Sarah Baxter 10:08!!!!

BO$$Y

is that a wr?

did flojo have it?

not impressive really. there has been an influx of HS aged girls running in that 10:10x range lately. i am surprised there hasn't been a massive breakthrough to 9:50 since the CA state meet races

Great time but that race looked bor-ing! If you we're a casual fan of track and field and saw a little girl as the fastest runner in the country you wouldn't find much to be interested in. The best athletes in other sports LOOK like athletes while our best distance runners win because they've won the no-puberty lottery.

I thought she'd be faster.

Are yall serious? When did 10:08 for a girl become an unimpressive mark??? Not only is it a US#1, she is the 3rd fastest 3200 runner in meet history behind Jordan Hasay and Christine Babcock!!Sorry but you cannot get away with saying 10:08 is unimpressive at ANY TIME let alone the first week of April!

And I think that her being so small almost makes it more interesting. People outside of track and field would be pretty shocked to see a 5foot 90 pound girl dominate like she does!

wattt wrote:

And I think that her being so small almost makes it more interesting. People outside of track and field would be pretty shocked to see a 5foot 90 pound girl dominate like she does!

Yeah just like they are "shocked" when a 90 lb girl wins the "women's" Olympic gymnastics events.

wattt wrote:

Are yall serious? When did 10:08 for a girl become an unimpressive mark??? Not only is it a US#1, she is the 3rd fastest 3200 runner in meet history behind Jordan Hasay and Christine Babcock!!

Come back when she's broken 10. It's a very good time for sure, but it's not phenomenal and is still 20 seconds off the national record. I used to be impressed by sub-10:20 times back in the early 2000s because they were so rare. But nowadays it happens all the time, so standards have changed.

Bored to Death wrote:

Great time but that race looked bor-ing! If you we're a casual fan of track and field and saw a little girl as the fastest runner in the country you wouldn't find much to be interested in. The best athletes in other sports LOOK like athletes while our best distance runners win because they've won the no-puberty lottery.

It sounds to me that you're just a whiner and complainer. Why did you watch the whole race? You could have been watching football or bull fighting or something like that.

i'm just a silly bugger wrote:

Bored to Death wrote:

Great time but that race looked bor-ing! If you we're a casual fan of track and field and saw a little girl as the fastest runner in the country you wouldn't find much to be interested in. The best athletes in other sports LOOK like athletes while our best distance runners win because they've won the no-puberty lottery.

It sounds to me that you're just a whiner and complainer. Why did you watch the whole race? You could have been watching football or bull fighting or something like that.

Unfortunately the person isn't wrong - it's often a huge advantage in distance events for young girls (90 lbs vs 110-120) at 14-18 years old. Some will continue to develop, even if after plateauing for a while during puberty, while for others it will be their best years. I am rather impressed with the kids who also try and run fast 800's (like Mary Cain), while also developing their endurance abilities, who can take that later to distance events. Sheila Reid (2-time NCAA XC champ) started off in HS running 3000m , then moved down to 800m. She has since moved up to 1500/5000m in College with some arguable success - so the sojourn into 800m racing hasn't seemed to hurt her development. Even Paula Radcliffe (not known as a real speedster, kicker anyway) has run 2.05 and 4.05 for 800/1500m. So just because kids run fast over 3200/2Mile/3000 at this age is not necessarily a harbinger of better things to come, unless this translates into good marathons (again see Radcliffe).

Baxter and Handley may become terrific Senior runners, but unless they develop some speed as well (by also racing and training for shorter distances), their develpment may not be as it should. I don't have a problem with them running fast times (less so Handley maybe), but if they ignore shorter distances (not saying that they do) in this single-minded pursuit are they really trying to be "great" runners. Jessica Judd (Britain - HS Junior age) ran 56,2.02,4.14,9.08 (for 400,800,1500,3000) last year. That range is far more impressive than doing higher mileage at young ages to run fast 2Mile or half Marathons.

captain and me wrote:

Unfortunately blah blah more nonsense..

Your post is BORINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.........

I'd much rather be watching a girls high school 3200m race!

Lets not forget that she split a 4:52 1600 the night before she wasn't at her "freshest".

I agree that the standards have changed but not to the extent that a 10:08 performance is only kinda great. There have been only 6-7 girls in US history who have broken 10 minutes and 0 sophomores. The national sophomore class record is 10:04. You also cannot ignore the fact that it is SO early in the season.

While she is only a sophomore Baxter has continued to improve every season and has yet to lose a single race in her high school career. Honestly, she has been a much more consistent runner than Jordan Hasay was at this age. She has more speed than people give her credit for. Laura Hollander(2nd place girl) was right behind at the bell but Baxter pulled away considerably during the last 300-400.

Unfortunately her being a sophomore and it being so early in the season are somewhat meaningless. She ran the time that she ran. Whether or not she gets faster as the season goes on is yet to be seen, and if/when she goes faster, everyone will judge that performance accordingly. And especially with girls, being only a sophomore doesn't necessarily mean she will continue to progress as she gets older. So again, she ran what she ran, but it's a bit harder to give out extra points for her age.

Ax wrote:

especially with girls, being only a sophomore doesn't necessarily mean she will continue to progress

Most likely, because of your age and other factors like your gender, it's most likely that YOU won't continue to progress.

What other high school girls (who weren't at the meet) would be able to challenge Baxter?

I think there are a few high school girls who could challenge her.

Cami Chapus was at the meet, but didn't run an individual event. She has very good speed and ran 10:19 solo last year. I think she could hang near Baxter then maybe kick her down.

Others with potential to sit on her and beat her are: Molly Seidel (FL Champ, ran 10:13 for two miles indoors), Haley Pierce (9:16 3k runner, NXN runner up), and Wesley Frazier (10:10 two mile last year).

All these girls have nasty kicks and I think one of them could beat Baxter. Of course Baxter probably won't run NBN or the post season meets so she'll remain unbeaten.

Others that might beat her: Cayla Hatton (on fire right now), Erin Finn (could pull away? MAYBE), Amy Eloise Neale (10:12 last year, great kick).

she ran nxn this year didnt she? So clearly she isn't avoiding post season meets just for kicks. last year she was a freshman and it was a coaching decision. I bet she will do them this year.

She made 10:08 look so easy! That's by far the best I've seen any girl run sub-10:10. Spectacular!