Nico Young 3:56.00 - 3rd collegian at UW.

GORP wrote:

snow bowl wrote:

Similar situation with Christian Soratos years ago. No one believed the conversion, and it was definitely legit.

Wait, Didn't his Flag mile convert down to 3:54.0's, where as he just ran 3:56.0? Two seconds is a lot in a mile. Definitely not trashing Nico's run, just pointing out that the conversion was 2 seconds fast. And someone already mentioned Osterstock's 4:01 run, as compared to his conversion from Flag.

That’s less then 2 seconds yes, but you’re not going to run the exact time week but week. I think Nico proved he can run a fast mile and 3:54 is not out of reach for him and on any given day it’s real.

GORP wrote:

Wait, Didn't his Flag mile convert down to 3:54.0's, where as he just ran 3:56.0? Two seconds is a lot in a mile. Definitely not trashing Nico's run, just pointing out that the conversion was 2 seconds fast. And someone already mentioned Osterstock's 4:01 run, as compared to his conversion from Flag.

People aren't robots. They don't run times within a second race after race after race. They have faster and slower races depending on who else in the race, how the race plays out (tactics), training, taper or no taper, etc. Sometimes the slower times are actually better races. (Not this situation, but a high school kid might have mile times that vary by over 30 seconds race to race for example... dual meet in 4:55, invitational 4:20.)

everyone's dad wrote:

Their times backed up altitude conversions as being close. Bot Bosley and Young ran a bit slower on an oversized track. Assuming the conversions are accurate, I don't like giving the full conversion for the purpose of qualifying for NCAA. I think it should be 75%. That's just my feeling. I don't like a guy not qualifying because he gets bumped by a guy who ran 7 seconds slower, especially when the guy runs slower at sea level. I could stomach getting bumped by a guy who doesn't get the 100% scientific conversion.

Bosley and Young ran a bit slower, but Nur ran WAY faster, and Grijalva also ran a much faster equivalent (7:41 at millrose). It's not that complicated.

I think he can run 3:54 but he shouldn't get credit for doing it. Nur beat him but has a slower "PR". Imagine somebody qualifying for NCAA based on a conversion but losing multiple times at sea level to somebody who doesn't qualify.

readingresponse wrote:

GORP wrote:

Wait, Didn't his Flag mile convert down to 3:54.0's, where as he just ran 3:56.0? Two seconds is a lot in a mile. Definitely not trashing Nico's run, just pointing out that the conversion was 2 seconds fast. And someone already mentioned Osterstock's 4:01 run, as compared to his conversion from Flag.

People aren't robots. They don't run times within a second race after race after race. They have faster and slower races depending on who else in the race, how the race plays out (tactics), training, taper or no taper, etc. Sometimes the slower times are actually better races. (Not this situation, but a high school kid might have mile times that vary by over 30 seconds race to race for example... dual meet in 4:55, invitational 4:20.)

You're 100% right. Please who post here would make terrible coaches because they do not know this.

sad news wrote:

Greg wrote:

I thought you would have rooted for Derek Holdsworth who had a DNF

When even the pacer gets roasted

This isn’t roasting Derek, it’s roasting rojo

Appreciation?? wrote:

NICO-POWER wrote:

He's a 10k guy. wow just wait until he steps to the line in that 10k

He seems like an aerobic monster. I wonder how much mile-specific stuff they've been doing. I bet not much. This was likely run on strength and indicates some big things for 5k/10k. But maybe I'm just hoping that's the case...

+1

WOW as my god as I nearly fell off my chair as I LOVE holdensworthy even as much as I LOVE elizabeth Holmes as it is a LOT and a TON as he DNFed

ofa lon teh

Guess Nico lost that "school record"...

This was a head slapper. Nur runs just ahead of Young in 3:55.94 or so and Young in 3:56, after Young beat Nur by 9 seconds at altitude, 4:02 to 4:11. Then Bosley, who was five seconds back of Young was a second or two back here in a fine time. Grijalva running 7:41 was not surprising because he ran a few seconds behind that last year and has never to my knowledge run a fast mile. They don't tend to do a lot of speed at NAU. Maybe Nur was sick last week, and maybe Bosley suffers more from altitude than Young. Or maybe both do. Still, no one would have predicted Young would run 3:56 in January prior to that 4:02 at altitude, and there was still a six second drop for him, so the altitude calculators were 75% right for the conversion, 6 of 8 seconds. But Nur and Bosley destroyed their conversions, so something else is at work there.

rojo wrote:

3 NAU guys broke 4:00.

https://twitter.com/NAUTrackFieldXC/status/1487574574313062401

Section 6

1 709 Heyward, Jake Nike 3:53.25M

2 1115 Fay, Brian Washington 3:55.14M

3 717 Nur, Abdihamid Northern Arizona 3:55.94

4 718 Young, Nico Northern Arizona 3:56.00

5 1147 Stallings, Zach Washington St. 3:59.04

6 716 Bosley, Drew Northern Arizona 3:59.34

7 880 Osterstock, Nate Southern Utah 4:01.35

8 711 Stanovsek, Mick Nike 4:03.24

9 607 Bons, Lucas Byu 4:05.03

10 531 Mauri, Vincent Arizona State 4:08.21

-- 978 Holdsworth, Derek Unattached DNF

I see now that Bosley ran 3:59. That actually puts him right at the altitude conversion, 8 seconds better.

readingresponse wrote:

GORP wrote:

Wait, Didn't his Flag mile convert down to 3:54.0's, where as he just ran 3:56.0? Two seconds is a lot in a mile. Definitely not trashing Nico's run, just pointing out that the conversion was 2 seconds fast. And someone already mentioned Osterstock's 4:01 run, as compared to his conversion from Flag.

People aren't robots. They don't run times within a second race after race after race. They have faster and slower races depending on who else in the race, how the race plays out (tactics), training, taper or no taper, etc. Sometimes the slower times are actually better races. (Not this situation, but a high school kid might have mile times that vary by over 30 seconds race to race for example... dual meet in 4:55, invitational 4:20.)

Come on. A 4:20 guy running 4:55 in a dual meet would be ridiculous. A 4:30 would be coasting and how does that have anything to do with Young’s last 2 races?

zvxcxzcv wrote:

Grijalva running 7:41 was not surprising because he ran a few seconds behind that last year and has never to my knowledge run a fast mile. .

Grijalva's run 3:35 for the 15, which converts to around a 3:52ish mile.

Probably a short course if that many from the same school broke 4.

sasdadadf wrote:

zvxcxzcv wrote:

Grijalva running 7:41 was not surprising because he ran a few seconds behind that last year and has never to my knowledge run a fast mile. .

Grijalva's run 3:35 for the 15, which converts to around a 3:52ish mile.

Thanks for reminding me.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

readingresponse wrote:

People aren't robots. They don't run times within a second race after race after race. They have faster and slower races depending on who else in the race, how the race plays out (tactics), training, taper or no taper, etc. Sometimes the slower times are actually better races. (Not this situation, but a high school kid might have mile times that vary by over 30 seconds race to race for example... dual meet in 4:55, invitational 4:20.)

Come on. A 4:20 guy running 4:55 in a dual meet would be ridiculous. A 4:30 would be coasting and how does that have anything to do with Young’s last 2 races?

4:55 might be all that's needed to win the dual meet. I've seen similar. I've personally had 37 second difference in a 2 mile race to next race in high school, as wells as 20 seconds race to next race in the mile in high school.

I ran under 4:25 several times and my fastest dual meet time was 4:38. I didn't have any competition in dual meets though, usually won them by 10-15 seconds.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

readingresponse wrote:

People aren't robots. They don't run times within a second race after race after race. They have faster and slower races depending on who else in the race, how the race plays out (tactics), training, taper or no taper, etc. Sometimes the slower times are actually better races. (Not this situation, but a high school kid might have mile times that vary by over 30 seconds race to race for example... dual meet in 4:55, invitational 4:20.)

Come on. A 4:20 guy running 4:55 in a dual meet would be ridiculous. A 4:30 would be coasting and how does that have anything to do with Young’s last 2 races?

Sometimes it takes 3:50 to win the Olympic 1500. The next time it might take 3:28 to win the Olympic 1500.

everyone responds to altitude differently and these results show that. beamish talks about it on the podcast episode they recorded one week before millrose. this is all anecdotal of course, but he was saying nico responded really well to altitude right away, while other guys on the team (he mentioned quax specifically) suffer big time up there. so it would make sense that nico runs a "faster" time at altitude relative to sea level while it looks like nur and bosley are the opposite. the point being that it is not an exact science because you can't account for all the individual variations on altitude effects.