"Everyone in my unit used to run 7 miles at 6 minute pace"

As another follow on. I believe that for the longest time, as far as U.S. SOF units go, AF Pararescue had the longest timed run required for graduation from their Indoc Selection. I believe it was 6 miles, 42 minutes as the minimum standard, making it a 7 min/mi pace. However, I believe that in recent years it has become 45 minutes for 6 miles as the minimum standard, or 7:30 pace.

Yeah, high school girls running in the 18s are VERY good. In 2011, there wasn't one girl who ran in the 17s at the state meet here in Ohio. There likely will be this year as a few girls have broken 18, but there are tons of girls in Ohio who run in the 18s who will go on to run for D1 colleges...and do well for them too.

Harry Hill wrote:

"A girl running 18min is ok, but it is not pretty good. She's almost half a mile behind the average top-ranked high school girl."

That's your exact quote. The fact that it says 18 mins is even more ridiculous, so I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant 18.30.

So, you're saying this mythical top ranked high school will finish the race as our 18.30 girl is half a mile in arrears. Assuming even pace, she ('slow' girl) will pass through 4200m in 'about' 15.30. If we assume you actually meant 18 minutes in the above quote, that time goes down to a ridiculous 15.05(ish). Put simply - she would not be half a mile behind, or even 'about' half a mile (whatever that means anyway)

Harry Hill wrote:

"A girl running 18min is ok, but it is not pretty good. She's almost half a mile behind the average top-ranked high school girl."

That's your exact quote. The fact that it says 18 mins is even more ridiculous, so I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant 18.30.

So, you're saying this mythical top ranked high school will finish the race as our 18.30 girl is half a mile in arrears. Assuming even pace, she ('slow' girl) will pass through 4200m in 'about' 15.30. If we assume you actually meant 18 minutes in the above quote, that time goes down to a ridiculous 15.05(ish). Put simply - she would not be half a mile behind, or even 'about' half a mile (whatever that means anyway)

Try again.

In that quote, I said "almost" half a mile. For 16:00 pace, 2:30 is almost half a mile. Do you disagree?

Stop being dumb. There is no "mythical" top ranked girl. They exist. The top ranked girl this year will be a 16:00 5k girl by the time she peaks for xc championships. She might already be in that shape.

So, let's see, 18:30 minus 16:00 is 2:30. Do you disagree with that? The 2:30 is about how long it takes to run a half a mile at 16:00 pace. If you disagree with that, then you're trolling. This is basic math, not my opinion.

Wddxx:

I know, I know, if what you're writing pisses me off then I don't have to read it, I shouldn't have just skimmed through all 6 pages just to see how many times you would stick your nose back in where it wasn't wanted. I've come to a conclusion though; You are an annoying dude. You made your point, people responded to it and instead of moving on you became defensive again and again restating the same pseudo arguments and opinions that you present as facts. please stop now. you are wrong to assign definitive meaning to mundane phrases, you are wrong to become so deeply entrenched over such meaningless disagreements, and you are wrong to dominate what could otherwise be a fun thread with your sociopathy.

go home or go for a run or something

Geez, everyone. Wddxx is trolling you all LARGE. Stop responding to him. Morons.

Your math is a little off, 2:35 is closer to 16:00 pace and 5 sec in a half is big, but where your are more off is that you said the average top ranked girl runs 16:00. The Footlocker course record is 16:24 and only 11 winners out of 35 have been under 17:00 when run in Cal.

Actually, mid 18s for a teenage girl on a cross country course is pretty good. For her to get lapped twice you're talking about 16 flat as your standard for a "good" highschool girl. That's ridiculous.

Since you obviously failed 5th grade math, I'll explain it to you another way.

Our 18:30 girl is running 6:00 pace, that means she can run a 1/2 mile in 3:00 (not 2:30).

If your "average top-ranked" girl runs 16:00 (which would make her the best high school XC runner ever in the US), that means she has crossed the finish line and stopped running. Therefore, the fact that she can run a 1/2 mile in 2:35 is irrelevant BECAUSE SHE IS NO LONGER RUNNING.

When the 16:00 girl stops running, the 18:30 girl is 2:30 behind her, but is running at 6:00 pace. In terms of distance that means she is 0.416667 miles back (2:30/6:00 = 0.416667). She is NOT 1/2 a mile behind.

I'm not aware of any mathematical or physical laws that will allow someone who is running 6:00 per mile pace to cover a 1/2 mile in 2:30 as you stated.

Not only are you wrong, but your continued insistence that you're right when 3 people have pointed out your error to you leads me to believe that you're also a little insane.

Or maybe you're just one of those Crossfit idiots.

Servicemen constantly miscalculate distances for their exercise efforts. Unless their training tests are run on a track they are often incorrect, too, to favor positive results.

"A girl running 18min is ok, but it is not pretty good. She's almost half a mile behind the average top-ranked high school girl."

And according to you the top ranked high school girl will finish at about 16. At 16 minutes, how far along is the girl who runs 18:30 (about 5:57 pace)? The 18:30 girl is 2.69 miles (16 min / (5 + 57/60)) along which is about .42 back, not a half mile. Just sayin.

wddxx wrote:

xlr8r33 wrote:

You are "pretty good" at trolling these guys. Lets look at some college runners. My example is only from DII, but it is the RMAC championships. Last year, only one woman ran faster than mid 18s for the 5k and that is on a track. These are scholarship athletes, many All Americans, we are talking about here. But, only one of them is better than ok for you? Interesting.

There are no good runners in that RMAC championship then. They are all just ok. There are girls in college running low 15s for 5k. That's getting lapped twice on the track for your girls.

Being in the RMAC doesn't change the fact that you are a human being just like runners in other conferences. The definition of good shouldn't change depending on what conference you are in.

So in the grand scheme of things the top HS girl in the country is just "ok" (compared to all female runners) since being in a different set of circumstances makes no difference right? Hell why even make the basis on gender if you're looking at it like that. You are obviously a troll and don't understand the co,ncept of outliers.

Jesus Christ stop feeding the troll! Every single person on this thread except one acknowledges that mid-18's for 5k XC is good for a high school girl.

You're not going to get him to admit otherwise.

You can tell him i run D1 track, NCAA all american

And i average like 6:30 pace for my training runs.

Basic Math wrote:

"A girl running 18min is ok, but it is not pretty good. She's almost half a mile behind the average top-ranked high school girl."

And according to you the top ranked high school girl will finish at about 16. At 16 minutes, how far along is the girl who runs 18:30 (about 5:57 pace)? The 18:30 girl is 2.69 miles (16 min / (5 + 57/60)) along which is about .42 back, not a half mile. Just sayin.

Are you guys dumb? .42 miles is ABOUT half a mile

?????????? wrote:

Your math is a little off, 2:35 is closer to 16:00 pace and 5 sec in a half is big, but where your are more off is that you said the average top ranked girl runs 16:00. The Footlocker course record is 16:24 and only 11 winners out of 35 have been under 17:00 when run in Cal.

It's not a half. It's a 5k. 5 seconds over the course of a 5k is not out of the question

holy tacos.. wrote:

Wddxx:

I know, I know, if what you're writing pisses me off then I don't have to read it, I shouldn't have just skimmed through all 6 pages just to see how many times you would stick your nose back in where it wasn't wanted. I've come to a conclusion though; You are an annoying dude. You made your point, people responded to it and instead of moving on you became defensive again and again restating the same pseudo arguments and opinions that you present as facts. please stop now. you are wrong to assign definitive meaning to mundane phrases, you are wrong to become so deeply entrenched over such meaningless disagreements, and you are wrong to dominate what could otherwise be a fun thread with your sociopathy.

go home or go for a run or something

No, you are wrong. I didn't use any mundane phrases and I am not wrong for assigning meaning to exceptional, great, and pretty good if that's what you're talking about. The people in this thread asked me to define the times that fit into those phrases so I have no fault there.

I'm not using any pseudo arguments. I've substantiated my opinion with numbers.

You need to learn how to read and think before you speak.

Yeah, and 16:00 min is "ABOUT" 18:30.

este guey wrote:

There are no good runners in that RMAC championship then. They are all just ok. There are girls in college running low 15s for 5k. That's getting lapped twice on the track for your girls.

Being in the RMAC doesn't change the fact that you are a human being just like runners in other conferences. The definition of good shouldn't change depending on what conference you are in.

So in the grand scheme of things the top HS girl in the country is just "ok" (compared to all female runners) since being in a different set of circumstances makes no difference right? Hell why even make the basis on gender if you're looking at it like that. You are obviously a troll and don't understand the co,ncept of outliers.[/quote]

So you're telling me that the teams in the SEC are just as good as the teams in the PAC12? You're saying that teams that both got 2nd place in their respective conferences are just as good as each other?

macarthur genius wrote:

Jesus Christ stop feeding the troll! Every single person on this thread except one acknowledges that mid-18's for 5k XC is good for a high school girl.

You're not going to get him to admit otherwise.

Nope, not a troll. You guys just can't read.

These are my classifications:

Exceptional, great, pretty good, and ok.

Exceptional is for record breakers

Great is for national level winners

Pretty good is within a minute of a 5k record

Good is between a minute and 2 minutes behind a 5k record

So, in my opinion, an 18:30 girl would be good, but not pretty good. You guys are valuing strict ranking over physiological capability. That, in my opinion, is not a good metric because girls running in particular is not very deep. You would never call a guy running 16:00 great or exceptional.