ffgg wrote:
The rush is that she only has a handful of tries before the season ends. Run the times when you can. You're not guaranteed more chances.
lolllypopo wrote:
Yeah, Sarah kicked Mary's bum in XC. Sarah is doing it right, coming along slowly (i.e. Jordan Hasay). Mary will be burned out or injured in a year or two. Mark my words.
For the record, I think they are doing a great job with this girl and she will run her best races in college and beyond.
That said I thought she would break 10 by her sophomore year. California is catching up, she needs to get it in gear. And in general I am always amazed by the lack of 4:30 and sub 10 girls.
She won that race, you are right, that's great but the point of the matter is you people are foolish if you think she can beat Cain in a 2 mile or shorter. It's very obvious she can't, so quit dreaming because the reality is, she would stand no chance.
watchitout wrote:
She won that race, you are right, that's great but the point of the matter is you people are foolish if you think she can beat Cain in a 2 mile or shorter. It's very obvious she can't, so quit dreaming because the reality is, she would stand no chance.
Baxter will beat Cain in any race period. Baxter is a smart - fresh runner, well coached. Cain is being burned out by Alberto (and her parents). Case closed.
It will be interesting. Both these girls are very young. VERY YOUNG. It seems like Sarah is taking it slow..... while Mary Cain is in the fast lane taking the Mary Decker route. Flip a coin and see who wins?
Sloop John B wrote:
100% agreed - Mary Cain's time in the spotlight is limited. Very quick crazy fast record breaking performances can't last forever. What goes up must come down.
I don't think so. Sarah Baxter will kick Mary Cains butt in any race. 100, 200, 300, 400, 1500, mile, 2 mile, you name it. She just beat her bum at xc, huh? You can't get over that can you? Please wake up!
bloatedphallus wrote:
I really do love the desperate douchebags on this site who refuse to accept that Cain is now so far out of Sarah Baxters' league that it will never again be evident that they were once rivals. Even if Mary never runs a second faster than she already has in any event (something only people in need of drool bibs could believe), the estimable Ms. Baxter could not beat Cain at this point in a 3200 even if given a 100-meter head start. Sorry, folks, but it can't be comfortable constantly breathing the air inside your own rectum.
Yep, running under Alberto at such a young age, she is doomed, sorry to say. But the truth.
kskssss wrote:
1. Why are you so angry?
2. Sarah Baxter would certainly beat Cain if she was given a 100m headstart. Unless you think that Baxter can't run under 10:00.
3. If Cain is so much better than Baxter, then why did she lose to her? Her records were set only a couple of months after her defeat. She didn't get that much better in only 2 or 3 months. At 2 mile, I'd guess that it's a close race.
Cain's PR is not over "half a minute" faster than Baxters. Can you do math?
Salazar is not a drug. He is a coach. He cannot take 30 seconds off your 2 mile time in 2 months.
kskssss wrote:
Cain's PR is not over "half a minute" faster than Baxters. Can you do math?
Salazar is not a drug. He is a coach. He cannot take 30 seconds off your 2 mile time in 2 months.
Wow, you're really angry. Calm down.
BOTH are terrific runners with different coaching/racing schedules. Cain could be the next Decker(PED issues notwithstanding) who truly gets to another level on the track.
Baxter shouldn't use Hasay as a role model anyway as Jordan really isn't world-class for her age anymore (32.45 is only good at the NCAA level, not on the Diamond-league circuit), and she had trouble even beating Sheila Reid whose performances are barely better than Cain - remember at the world-class level if you can't beat/run with the Africans then you haven't really done anything. BUT, Baxter does show good promise and her track performances will surely get better - I see her as a 10k/marathoner type anyway- as long as she gets with a good coach/program in College (hopefully something better than Oregon! - which seems more team-focused these days at the expense of individual development, for the women anyway). The point is that more women should be running under 2.00, 4.00 and 15.00 in the NCAA ranks, given the talent that enters the NCAA in every quadrennial. That few (if any) do is testamant that the NCAA doesn't do a great job developing that talent. No wonder the older women still see those above listed levels as "good" when they should be at WR levels instead.
Hard to say something like that. Even though it was a similar time, runners run differently with different competition. Her race may have been faster with Cain or Frazier. Sometimes even champion runners have a bad race, (look at Ryan Hall and others) so it is hard to compare. Overall she won.
bloatedphallus wrote:
[quote]kskssss wrote:
3. Here's what you whackjobs don't get. Cain did in fact improve "that much" in "only" a few months. It happens at that age, and in case you forgot, she went from a random high-school coach to Salazar. If you don't think that made a tremendous difference, you need to quit pretending to be able to even vaguely follow distance running and find a more suitable hobby.
This poster is correct.
The NCAA is far more likely to short circuit the career of an elite runner than is AlSal. The NCAA is the meat grinder, not AlSal. People think Baxter is going to go to college and not be ridden like a rented mule? Get real.
jaspiuyr wrote:
Yep, running under Alberto at such a young age, she is doomed, sorry to say. But the truth.
