The Girls are flying.........top 8 @ 5:10 for the 1st mile. Top 96 under 5:30.
The Girls are flying.........top 8 @ 5:10 for the 1st mile. Top 96 under 5:30.
chiichvlvh wrote:
21 girls running sub 5:15 for the first mile seems impressive. No?
I remember being impressed by HS girls running sub 5:15 for the mile on the track
A few of these girls went out within ~10-15sec of their mile track PRs. If that really happened, they'd die a horrible death.
Course is short. Times don't matter. Let's drop it.
The way the course is designed, they will run just as fast the last mile as the first. There are long net downhills on this course in miles 1 and 3.
They all slowed quite a bit in the second mile.
Slo-Jo wrote:
They all slowed quite a bit in the second mile.
The 2nd split is at 2.1 miles.
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the full 5K is mismeasured and is short. How does that affect the one mile split, which is more likely to have been measured correctly?
The rollers in mile two.
astro wrote:
The way the course is designed, they will run just as fast the last mile as the first. There are long net downhills on this course in miles 1 and 3.
Thanks for sharing that. It explains a lot. It will be interesting to see the final times.
Natalie Cook: 16:03.93
You know Mountain Vista is deep when their 15:29 guy ran in the Bronze race
Natalie Cook's time is not far off Huthin's record. She also won Eastbay south and will race in the finals next weekend.
20 girls sub-17!
blue 7 wrote:
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the full 5K is mismeasured and is short. How does that affect the one mile split, which is more likely to have been measured correctly?
People from 'bama dont know how to measure. For reference, 'bama is one of the dumbest states in North America.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/dumbest-statesThey probably measured the course with a Garmin too. And because we all did our GIS 101 homework on the first chapter of the book, we know the margin of error in using said devices to measure distance is 15m/s^2.
happy hour time wrote:
chiichvlvh wrote:
21 girls running sub 5:15 for the first mile seems impressive. No?
I remember being impressed by HS girls running sub 5:15 for the mile on the track
A few of these girls went out within ~10-15sec of their mile track PRs. If that really happened, they'd die a horrible death.
Course is short. Times don't matter. Let's drop it.
cry about it
No sub 16 this year on the girl side. But good depth 20 sub 17 vs 2 last year
Cook: 5:17 for the last mile.
OOPS: Cook was 5:07 for the last mile!
128 girls under 18 minutes, 20 under 17 minutes
chiichvlvh wrote:
No sub 16 this year on the girl side. But good depth 20 sub 17 vs 2 last year
Interestingly, Mia Prok, who was the other sub 17 last year ran 17:42 today (course running slower 😀)
Niwot won it I think from glance?