-country season. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm signing off on this one. Still think it's funny that a thread originally started by a troll has 150+ replies.

It's comical watching XC and Soccer guys argue about who's sport is tougher. They're both distance running, one just requires you to kick a ball once in a while.

2kool4skool;1005001 wrote:It's comical watching XC and Soccer guys argue about who's sport is tougher. They're both distance running, one just requires you to kick a ball once in a while.

The difference:

One requires being moderately fast for a long period of time.

The other requires being VERY fast for a long period of time.

With the wonderful invention of the internet and certain websites like www.raceit.com, there is actual evidence of someone's performance. I'm guessing anyone saying running isn't a sport isn't putting their 5K or 10K times down anytime soon. I love the sport and encourage participation, but getting off your beer couch and running a 5K for breast cancer, AIDS or whatever doesn't put you in the top echelon of the sport.

Manhattan Buckeye;1004966 wrote:I don't why you have an issue with me, or the sport of distance running, but I'm guessing few people here have ever ran ONE sub 35 minute 10K, let alone several in a cross-country season. You really have no idea what you are talking about.

No issue with you. I just don't think your stand alone, rec experience that says soccer is the easiest actually holds any validity.

I have no issues with distance running. One of my good friends is a DI assistant coach, ran DI, and ran for the all-time winningest XC coach in the history of high school competition. I just think that the "participation" and "competition" in high school or college cross and track is easier than "participating" and "competing" in ANY other sport in high school or college. I understand that top runners are tremendous and it takes A LOT of work to get there. But that's the same with any other sport as well. Most high school and college track/cross runners aren't "top" runners. They don't run the sub-35 10k's. They don't break an 10-11 second 100m. So on and so forth.

Again, just my experiences. I've seen way less from many cross/track runners than I have in other sports. When I start seeing ANY other coach recruiting cross/track athletes to participate in their sport, I'll be changing my mind to some extent.

friendfromlowry;1004964 wrote:RE: Paragraph #1: Is this common for teams to be this large or just exceptions that you know of here or there? And I'm asking that out of curiosity, not being a smartass. I can only go by what I experienced in high school, and that was they had three basketball teams (freshman, JV, V) and STILL cut kids. I know cheerleading (not a sport, I know I know) and volleyball also cut. Not sure about football or soccer.

It depends on the school, but yeah, there are schools that carry large rosters in soccer, have multiple teams in basketball, and have large football rosters. Is it common? I would say it's depending on the area and the school size.

Colleges carry large rosters too. A lot of DIII football teams carry 200, 170, 140 players. There are many DII soccer programs that carry 50+ on their rosters. I knew of an NAIA soccer program that had nearly 70 on their roster -- they could've fielded 3 teams! These rosters are large...but every kid comes in thinking they will be competing.