John Green wrote:
This is why I point to Mt. SAC for the comparision. That was Claudia's most ardent effort this year and she bested Castillo by 71 seconds. So, the interesting comparision that started this thread, IMO, is better if you simply look at Lane v. Castillo at Mt. SAC and Tuohy v. Castillo at NXN.
Good point ~ I agree wrote:
John Green wrote:
This is why I point to Mt. SAC for the comparision. That was Claudia's most ardent effort this year and she bested Castillo by 71 seconds. So, the interesting comparision that started this thread, IMO, is better if you simply look at Lane v. Castillo at Mt. SAC and Tuohy v. Castillo at NXN.
Mt SAC a month and a half ago. Castillo was a completely different runner between CIF and NXN, (by far the most improved at NXN overall, went in not even ranked top 15, finishing third), much less whatever she ran at Mt SAC.
Lane beat Castillo by 50 seconds at CIF. That is getting closer to the reality. Make it 30 and you have the probability.
Oops, I just heard the clenching of a thousand butthurt Cali-flowers.
not really wrote:
Lane beat Castillo by 50 seconds at CIF. That is getting closer to the reality. Make it 30 and you have the probability.
They weren't in the same race, and Lane won her race by a much greater margin than 50 seconds.
Lane's race was more then an hour later, when the temperature was at least 10 degrees warmer.
No, that is wrong wrote:
not really wrote:
Lane beat Castillo by 50 seconds at CIF. That is getting closer to the reality. Make it 30 and you have the probability.
They weren't in the same race, and Lane won her race by a much greater margin than 50 seconds.
Lane's race was more then an hour later, when the temperature was at least 10 degrees warmer.
Actually the differential was 45 sec (16:45 v. 17:15) compared to 52 sec for Castillo behind Tuohy, whilst running the race of her career so far (she picked up 45 sec on division champ Herberg while crushing her at NXN).
10 degrees for a 5K...meh.
It's all smoke and mirrors until Tuohy and Lane line up together anyway. But bringing up Mt SAC is just grasping at straws.
not really wrote:
Good point ~ I agree wrote:
Mt SAC a month and a half ago. Castillo was a completely different runner between CIF and NXN, (by far the most improved at NXN overall, went in not even ranked top 15, finishing third), much less whatever she ran at Mt SAC.
Lane beat Castillo by 50 seconds at CIF. That is getting closer to the reality. Make it 30 and you have the probability.
Oops, I just heard the clenching of a thousand butthurt Cali-flowers.
Just FYI ... since you are trolling ... I have no investment in CA ... I am from the northeast. Just a cross country fan. In any case your point does not really hold. You simply made up the statement that Castillo was a completely different runner and no empirical evidence supports that. The thing that changed between Mt SAC and CIF is that Claudia did not really push that latter. I am not saying who is better, I just want to see them race, but your last little snarky comment, which reveals you be an idiot, needed to be addressed, as well as the lack of compellingness of your substantive comment.
John Green wrote:
Just FYI ... since you are trolling ... I have no investment in CA ... I am from the northeast. Just a cross country fan. In any case your point does not really hold. You simply made up the statement that Castillo was a completely different runner and no empirical evidence supports that. The thing that changed between Mt SAC and CIF is that Claudia did not really push that latter. I am not saying who is better, I just want to see them race, but your last little snarky comment, which reveals you be an idiot, needed to be addressed, as well as the lack of compellingness of your substantive comment.
I like your way of looking at things.
Seems like Castillo was much further from Tuohy than she has been to Lane.
IMO, that is not true. Again, in the end, I can't say who is faster, but I don't think, if you look closely, you can say that. The only race you can begin to benchmark vis-a-vis Castillo is to compare 2017 Mount Sac to 2017 NXN. Lane simply was not running close to her hardest in the state meet and - in any case - was not in the same race as Castillo. But at Mt. Sac, when Claudia really ran it out, she bested Castillo by 71 seconds. Katelyn meanwhile beat Castillo by 52 seconds at NXN, on a course that was .17 miles shorter, which means the difference is even greater.
On the other hand, for all I know, Katelyn was not going her hardest at NXN.
Further, it is certainly true that at CIF, the difference between Lane and Castillo was only 16 seconds. That could arguably lead one to believe that Castillo was running better at the end of the year. But in fact, if you look at Mt. Sac v. Woodward times generally, Castillo's times on each course correlate about how you would expect. Where there is a difference is that Lane's Mt. SAC time is WAY WAY ahead of her Woodward Park Time.
From Lane's interviews it is clear that she is targeting peaking in only a few races this year.
Again, not saying that Katelyn is not faster ... I have no idea.
Maybe the best indication, overall, is that both runners did something in mid-October, at Mt. Sac and Van Courtland, that was freaky historic. One can only wonder what greatnesses a head to head match up would bring out in them both. One recalls that amazing 3200 battle between Lane and Oakley last spring at (either Brooks or Arcadia), which was a relentless stride for stride battle from pole to pole.
John Green wrote:
Lane simply was not running close to her hardest in the state meet
You know what, you're absolutely right.
Claudia Lane ran 16:30 at Woodward Park, a course record by 10 seconds.
Her time was significantly faster than notables such as:
16:40 Sarah Baxter 2-time NXN champion
16:43 Julia Stamps Footlocker champion
16:55 Amber Trotter Footlocker champion
16:59 Anita Siraki Footlocker runner-up
17:01 Kristen Gordon Footlocker champion
17:02 Jordan Hasay 2-time Footlocker champion
17:04 Christine Babcock former 1500m record holder
17:12 Kim Mortensen Footlocker champion, former 3200m record holder
17:13 Sara Bei Footlocker champion
17:19 Marie Lawrence 3-time Footlocker runner-up
17:21 Kira Jorgensen Footlocker champion
Claudia Lane ran a time that was 25 seconds faster than Amber Trotter, who is regarded as one of the top HS girls cross country runners of all time.
Yet she was not running close to her hardest? Sure.
You guys haven't been paying attention if you think Lane doesn't go 100% in virtually every race she does. The only two she didn't truly go 100% is CIF Prelims in 2016 and CIF Finals in 2017.
The conditions at the state meet for her in 2016, where temps were about 20 degrees cooler, were much more favorable. She is likely about 10 seconds per mile more fit than she was last year.
She's been much faster in every race this year compared to last year, when conditions were more favorable, therefore.... she's only 10 seconds faster this year???
People like you have something seriously wrong with you.
Mariah was sick for Portland and just getting over it at Mt. Sac. She got better each week and ran her best races toward the end of the season. Check her speed ratings per Tullyrunners.
leTumbao wrote:
No, this is NOT the real question. They may not want to be competing at this level in 4 years. We shouldn't expect them to. All we have for certain is the now.
This right here, this thought, has to stop. To some out there, there is this idea that it's ok to burn kids out because we don't know what they will want in 4 years and we should make them as fast as possible now. I 100% guarentee that both these girls and all the phenoms in the past have been planning on improving rapidly their entire life and want/plan/assume they will have amazing college careers. They aren't giving their entire being to running right now with the plan of stopping anytime soon.
So stop using it as a justification for when people say maybe the training/racing/effort they are putting in right now doesn't help them long term. It's debatable whether them working hard now is good or bad. It is not debatable that they want to be good in the future. Sure they may end up not being good in 5 years and finding other things to be succesful, but that's not their plan right now. Does anyone really think Mary Cain went pro while in HS so she could never make an olympic team and mostly be out of the sport by the time she should be a senior in college, and that was her plan? Stop it.
How would you define burnout and how do you suggest a coach of a phenom prevent that? Specifically, how would you have changed the way that Lane or Tuohy’s season played out?
Back off trying to be this fast. Lower training, less intensity. Maybe don't worry about NXN or Foot Locker. It's not just them who are making mistakes. Lots of people. Training too hard at this age almost guarantees they won't have success in the future. I hope I'm wrong, but I've said that several times before.
Indoor? wrote:
This right here, this thought, has to stop. To some out there, there is this idea that it's ok to burn kids out because we don't know what they will want in 4 years and we should make them as fast as possible now. I 100% guarentee that both these girls and all the phenoms in the past have been planning on improving rapidly their entire life
You put a lot of words into that commenter’s quote.
Sounds to me like they were simply saying ‘life/sh!t happens, who knows what will happen in the future’ whereas you went on a rant about overtraining kids.
Some people lose interest in college. Some battle constant injuries because of changing bodies. Some people get faster while others never do.
Some may be due to overtraining, most is probably not.
I put a lot of words in their mouth because that is almost for sure what they meant and several other posters have said things along the same lines. Trying to justify over training by acting like the runners don't care how they do in 4 years which I just don't think is true. I do think a majority of these kids are good successful people who will rebound when life happens, still doesn't mean that was their plan.
You are right, I did go on a rant.
WTFBBQ wrote:
I had free time to do this. Sue me.
I took the top four CA girls who competed against both Claudia Lane and Katelyn Tuohy and compared the time differences from the CA State meet and NXN. I'm no ventolin or tullyrunner rating or whatever and I sure as hell am not good at math but thought this could be a good way of comparing.
CA State
Claudia Lane - 16:30
Mariah Castillo - 17:15 diff of 45s
Meagen Lowe - 17:20 diff of 50s
Haley Herberg - 17:00 diff of 30s
Corie Smith - 17:17 diff of 47s
average difference: 43 seconds
NXN
Katelyn Tuohy - 16:44
Mariah Castillo - 17:36 diff of 52s
Meagen Lowe - 18:05 diff of 81s
Haley Herberg - 18:05 diff of 81s
Corie Smith - 18:09 diff of 85s
average difference: 74 seconds
Going by this, it would seem that Katelyn Tuohy is indeed the superior runner. If we use time difference average as a guide, Claudia Lane would have finished in 2nd at NXN around 17:15.
Obviously, since she would finally have competition, Claudia Lane could conceivably run much faster but then again, so could Katelyn. While I could get into the fact that CA runners are at a disadvantage on a wet, muddy course in 40º conditions (hence worse performances vs their usual dry, hot conditions), Claudia herself would have experienced that wet weather/mud and likely would have also suffered from the same.
The CA State meet course (Woodward Park) and the Footlocker course (Balboa Park) run very similar in times. In my eyes, I think the only way for Claudia Lane to be considered on par with Katelyn Tuohy, she would have to run at least 16:15 to have a comparable race.
That is inconceivable when you realize only one person has ever run under 16:40 on that course.
Anyone else? Is 16:15 too fast of a time?
What you fail to recognize is the depth of athletes Lane is running against, the Ca. girls are faster and the fields deeper. Assumptions and possibilities are just that, the only way you decide who is the faster athlete is by a head to head competition , cross country and track. One of these two may be a better x-country runner, track will dictate the actual speed of how fast they really are.
Supposedly Claudia Lane runs less than 40 miles a week. She started her season very late to avoid overdoing it. If her coach told her she can't do Footlocker, do you really think her and her parents would respect those wishes? Same for Tuohy, who is going to tell her and her parents that she can't run NXR or NXN? If you get in the way of an unstoppable force you will be run over. Their coaches can not reasonably be expected to keep them from racing at the national championships when they are two of the best female high school runners ever. The only people that could put a stop to it is their parents.
Indoor? wrote:
Back off trying to be this fast. Lower training, less intensity. Maybe don't worry about NXN or Foot Locker. It's not just them who are making mistakes. Lots of people. Training too hard at this age almost guarantees they won't have success in the future. I hope I'm wrong, but I've said that several times before.
are you serious? wrote:
Supposedly Claudia Lane runs less than 40 miles a week. She started her season very late to avoid overdoing it. If her coach told her she can't do Footlocker, do you really think her and her parents would respect those wishes?
Same for Tuohy, who is going to tell her and her parents that she can't run NXR or NXN?
If you get in the way of an unstoppable force you will be run over. Their coaches can not reasonably be expected to keep them from racing at the national championships when they are two of the best female high school runners ever. The only people that could put a stop to it is their parents.
I totally agree with you but something needs to change to help parents understand what they are doing isn't helpful. If every time a phenom ends up failing which happens a lot we give them the excuse of "Well maybe they just lost interest" we aren't helping the future phenoms learn from their mistakes.
Also yes Lane was smart to start late but part of that was because she raced long into the summer. I also doubt she's on 40 miles a week, but who knows.