For all of you that know me, I request that you put this thread to rest.
Thanks
For all of you that know me, I request that you put this thread to rest.
Thanks
I know it's the point of forums to express opinions and stuff, but I just don't understand what the attraction is to this topic. I realize that it's mostly or all guys, and you have an interest in females, but that can't be completely it, because the high school girls are so young. I just think it's kind of weird that guys get all excited about high school girls and their sports.
Similarly, I would find it odd if there was a big thread on some high school boys team or athlete. I just don't understand where this interest comes from. Are you guys just big fans of high school sports, in the way that many people are fans of NFL or MLB?
Anoymnous wrote:
Excerpt 4 and 5 kind of contradict each other. At first, you say "the top teams in California, and teams that generally travel to Arcadia, combined can probably average 20:15-20:20 at Arcadia if they loaded up on the event each year," but then in Excerpt 5, you say "I never said adding up PR's and running the times in relays is the same thing"
Which one is it? I'm sure there's a team or two that have the potential to average 5:05 or so for 1600m (Saugus, Great Oak, etc), but they haven't. Why? Because it's very hard to get four runners to run well on one day, which is why we haven't seen a team out of all the schools that travel to Arcadia that can average 5:05 or so for 1600. Every team in the top half of the race, with the exception of Saugus, did load up on the event too, therefore making your argument invalid.
Those aren't mutually exclusive comments.
I agree with your point, which is why I never said that adding up PR's and running times in relays is the same thing. But if you have 4 runners that can average between 5:00-5:05, would it be surprising if your team could average ~5:05 in a relay? And don't winning relays/teams in competitive fields GENERALLY run "good" races as a relay/team? Take, for example, NXN in cross country - many of the teams are pretty evenly matched. Do the teams that beat other similar teams simply "not run awful races, while everyone else does", or do the winning teams "run good to great races, while everyone else runs either fairly good, average, not bad, ok, not good, or bad races"? Yes, I know that Cross Country (NXN or otherwise) is not Track or a 4xMile relay, but the point is the same - 4 (or 5) runners on the same team being measured by how well they do as a whole (together). Some teams won't run well, some teams will. In deep fields (like Arcadia can have), the winner is going to be on the side of "running well" the vast majority of the time - as long as there are multiple teams competitive with the best in the field.
Anoymnous wrote:Aptos, La Costa Canyon, Simi Valley, Xavier Prep, and Great Oak all ran their best milers in the race. Saugus did not.
I never said Great Oak didn't run their best milers in the race. I said that three of the four Great Oak's girls also ran the 4x800 before hand (though note the poster that mentioned how one of their sophomores ran a 5:06 for their team in the seeded race). I also didn't say that Xavier Prep split up their team (note that I said specifically in my post that they didn't).
Anoymnous wrote:The results? Saugus finished 7 seconds behind the winner, Aptos, despite running a split squad.
Saugus wasn't the only one that had multiple teams, and as it turned out didn't have their fastest four runners on that day in the same relay (which is what you were getting at, right?)
Anoymnous wrote:Saugus having 8 girls average 5:10 on one night is incredible and I bet not many teams around the US, including FM, Grosse Point and Davis UT, could have accomplished that.
And that's where we disagree. There are probably a half dozen programs around the country that can have 8+ girls average about 5:10 for season bests, and the top end of those programs are likely to be able to do it all on one day (Saugus included, as they showed at Arcadia).
Anoymnous wrote:It's a rare feat to have 8 girls all run great on the same night. They probably would have run 20:10-15 with their A team, but to say "the top teams in California, and teams that generally travel to Arcadia, combined can probably average 20:15-20:20 at Arcadia if they loaded up on the event each year" is ridiculous because no one ran 20:15-20 and five of the top six teams ran their best teams. Last year, La Costa Canyon ran their best team, a team who's PR's add up to 19:43, yet at Arcadia, they won in a time 40 seconds slower than that mark. In 2006, Corona Del Mar had four sub-5 girls, yet that quartet only managaged a then state record of 20:20.
I'll both number and split my comments up for clarity's sake...
1. Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I'll repost the sentence you are complaining about and highlight the details before discussing it.
"I think the average winner could probably be something like 20:15-20:20 though if more of the top California programs started loading up on it, with occassional sub-20:10's"
2a. Yes, this year, MOST of the top teams loaded up. I believe you, in this post, mention a few times that Saugus could have run 20:20 or better if they had their four best milers in the same relay. So why are you having a problem with it? You're agreeing with me, while arguing with me!
2b. I don't think Saugus' top-4 this year is necessarily more talented than the "average" best-at-Arcadia program's top-4. So, if we both agree that Saugus could have run 20:20 or real close to it this year with a loaded relay... you must disagree that Saugus' top-4 this year is not only better by more than a couple seconds than their average team over the past six years, but also better than the other great programs that have attended this meet in the last decade? You're already mentioning LCC's and CdM's great quartets of the recent past...
Anoymnous wrote:To end, the reason we haven't seen many sub-20 performances, or 20:15-20 at Arcadia, isn't because the 4x1600/Mile is a rare or unpopular event. Teams just haven't been able to get all four legs to run well on the same day. Running 20:15-20 is harder than you think Watchout.
I don't see why the event being rare/unpopular has anything to do with what teams can run at Arcadia, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. I also don't think running 20:15-20:20 isn't hard (and never said it wasn't). Which brings us back to: Is Saugus' best quartet of milers this year much better than the average best-at-Arcadia program's quartet of milers? If no, you agree with me yet still want to argue. If yes, then why do you think Saugus' quartet of milers this year is much better, when they haven't run as good PR's or have been as good in other events (including but CERTAINLY not limited to XC success)?
We could start a discussion on the NFL or MLB or NBA if you'd like. I have many opinions on those as well ;)
Baxter Boogie wrote:
"I thought that didn't really need to be specified, given the discussion (how national Top-X for an event rarely run doesn't say much about the performance on its own)."
What? That wasn't even the discussion in this thread to begin with. You're the troll that brought up "how national T-X for an event rarely run doesn't say much about the performance on its own". You were the first to post about that, nor did you ever mention you were talking about national class meets only. You simply stated, "Not to dampen spirits or anything (because having a 'B' team run under 20:45 is pretty darn good), but... having their teams be top-6 in the US this year isn't too impressive in that event, considered it's rarely run". You can't expect to bring up that topic, argue about it, and assume everyone is on the same discussion when you never even mentioned you were talking about only national class meets. Yes, it should have been specified in your first post.
Again, changing your argument around.
I know it wasn't the discussion in this thread to begin with. However, it IS the discussion of the thread since people started having a problem with me stating my opinion that Saugus being able to have X teams in the top X of the US isn't surprising because it's not a common event.
And no, I was not trying to "troll" this thread.
AGAIN, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BEGINNING.
You said "WOW, Saugus has two teams in the top six in the US!"
My post said "Having two teams under 20:45 is pretty darn good, but having their teams be top-6 in the US isn't too impressive considering it's a rarely run event".
Then, to paraphase the tone of the part of this thread that I have been responding to ever since: "SAUGUS IS AWESOME, THE 4xMILE/4x1600m IS RUN ALL THE TIME, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AS USUAL"
To which I have responded over and over: "I didn't say Saugus wasn't awesome, but the 4xMile/4x1600m is not a common event and being the top X in the nation doesn't really say much"
Let me emphasize this point of discussion again:
"Being top-6 in the US doesn't say much because it isn't often run"
"National caliber teams, teams that are capable of making the national lists, don't get many if any opportunities to run the event"
"Let's list the meets where the 4x1600m/4xMile is actually run, but let's only include meets where teams actually capable of making the Top-X in the US compete"
Now, do you see the common thread between all of that?
1. I said that being in the top X in the US doesn't say much because the event isn't often run
2. When people decided that it is actually a very common event, run all the time, I estimated that there are probably only about a dozen meets, mostly in California, where national caliber programs (this is apparently not as obvious an implication as I would have thought, given the discussion re: "Top X/rare event" vs. "It isn't rare!") might actually compete (not even mentioning where they might not "load up" on the event)
3. My continually explaining this point several times
which brings us to
4. Your still asking why I'm continuing to bring this up (as if I'm not being debated - and/or insulted in some posts - on this line of discussion).
I never said this is what this thread was about. I never intended to make this thread about it. I even have said several times congrats/kudos/good job to Saugus for continuing to be one of the nation's best distance programs. And yet, this is what this thread has devolved to, because you guys want to insist that it isn't a rare event (or the nation's best programs don't often compete in it, if that makes you understand it any better) and want to debate me on that point.
I've tried to bring that discussion to an end by suggesting you guys explain how it isn't so rare by listing all the meets that host it and might have nationally relevant teams involved in it. Yet apparently even that isn't good enough, because since that post you have replied multiple times bringing us back to this circle.
SO, if you don't want this thread to continue to be about whether or not the 4xMile/4x1600m lists mean anything or how rare the event is, either contribute to the end of the discussion by showing how it isn't a rare event and move back to focusing on Saugus and complimenting how deep and strong their program is.
hmmm... I guess y'all are just sports fans, or extremely fanatical sports fans to be interested in California high school girls track. I just could never get into high school sports as a fan. I mean, I like running, but I find it difficult to be a "fan" of other runners. Well, ok, maybe Rupp and Ritz!