Is Cayla Hatton update?

What Olympic standard did she run?

nordicmama wrote:

Jordan Hasay's success proves nothing unless you're saying she was over-trained in high school. Was she?

Her success is proof that you don't have to do crazy training in order to be the best. So there's no excuse that your slow kids or whomever didn't get picked for college. They should have trained better.

Olympic B standard in 10K.

Who said a kid HAD to do crazy training? We just said that there are those that do and yet get taken by college coaches despite that, and then they burn out.

nordicmama wrote:

Who said a kid HAD to do crazy training? We just said that there are those that do and yet get taken by college coaches despite that, and then they burn out.

What. YOU said they had to. Your whole point is that these overtrained girls are taking spots away from lesser trained girls. They didn't take any spots away from Jordan Hasay.

ppd wrote:

nordicmama wrote:

Who said a kid HAD to do crazy training? We just said that there are those that do and yet get taken by college coaches despite that, and then they burn out.

What. YOU said they had to. Your whole point is that these overtrained girls are taking spots away from lesser trained girls. They didn't take any spots away from Jordan Hasay.

Jordan still has the body of a 12 year old boy. She won the distance runners lottery in that regard and is the exception that proves the rule.

Hips Don't Lie wrote:

Jordan still has the body of a 12 year old boy. She won the distance runners lottery in that regard and is the exception that proves the rule.

Nope, there are plenty of girls with more curvy bodies doing well in highschool and college. Learn how to train.

Name the girls high school national champion that you think best embodies your argument.

Hips Don't Lie wrote:

Name the girls high school national champion that you think best embodies your argument.

My argument has nothing to do with girls high school national champions. Where did that come from?

ppd wrote:

Hips Don't Lie wrote:

Name the girls high school national champion that you think best embodies your argument.

My argument has nothing to do with girls high school national champions. Where did that come from?

CASE DISMISSED!

Hips Don't Lie wrote:

ppd wrote:

My argument has nothing to do with girls high school national champions. Where did that come from?

CASE DISMISSED!

What case? What in the world are you talking about???

So how many high school girls do you think have autonomy to train they way they want to based on what they "learn"? High school coaches train high school girls, unless they're extra special and very rich and Daddy hires a pro to train them, and/or their posh private or wealthy suburban school allows them to do what they want.

But if ordinary high school coaches train their top girls as team players (let's say to peak at the conference meet with the rest of the team who are average athletes, instead of for nationals) and ordinary high school coaches train them with an eye to the long term (not wanting to burn them out), these girls may not get recruited to good programs. And yes, some of these talented high school girls WILL lose out to the special girls who are already training with pros (Weissenbach, for ex.), and running in college meets while still in high school (since we're talking Stanford, Megan Lacy is one example).

26mi235 wrote:

be omen: to be an indication that something, especially something unpleasant, is going to happen

indicate: to indicate or signify something

So this is grounds for calling the vocab police? Maybe you are not thinking about the same outcomes that I am.

As I said before, you have to understand usage, not just look the word up in the dictionary. I absolutely guarantee that if you submitted that sentence to 100 newspaper, magazine or book editors, 99 of them would flag it as incorrect, and the 100th would be wrong.

You have excuse after excuse don't you? If you don't like the progress that the high school coach is providing and you don't want to spend money on a private coach, then learn how to train on your own. Lots of people do it. It's not that hard. Go pick up a Lydiard or Daniels book.

more free advice wrote:

26mi235 wrote:

be omen: to be an indication that something, especially something unpleasant, is going to happen

indicate: to indicate or signify something

So this is grounds for calling the vocab police? Maybe you are not thinking about the same outcomes that I am.

As I said before, you have to understand usage, not just look the word up in the dictionary. I absolutely guarantee that if you submitted that sentence to 100 newspaper, magazine or book editors, 99 of them would flag it as incorrect, and the 100th would be wrong.

Again, what you have is assertion without explanation. You might be right, but nothing you have written explains why my casual (this is a message board, not a term paper) is wrong to the point of being worth knocking at this level of discourse. "The usage is right when taken out of context but not good enough for newspaper mavens" is hardly the right standard for this board.

Now, if I had used peruse to indicate that I looked at something briefly, that would be useful -- a common mistake where the word means essentially the opposite -- because it would have been informative to those reading it [I know, having made that mistake and having someone educate me]. Here, there is almost no informational content other than 'you are wrong to use it that way" and then not much more the next time around. Your handle tells as much as your comment.

When does a girl get to cash in on her hard work and talent? The transition from HS to college, period. If you want a scholarship to a school of your choice, you better be damn good your junior year of HS. It's not my problem if the college coach is terrible and can't continue to progress a girl at the same rate. I deal in human fulfillment. Girl wants to win YYY and go to school at ZZZ. I make that happen. Does she beat ignorant, more talented girls? She better, or I'm not doing my job. It's a zero-sum game, somebody wins, somebody loses.

Actually, I'm rereading your original sentence now, and I can see that it could be correct -- so my apologies for jumping down your throat. You're saying that the fact she's on medical leave does not suggest that she's going to leave the team.

Since you were replying directly to a comment that said "More than left the team. Left school after winter quarter," that usage didn't make sense to me. But the sentence itself, outside this context, is not incorrect.

Portend almost invariably refers to future events that are (possibly) about to happen; a portent is an omen, generally bad. In certain contexts, it may refer to present events, but not past events.

Have to agree w/ private coach here...Flotrack did an interview w/ former Footlocker champion Erin Sullivan last year who got a full ride to Stanford, but never performed as well on the college level as she did on the high school. Regardless, when flotrack asked if her she'd choose an ncaa title over a footlocker title, she said she'd keep the footlocker b/c of the opportunities that the footlocker title gave her. This more or less implied that she would've never gotten a Stanford education had it not been for running.

Unless you are an Abbey Dagostino talent (there aren't many), you will get likely get better opportunities from running well in high school than you will from running well in college.

former big east runner wrote:

Have to agree w/ private coach here...Flotrack did an interview w/ former Footlocker champion Erin Sullivan last year who got a full ride to Stanford, but never performed as well on the college level as she did on the high school. Regardless, when flotrack asked if her she'd choose an ncaa title over a footlocker title, she said she'd keep the footlocker b/c of the opportunities that the footlocker title gave her. This more or less implied that she would've never gotten a Stanford education had it not been for running.

Unless you are an Abbey Dagostino talent (there aren't many), you will get likely get better opportunities from running well in high school than you will from running well in college.

I never thought of it this way - it's a tough game for these girls.

former big east runner wrote:

Have to agree w/ private coach here...Flotrack did an interview w/ former Footlocker champion Erin Sullivan last year who got a full ride to Stanford, but never performed as well on the college level as she did on the high school. Regardless, when flotrack asked if her she'd choose an ncaa title over a footlocker title, she said she'd keep the footlocker b/c of the opportunities that the footlocker title gave her. This more or less implied that she would've never gotten a Stanford education had it not been for running.

Did she imply that or did you force that interpretation out of it?