Cain 9:38.68 2-mile!!

Jerome Kopf wrote:

SHOULD HAVE COULD HAVE

Mary Cain never ran a 2 mile in h.s.

However she did run a h.s. 1 mile last February in the Millrose Games

Results

New Balance High School Girls' Mile

Finals

1 Nadel, Samantha North Shore 4:46.19M

2 Moye, Megan Cosby 4:49.95

3 Nerud, Brianna North Shore 4:50.12

4 Cain, Mary Bronxville 4:52.19

Has to be sed wrote:

That's quite an improvement in 1year. I mean, she averaged faster than that per mile tonight. Bring out the Salazar/PED haters.

Regardalert. wrote:

Good thing she went 4:31 equiv last year f'tard.

How does that change the fact that going from a 4:52 mile to averaging 4:49/mile for the deuce in one year is quite an improvement?

THIS BOARD NEEDS A BLANKET POLICY: BAN ALL BLOOMING IDIOTS FOR LIFE AFTER A SINGLE DAMN OFFENSE.

I was thinking the same thing after reading that idiot's useless post. 8:55 and she is running indoors. Get her on a 400 meter track- amazing.

Typing in all caps is an offense. Good-bye loser.

These stupid conversions that everyone keeps creating are ridiculous.

It's an extra 218 meters from 3k to the 2 mile, she actually split 9:04 today which means her 9:38 is worth 9:02 factoring her closing the previous 200 meters all out. It's common knowledge to add 36 seconds to a 3k to get a conversion which, if you did that to her race from Washington when she ran 9:02 you get a miracle 9:38. The 36 seconds is for a 9:00 3k, 38 sec for 10:00 3k, and 34 sec for a 8:00, 32 sec for a 7:30 3k. If you follow those simple guifelines you can convert almost any paced 3k into a 2 mile accurately.

I have no idea how people like the Brojos are converting this to a 8:55, she split 9:04, where is she possibly ever going to find that 9 seconds by only running 218 meteres less?

How in the world they converted her 9:02 into a 9:45 is also crazy, so she would have to slow down an extra 1sec per 400 or 4 sec per mile to run an extra 218 meters? You run both races exactly the same pace and just kick a lap later so you have the 15th lap about 2 seconds slower and that's it. Am I the only person that uses these Very accurate and simple concepts?

Who gives a shit what it "converts" to? It was a 9:38 deuce...nothing more, nothing less. Get over your damn self.

Has to be sed wrote:

Jerome Kopf wrote:

SHOULD HAVE COULD HAVE

Mary Cain never ran a 2 mile in h.s.

However she did run a h.s. 1 mile last February in the Millrose Games

Results

New Balance High School Girls' Mile

Finals

1 Nadel, Samantha North Shore 4:46.19M

2 Moye, Megan Cosby 4:49.95

3 Nerud, Brianna North Shore 4:50.12

4 Cain, Mary Bronxville 4:52.19

Has to be sed wrote:

That's quite an improvement in 1year. I mean, she averaged faster than that per mile tonight. Bring out the Salazar/PED haters.

Regardalert. wrote:

Good thing she went 4:31 equiv last year f'tard.

How does that change the fact that going from a 4:52 mile to averaging 4:49/mile for the deuce in one year is quite an improvement?

If she ran a 4:31 equiv last year that is your reference point. Her best race, not an awful one.

Growupoldman wrote:

(Assortment of breathtakingly ignorant bullshit)

Wejo and Rojo didn't invent the conversion factor. Multiplying by 1.08 to get from a 1500 to a mile or from a 3000 to a two-mile has been standard practice forever. T&F News uses it, and more important statistica bear it out. None of your "well this assumes this and that and it's all a load of horse manure!" means a frigging thing. So shut up; sit back; watch closely; and learn from your betters and elders.

Mautherve Ockar wrote:

Growupoldman wrote:

(Assortment of breathtakingly ignorant bullshit)

Wejo and Rojo didn't invent the conversion factor. Multiplying by 1.08 to get from a 1500 to a mile or from a 3000 to a two-mile has been standard practice forever. T&F News uses it, and more important statistica bear it out. None of your "well this assumes this and that and it's all a load of horse manure!" means a frigging thing. So shut up; sit back; watch closely; and learn from your betters and elders.

Actually what he wrote was pretty spot on. Most importantly, if she came through 3000 in 9:04, how can you suggest that she could run 9 seconds faster by only cutting off 218 meters?

Perspectivation wrote:

If she ran a 4:31 equiv last year that is your reference point. Her best race, not an awful one.

That was outdoors in July. That's less than one year and not indoors. See the difference?

Well, she set the bar very high, times and records are limited from here on out!

I hope she is like Rupp and can run with the Africans someday!

BTY: See looks so smooth, no muscle that that can see, doesnt look like a runner until she runs, funny huh, anyway I hope see can meet the great expectations some expect now!

Raptured wrote:

Actually what he wrote was pretty spot on. Most importantly, if she came through 3000 in 9:04, how can you suggest that she could run 9 seconds faster by only cutting off 218 meters?

Faulty premise, raptured. I didn't suggest any such thing. What you and others for some weird reason have a very difficult time understanding is the difference between an evenly-paced all-out race and one involving a vicious kick, and related to this is your refusal to distinguish between going through X meters of a race X + Y meters long in a given time and running a race of distance X in a given time.

No one is saying that Cain could have turned her 9:38.6 deuce into an 8:55.8 YESTERDAY. Instead, it's a matter of anyone running 9:38.6 being unquestionably CAPABLE of that time.

Are you better educated on this stuff by the top statisticians in track and field? Apparently now, and if your username is any indication you may be a bible believer as well, which would automatically disqualify you from any arguments founded on logic and reason anyway.

Has to be sed wrote:

Perspectivation wrote:

If she ran a 4:31 equiv last year that is your reference point. Her best race, not an awful one.

That was outdoors in July. That's less than one year and not indoors. See the difference?

What I see is progression.

9:38.68 / 1.08 = 8:55.82

The 1500 conversion is also inaccurate. Cento split 3:41.5 to proceed to run 3:56 but the conversion is 3:59. I have been following meets for a while now and the conversion for the 4:00 min mile is more like 15.5 to 16 seconds which I find is the most accurate for that pace which again falls right in line.

And I disagree, a 9:38 runner with equal fitness is a 8:55 because,the performances do not line up.

Btw I get my knowledge from 1. An Olympian that is stat obcessed and has his own calculators which he has proved more accurate then the traditional ones you stat exaggerating people like to use and 2. Running regression analysis on 1500 splits in mile performances over the past 30 years when they are available. Once placed in real life situations for coaching purposes they are more accurate then your 1.08 nonsense.

3:43.13 / 3:26.00 = 1.08315534

9:38.68 / 1.08315534 = 8:54.3

People talk about her form, but why fix something if its not broke?

A fix might lead to her running slower times.

Same with Radcliffe her form works best the way it is, even if its goofy.

The structure of her tendons, etc, she is built like a running machine. Her neck is short lol, but as long as she runs fast thats all that matters.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

Well, she set the bar very high, times and records are limited from here on out!

I hope she is like Rupp and can run with the Africans someday!

BTY: See looks so smooth, no muscle that that can see, doesnt look like a runner until she runs, funny huh, anyway I hope see can meet the great expectations some expect now!

Perspectivation wrote:

What I see is progression.

Then you agree with me.

OK - I have not heard this from others but I have a problem with Mary Cain, Ed Chez, Lukas V, and all the running with pro's to break records. I don't think these times and records compare with kids who run great times in real HS events. If you are great, then run fast time is regular events, be the one out front, and earn the record in the same context as people have in the past. I truly view these as false records. We all know setting matters - quality of competitors, rabbits, I don't like it and think records should be set under specific context and settings - this running with the pros is for the birds.