Blazing fast last laps at the CA state 1600

Tamango in Brooks PR mile.

Cortes likely to run relays w/GO team at NBON . . . but not confirmed, entries still to be released.

jkfrauddetection wrote:

Sad to see Mo Farah style championship tactics working their way to the HS level. Jog the race until the last 600 or so, then start racing.

It is the end of running as we know it. The on-track 10k will drop from the Olympics because 25 minutes of pre-racing snoozing (sitting at slow pace) is too much to bear. The only I see the 10k surviving is it was run on a motocross type course with some mud run type obstacles included. The entire length of the race would have some spectator interest. Who gets stuck under the wire crawl? Who can't make it over the high wall?

Post season meets wrote:

Do Cortez or Tamagno have any post season meets coming up?

I hope not. These guys should call it a season, take a mental and physical break, then start getting ready for college xc.

So, are you against all post-season runs, like junior nationals?

post-season wrote:

So, are you against all post-season runs, like junior nationals?

To make it to the state finals, CA kids have to race a lot.

A kid from Southern Section is going to have to run a minimum of their league trials, league finals, CIF-SS division prelims, CIF-SS division finals, CIF Masters, state trials, and state finals. That's seven meets--discounting any dual meets, invites, etc. And the kids don't get any leeway at any point along this path--if the 1:52 800 guy has a bad race at Masters and runs 1:54, he's out. If the 4:10 guy has a bad race and runs 4:14, he's out.

This kind of schedule puts a ton of strain on the kids--even the top kids, because the guy who, after a few weeks of peaking, can run 4:08 can be knocked out of the competition by the 4:14 guy who peaks for masters.

I'm not a big fan of Tamagno dropping state this year, but if he wants to race a lot and race well postseason, it's a logical decision.

Tamagno>cortes

Numbers don't lie

Michael Norman has qualified for the Olympic Trials in the 200 and 400. Do you think HS kids should be banned from post-season events like this: junior nationals, etc? I disagree with you, because there should be a national level event where the best can compete against the best.

Cortes Fanboy wrote:

Tamagno>cortes

Numbers don't lie

Correct

2X CA State Champion > 4:01 mile

post-season wrote:

cali boy wrote:

[quote]post-season wrote:

So, are you against all post-season runs, like junior nationals?

Michael Norman has qualified for the Olympic Trials in the 200 and 400. Do you think HS kids should be banned from post-season events like this: junior nationals, etc? I disagree with you, because there should be a national level event where the best can compete against the best.

Michael Norman running in the Olympic trials where he has a chance to make the olympics is a lot different than Cortez or Tamagno running in the brooks mile or junior nationals.

Norman is on another level than the rest of the US high schoolers in any event. At this point none of the other 2016 class will break 4. They're also going to be racing d1 XC in the fall compared to Norman who has the fall to recover.

No need to run other unimportant races. Just rest, enjoy your HS career memories and get refocused for d1 XC running with the big dogs.

I don't think Cortes has a great future. Sure he has good speed and strength but he's likely a product of the Great Oak system than a natural phenom. GO does a ton of mileage like Arcadia before them, and we all know how those guys fared in college. Obviously Cortes accomplished something really difficult, but he's likely been training at the collegiate level for a while. Just look at the results, 3 GO in the top 10 of the 1600, the runner up in the 3200, and another 3200 finalist.

I don't believe Tamagno went higher than 50 MPW until he was a senior, and he's been sub 4:10 since freshman. The kid is a dbag but he's got a brighter future than cortes.

But he didn't!!!! End of story! Congrats Cortes on an incredible double. State 800 and 1600 2016 Champ. What's Tamagno got? He sure as heck don't have 2 State meet Champion medals 2016. For you to even think he's the 2nd greatest CA. miler is laughable.

Don't you think that is a bit of a disingenuous description of what the national level kids have to go through?

For example, let's take a look at what the Great Oak athletes had to do to get to state:

At the Southwestern League Finals, the last qualifier (fifth place) ran 4:19.52. The first non-qualifier ran 4:27.87. Not exactly pressing a sub-4:05 or even sub-4:10 guy in any way.

At the D1 CIF-SS Prelims, the last qualifier (ninth place) ran 4:18.55. The first non-qualifier ran 4:19.51. Again, not exactly pressing for a sub-4:05 guy, though not a jog for a 4:10 guy.

At the D1 CIF-SS Finals, the last qualifier (eighth place) ran 4:12.97. He only beat one runner in the race, though what matters more in that meet is how fast you run (as this is the step where athletes from multiple classes will go to the All-Class meet). The slowest qualifier in the Masters meet ran 4:14.46 in the Division 2 Finals. Still maybe not all that pressing for a sub-4:05 guy, but a real challenge for a 4:10 athlete.

At the CIF-SS Masters meet, all 12 made it to state... the slowest ran 4:14.23. Once again, maybe not all that pressing for a sub-4:05 guy, but a real challenge for a 4:10 athlete.

So, for a 4:10 guy, that is three hard weeks in a row, plus a fourth that wasn't all that easy. That's not that extreme for someone who is going to have a week or two to recover before the national meets start up. Keeping in mind these are athletes around #35-55 in the nation, not necessarily the ones gunning for sub-4 and national championships (at least not likely, as they've already been pushed multiple times while many others have run faster with less opportunities against nearly similar competition).

For a sub-4:05 guy, you weren't really pushed to be at your best that entire time - you could easily to run to win those meets, and save yourself for later meets. Certainly not a stretch that they could go to national meets and still do just fine.

blargh wrote:

I don't think Cortes has a great future. Sure he has good speed and strength but he's likely a product of the Great Oak system than a natural phenom. GO does a ton of mileage like Arcadia before them, and we all know how those guys fared in college. Obviously Cortes accomplished something really difficult, but he's likely been training at the collegiate level for a while. Just look at the results, 3 GO in the top 10 of the 1600, the runner up in the 3200, and another 3200 finalist.

I don't believe Tamagno went higher than 50 MPW until he was a senior, and he's been sub 4:10 since freshman. The kid is a dbag but he's got a brighter future than cortes.

What point are you trying to make? Cortez is good because of great coaching and teammates. Tamagno is a phenom with mediocre training, hence his slow frosh to senior year progression.

Not sure anywhere here knows enough to characterize Tamagno's training as "mediocre"...

Take a Brake wrote:

Michael Norman running in the Olympic trials where he has a chance to make the olympics is a lot different than Cortez or Tamagno running in the brooks mile or junior nationals.

No, you are wrong.

I'm saying programs like Arcadia 10'-14' and Great Oak currently overwork their runners with the present in mind. Yes they win a lot in high school and they have a successful program, but that many miles on the tires doesn't translate well to collegiate and pro. Im certain that in the last 12 calendar months, Cortes has done more mileage than Tamagno, and even Drew Hunter. There's no other way to explain how other previously nobodies in their program make it to state in track.

It's basically a matter of opinion on the coach's part. He either loads them up on mileage (80-90+ weeks in the summer) and guarantees success at the hs level, or keeps them lower and emphasizes quality over quantity without as much hs success but more room to grow in the future.

the "sick as a dog" or "asthma attack" when he doesn't perform well is getting old however - he's always got an excuse when in the truth, he's just not as talented as his teammates who never make these excuses.

blargh wrote:

I'm saying programs like Arcadia 10'-14' and Great Oak currently overwork their runners with the present in mind. Yes they win a lot in high school and they have a successful program, but that many miles on the tires doesn't translate well to collegiate and pro. Im certain that in the last 12 calendar months, Cortes has done more mileage than Tamagno, and even Drew Hunter. There's no other way to explain how other previously nobodies in their program make it to state in track.

It's basically a matter of opinion on the coach's part. He either loads them up on mileage (80-90+ weeks in the summer) and guarantees success at the hs level, or keeps them lower and emphasizes quality over quantity without as much hs success but more room to grow in the future.

So I'm sitting here in the southwest watching tons of kids at large schools completely wasting their talent due to poor coaching with super low mileage and poor running culture, with kids who don't even realize they have talent, or that they could improve a ton- and then there is a coach who gets nobodies to the state meet by working hard- and that's a bad thing?

You can convince me that it might be a bad thing IF you can show me that the runners' ultimate potential is damaged by running too far and fast at an early age. But if they are simply getting closer to their ultimate potential sooner- why is that bad?

You never hear, a musician got too good in HS, and did not leave enough room for improvement in college. Or you don't hear, imagine how giod those Kenyans could have been at 23 if they weren't so good at age 18.

So many dumb posts it's hard to know where to start.

1. Tamagno has run more than 75 miles per week. He said so in an interview.

2. Great Oak has in the past run 95 mpw, but not in the last few years according to Doug Soles who claims they are more around 75 -the Same number as Tamagno.

3. Cortes is probably running fewer miles than his Great Oak peers.

4. Running a lot in high school does not automatically set you up to fail in college. You mentioned the Arcadia boys ... Ummm ever heard of Ammar Moussa -4th at NCAA nationals. Obviously not.

5. Even if runners from excellent teams don't improve as much in college as some of there undertrained peers isn't that to be expected. It doesn't mean they don't end up achieving as much as they would have or more in the end.

6. Anyone who can run 4:04 with a 56 last lap doesn't need to improve much to be an outstanding collegiate runner. Not many college/pro runners could have out kicked him in the 102 heat that Saturday.