meaningless wrote:
It's a shame they ran the basted 3200 instead of 2 miles.
I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
meaningless wrote:
It's a shame they ran the basted 3200 instead of 2 miles.
I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
I agree . wrote:
meaningless wrote:It's a shame they ran the basted 3200 instead of 2 miles.
I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
Umm, 3200m is two miles...
Using meters instead of the longer distance differentiates the track race from the road race. A 5K is on the road, and the 5,000m is on the track. 3200m is a track race and 2 miles is a road race.
How much faster would Clinger have been had he not soloed a 4:01 1600 the night before to finish off that record relay?
track vs. road wrote:
I agree . wrote:I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
Umm, 3200m is two miles...
Using meters instead of the longer distance differentiates the track race from the road race. A 5K is on the road, and the 5,000m is on the track. 3200m is a track race and 2 miles is a road race.
Wrong, 2 miles and 3200 meters are different units of entirely different systems of measurement (2 miles being slightly longer at roughly 3218 meters, aka NOT THE SAME DISTANCE), while 5000m and 5k are conversions of the same system of measurement. You are correct, however, in that 5k is most commonly used to refer to a road race and 5000m is mostly used to refer to a track race.
Has to be asked wrote:
How much faster would Clinger have been had he not soloed a 4:01 1600 the night before to finish off that record relay?
I think he would have been much closer to the win, although Teare's kick was extremely potent against that field, so it's debatable. Another thing to consider is that from what I saw, he wasn't really with the leaders, which leads me to guess he was boxed in pretty bad at the beginning. I'd have to rewatch, however, as I only noticed once Clinger moved up near the end. He still posted a phenomenal time, however. My question is if he's going to get another race where he can push the pace with someone to go faster than 8:43. Sure he could have gone faster (debatably) but I doubt he'll just happen to get a race to top this one.
With their many boys under 9:15 or even under 9:30 how hard would it be to run at a d1 college
Pessimist wrote:
It is so sad to see so many young kids doped up on EPO.
I wonder how many kids this applies to. Or some other oxygen vector agent that's currently not traceable and could be given to a kid by their parents.
The big question mark for me is Claudia Lane. In a couple month span between end of track season last year and beginning XC this year she went from 11:00 3200 fitness (and dead on equivalent time at state champs XC as freshman) to national class. 5:30 pace for two miles on the track turns into about 5:20-5:25 pace for 3 miles in XC. Didn't lose a significant amount of weight either. Certainly "not normal".
2 others were also under 9 in the unseeded section.
I agree . wrote:
meaningless wrote:It's a shame they ran the basted 3200 instead of 2 miles.
I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
I checked out this thread just to see if someone would point this out and am very happy that see that more than one reader has. Just like a 300m record getting mentioned here, it's kind of a bummer that this could be the pinnacle of some of these kids' careers and it comes at a non-standard distance that isn't considered to be an event by IAAF or even T&FN. Hopefully Centro doesn't succumb to such nonsense and make a record attempt at the equally meaningless 1600m this year!
track vs. road wrote:
I agree . wrote:I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
Umm, 3200m is two miles...
Using meters instead of the longer distance differentiates the track race from the road race. A 5K is on the road, and the 5,000m is on the track. 3200m is a track race and 2 miles is a road race.
This has to be a troll post. You can't be serious?
toomanyspikes wrote:
Has to be asked wrote:How much faster would Clinger have been had he not soloed a 4:01 1600 the night before to finish off that record relay?
I think he would have been much closer to the win, although Teare's kick was extremely potent against that field, so it's debatable. Another thing to consider is that from what I saw, he wasn't really with the leaders, which leads me to guess he was boxed in pretty bad at the beginning. I'd have to rewatch, however, as I only noticed once Clinger moved up near the end. He still posted a phenomenal time, however. My question is if he's going to get another race where he can push the pace with someone to go faster than 8:43. Sure he could have gone faster (debatably) but I doubt he'll just happen to get a race to top this one.
Fair enough and good points, but, personally, I think he would've sniffed 8:40 and maybe slightly faster...
Doctor Rosa By Any Other Color wrote:
The big question mark for me is Claudia Lane. In a couple month span between end of track season last year and beginning XC this year she went from 11:00 3200 fitness (and dead on equivalent time at state champs XC as freshman) to national class. 5:30 pace for two miles on the track turns into about 5:20-5:25 pace for 3 miles in XC. Didn't lose a significant amount of weight either. Certainly "not normal".
It is very common for 15 year-olds to have developmental spurts and improve rapidly in a short period, especially with some focused training. Implying that a sophomore may be doping is beyond the pale.
Let's at least the reserve the innuendos and rumors for adults and professional athletes.
Some high school freshman girls don't realize that you're suppose to be racing in pain. There was a local girl a few years back that when she was told it was suppose to hurt to race she dropped her time for 1600 below 5 min from a mediocre xc season.
Can you seriously be this dim?
3200m v 2 miles?
Good on you mate.
You're going to need help.
keep it to yourself wrote:
Doctor Rosa By Any Other Color wrote:The big question mark for me is Claudia Lane. In a couple month span between end of track season last year and beginning XC this year she went from 11:00 3200 fitness (and dead on equivalent time at state champs XC as freshman) to national class. 5:30 pace for two miles on the track turns into about 5:20-5:25 pace for 3 miles in XC. Didn't lose a significant amount of weight either. Certainly "not normal".
It is very common for 15 year-olds to have developmental spurts and improve rapidly in a short period, especially with some focused training. Implying that a sophomore may be doping is beyond the pale.
Let's at least the reserve the innuendos and rumors for adults and professional athletes.
How many times do you think these high school athletes drug tested in the last year?
Has to be asked wrote:
toomanyspikes wrote:I think he would have been much closer to the win, although Teare's kick was extremely potent against that field, so it's debatable. Another thing to consider is that from what I saw, he wasn't really with the leaders, which leads me to guess he was boxed in pretty bad at the beginning. I'd have to rewatch, however, as I only noticed once Clinger moved up near the end. He still posted a phenomenal time, however. My question is if he's going to get another race where he can push the pace with someone to go faster than 8:43. Sure he could have gone faster (debatably) but I doubt he'll just happen to get a race to top this one.
Fair enough and good points, but, personally, I think he would've sniffed 8:40 and maybe slightly faster...
He would've run 8:44. You really think racing a 1600 24 hrs earlier affected the outcome? I believe his coaching/training is better than that.
OK. Seriously now.... wrote:
I agree . wrote:I didn't notice it wasn't 2 miles until you mentioned it.
I checked out this thread just to see if someone would point this out and am very happy that see that more than one reader has. Just like a 300m record getting mentioned here, it's kind of a bummer that this could be the pinnacle of some of these kids' careers and it comes at a non-standard distance that isn't considered to be an event by IAAF or even T&FN. Hopefully Centro doesn't succumb to such nonsense and make a record attempt at the equally meaningless 1600m this year!
Seriously, they do this intentionally to get as many boys under 9:00 as possible. Maybe Gonzalez should change it to a 3150 next year so he can say "50 boys under 9!!!"
They race the mile instead of the 1600m, they really should make it the 2-mile if they have any integrity.
3200m is the standard distance for highschool lmao, everyone that broke 9 othe Ethan maybe Seth and he can anyway would have broken 9 for two miles if it was that
Whatever helps you jokes sleep though
Gotta bee wrote:
3200m is the standard distance for highschool lmao, everyone that broke 9 othe Ethan maybe Seth and he can anyway would have broken 9 for two miles if it was that
Whatever helps you jokes sleep though
Could've would've should've
Justify racing the mile instead of the 1600m. Please and thank you.
fdsfsdfsdfaf wrote:
Has to be asked wrote:Fair enough and good points, but, personally, I think he would've sniffed 8:40 and maybe slightly faster...
He would've run 8:44. You really think racing a 1600 24 hrs earlier affected the outcome? I believe his coaching/training is better than that.
Absolutely. It would be one thing if he ran 4:10 to close the relay, but a 4:01 had to sap the legs somewhat. He is better than 8:44.