It is interesting that you called someone else a moron right after stating your belief that the '0.1' in XC is equal to 200m. It is 172 meters (assuming that the course is an accurate 5k). Nice try, dunce.[/quote]
Haha 'douche' it isn't 172meters. It is actually 178meters. Either way, she wouldn't close 172meters in 23secs. Sorry.
No. 3 X 1609.34 = 4828.02
5000 - 4828.02 = 171.98
calculus wrote:
It is interesting that you called someone else a moron right after stating your belief that the '0.1' in XC is equal to 200m. It is 172 meters (assuming that the course is an accurate 5k). Nice try, dunce.
Haha 'douche' it isn't 172meters. It is actually 178meters. Either way, she wouldn't close 172meters in 23secs. Sorry.[/quote]
You know that part in The Big Lebowski where The Dude tells Walter he's not wrong, he's just an a$$hole? Well, you are both wrong and an a$$hole.
5 kilometers = 3.10686 miles
.10686 mile = 171.9745 meters
And no, Baxter probably wouldn't close that last 172 in 23; more like 25 or 26.
15:57 / 3 = 5:19 per mile, 5:19 / 10 = :32, so 16:29 for 3.1 miles = 5k.
Both Baxter and Cain are awesome. Better than Hasay was in high school, judging from course records. Baxter was the first to break Julia Stamps's CA state course record, and runs for course records like Stamps did.
It appears Baxter wanted to break 10:00 for 3200, but the temp was too high at the state meet.
And she hasn't done postseason races, and doesn't have Kosinski or other sub-10 people to race against in CA like Hasay did.
Nobody knows if Cain and Baxter will stay fast or encounter injury or burnout. I hope they enjoy it as long as they can.
Baxter, Cain, Hasay, all very good runners. But people please, this is cross country. And this argument is exactly why times mean nothing.
162430 wrote:
lolling wrote:Ummm no. As if she would have closed the final 200m in 23secs moron. More like a 16.30
It is interesting that you called someone else a moron right after stating your belief that the '0.1' in XC is equal to 200m. It is 172 meters (assuming that the course is an accurate 5k). Nice try, dunce.
You're both borderline ret@rded dumb fu@ks. Just do the math. The time she would have run if she maintained her exact average pace is 16'31.087064".
ray wrote:
Baxter, Cain, Hasay, all very good runners. But people please, this is cross country. And this argument is exactly why times mean nothing.
Times do mean something when you are comparing times on the same course or when you know exactly how long a course is. You know how fast at least someone is.
I don't get where you think Cain has improved that much more than Baxter over Baxter's last year NXN triumph. You have her running all sorts of crazy theorhetical times in XC based on track races where she had faster people running with her. Cain had a shot at Baxter at Nike and lost. Just get over it, and move on. Your theories about how fast she could run now are just theories and mean nothing.
watchout wrote:
get used to it. wrote:Keep dreaming about Cain.
Just how much slower than a track do you think this course is?
Cain ran 15:45.46 for 5k (in a controlled effort, though who knows how much faster - if any faster - she could have gone if she wasn't just aiming for the qualifying standard).
What's that worth for a 3 mile on the track? About a 15:10 (probably in the 15:07-15:12 range).
So you're talking 5 seconds for a 15:15, or 10 seconds for a 15:20. And if she was capable of better than a 15:45, you're getting even more wiggle-room for her to sneak under those marks.
It's not dreaming to think she can run faster than Baxter for 3 miles, whether it's cross country or not. She is THAT fast on the track, and going from rubber to grass will slow you down some, it won't be drastic. And it's not like that course is hilly or has many sharp turns, and if it's 3.01 miles by GPS it's probably anywhere from 2.98-3.01 if one were to wheel it.
It's a flat/fast 3 mile course. Of course Cain can run a ridiculous time on it - it's a grass track!
Just wanted to say that this is great! Cain gets to the world finals in track, but there's still another HS girl in XC who could arguably challenge her (in XC).
UMM last time I checked Baxter did race Cain.... Baxter won.... END of story...
liquid wrote:
UMM last time I checked Baxter did race Cain.... Baxter won.... END of story...
Baxter will always beat Cain because Baxter won the last race!
I ran the Woodbridge cross country course tangent to tangent and came up with 2.92 miles. The course is flat and very fast. Most college coaches ignore Woodbridge times when it comes to recruiting distance runners. They know Woodbridge times are inflated.
That is great! As long as people realize Cain didn't go to Worlds in track to run the 5000.
Noname wrote:
Just wanted to say that this is great! Cain gets to the world finals in track, but there's still another HS girl in XC who could arguably challenge her (in XC).
Same course and the same day i.e same race, then yes otherwise no comparison.
Sunken Meadow pre Sandy vs post Sandy = not even close to the same course
1980s Van Cortland vs. 2013 Van Cortland not the same
Thetford in the rain not even close to Thetford dry
Flat 2.92 mile race in California not the same as a 3.1 mile mountain race in New Hampshire
ray wrote:
Same course and the same day i.e same race, then yes otherwise no comparison.
Sunken Meadow pre Sandy vs post Sandy = not even close to the same course
1980s Van Cortland vs. 2013 Van Cortland not the same
Thetford in the rain not even close to Thetford dry
Flat 2.92 mile race in California not the same as a 3.1 mile mountain race in New Hampshire
Not true. You can at least gauge how fast someone is at the minimum from their finishing time. And no it doesn't have to be the same day, just the same course.
fecesinyourface wrote:
162430 wrote:It is interesting that you called someone else a moron right after stating your belief that the '0.1' in XC is equal to 200m. It is 172 meters (assuming that the course is an accurate 5k). Nice try, dunce.
You're both borderline ret@rded dumb fu@ks. Just do the math. The time she would have run if she maintained her exact average pace is 16'31.087064".
I am not a borderline ret@rded dumb fu@k. I know exactly what time she would have run had she maintained her exact average pace. I made no claims about how long the final 172 meters would take her; I was simply pointing out that it was ironic for someone who thought 5k was equal to 5028m to call someone else a moron.
Pretty much nothing true in the quoted statement. Wheel is the only thing that matters and several coaches wheeled the new course as spot on three miles. College coaches give Woodbridge a lot of respect as it correlates pretty well to who will do well post season.
Irvine Timmy wrote:
I ran the Woodbridge cross country course tangent to tangent and came up with 2.92 miles. The course is flat and very fast. Most college coaches ignore Woodbridge times when it comes to recruiting distance runners. They know Woodbridge times are inflated.
People are missing an important point. 15:57 at Woodbridge isn't an absolutely incredible time( for her) due to the speed of the course. She only ran 3 seconds slower at the ultra hilly Mt Sac course last season.
HOWEVER....last year she ran 16:12 on this same course. She is one of the few people to EVER consistently run a slower time at Woobridge than Mt Sac. She peaks better than anyone else, a large reason why she is undefeated. Not only that, she has mastered the art of "cruise control". Her coach rarely lets her race 100% , all out. She often pulls away effortlessly during the 2nd mile and just maintains an even pace until the finish. She does this an effort to manage a heavy racing schedule with her HS team. It has clearly worked well so far. Look at the Woodbridge results and then compare them to Mt Sac. The percentage of people who ran faster at Woobridge will be incredibly low....I would bet no more than 1-3%.
She had a little bit more in the tank at Woodbridge if she needed it. If she continues on this upward trajectory, we are going to see sub 15:50 at Mt Sac AND sub 16:25 for the FULL 5k at Woodward park.
There's no reason to argue about anything here. This is a fine time and she looks to be in fantastic shape, better than last year. The time was also better, which suggests but does not prove she's in better shape. Could be an all-time great senior xc season. Should be fun. So, don't let's spoil it.
You do remember what happened when Baxter raced Cain last year........don't you?