Kate Murphy beat Katie Rainsberger in US jr 3k

She qualified for the 1500 tomorrow. Will she run it? Why run this 3k. There is no 3k at worlds correct?

At world Jr's girls run 3k and 5k the boys 5k and 10k.

What has US HS mid distance come to?

2 HS girls run 9:10 and 9:11 (in the same race) and it deserves 3 posts. Two of them wondering the distances run at world juniors. These performances are now seen as "normal".

Do we all understand that only Cain, Efraimson and Bjorklund have run faster as HSers.

Insert name here of HS phenoms (Hasay, Cranny, Decker...). None of them ran faster as HSers.

No longer are many high school kids just a ball of talent. Many run extremely high mileage, endless races all over the country, and approach things for success now with any regard for longer-term development. Hell, there was a thread yesterday about a HS kid trying to raise money to take their entourage of coaches, trainers, and massage therapists to a meet.

There was a time when HS times were just a hint of what was to come in college and beyond. That still happens, but in in far fewer cases. Many times what you now see is about what you are going to get long-term, so outstanding times are not seen with the same reverence. The undertrained, under-raced, and under the radar HS kids seem to be the ones to come on in college and beyond more than ever before.

So, big HS times are no longer seen as potential near as much as they once were and more a product of an excessive HS approach. Hopefully the girls in this race are exceptions.

Opinionated guy wrote:

No longer are many high school kids just a ball of talent. Many run extremely high mileage, endless races all over the country, and approach things for success now with any regard for longer-term development. Hell, there was a thread yesterday about a HS kid trying to raise money to take their entourage of coaches, trainers, and massage therapists to a meet.

That HS kid was Kate Murphy, the subject of this thread.

As far as the 3200 goes, Virginia has three girls returning next year who have run 10:18 or better, with a handful of others in the low 10:20s. One of those girls has also run 2:06/4:45, so she will likely be in contention for the phenom of the moment as well

Great job Kate!

Top Girl HS times were rarely indication of what was to come. Actually, they were. What was to come was finding out at the girl had an eating disorder or that she got injured very badly out of HS...

Once in a while, an exceptional Girl HS runner would continue her progression in college and beyond. That is the exception and not the norm.

Girl HS times have to be looked at for what they are.

Hence these girls can be compared to other top HS girls of the past (most of which only improved a little bit or not at all after HS). Don't ask them to run 4:07 in HS and progress to 3:57. That will not happen (99.999% certainty). You can however say, wow... That's a crazy HS time and simply leave it at that.

I agree that, especially in the past, it was hard to praise these performances as there was usually some cloud of eating disorders or stunted development that made them seem a little dubious.

FWIW, Kate comes from a program that has had tons of the success for decades, so her performance is not as extreme of an outlier.

Nf nnknknknj wrote:

Top Girl HS times were rarely indication of what was to come. Actually, they were. What was to come was finding out at the girl had an eating disorder or that she got injured very badly out of HS...

Once in a while, an exceptional Girl HS runner would continue her progression in college and beyond. That is the exception and not the norm.

Girl HS times have to be looked at for what they are.

Hence these girls can be compared to other top HS girls of the past (most of which only improved a little bit or not at all after HS). Don't ask them to run 4:07 in HS and progress to 3:57. That will not happen (99.999% certainty). You can however say, wow... That's a crazy HS time and simply leave it at that.

Very true, but highschool running itself has been improving the last few years, so I'm hoping this new "crop" can produce kids who improve and become the next generation of good distance runners for us.

Kate is running amazing. Nobody should take any of that away from her. I know some guys who trained for years and never ran 4:07. If she improves over this year's performances, then good for her. It would be amazing for her and I do wish that she continues to progress. But realistically, don't "expect" more than marginal improvement (if at all) over what she will end up running this year. It's like expecting that a 16 y.o. gymnast will be much better at the next Olympics (won't happen).

This year's performances should be celebrated however.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

FWIW, Kate comes from a program that has had tons of the success for decades, so her performance is not as extreme of an outlier.

What is the program's success beyond high school? Some see long-term development as the purpose of a program and some don't. Neither is inherently right or wrong, just different.

The comment that it is "a crazy high school time, and leave it at that," is well said.

Sophie Chase - Stanford, 16:33 5k, 15th at NCAA West Region Xc

Hannah Christian - UNC, 6th at Southeast Region XC, 16:49 5k

Two of the most recent. Both still in college and running well.

Great to hear.

What were their HS times?

Kate looks completely healthy, she is a BEAST. But, I just hope she does not burnout

Just last year people here said that Matthew Maton and Grant Fisher, especially the latter since he was 19, had already peaked and wouldn't get better. Fisher's run roughly 7:50/13:30 already and Maton ran 3:38 recently. So, Fisher dropped approximately fifteen to twenty seconds in the 3k/2M just by indoors and Maton dropped roughly 4 seconds at 1500m/mile--and that is quite a big drop at that level--a lot of guys get down to 3:40-42 and never drop further. 3 more seconds and he's got an Olympic/World qualifier and that should happen in the next couple years.

Hungry? wrote:

Kate looks completely healthy, she is a BEAST. But, I just hope she does not burnout

Everybody slows down over time. Even Lagat. Who cares when it happens...

Only 6 NCAA women have run faster than Kate at 1500m (in the history of the NCAA). It's very possible that before summer is over (even before today is over), that number may be down to only 1 (as it is very possible that Kate could go faster than 4:06.19 this year). Of course, no NCAA women have run faster than Kate this year. ZERO. It is likely that no women who competed in the NCAA this year will ever run sub 4:07.21 in their lives (however I do think that 3 or 4 will, but maybe not).

Isn't Kate's 4:07.21 good enough for you?

She is running incredibly well this year. Don't "expect" progression past 2016 for her. Do celebrate it if it happens to occur however.

Opinionated guy wrote:

Lenny Leonard wrote:

FWIW, Kate comes from a program that has had tons of the success for decades, so her performance is not as extreme of an outlier.

What is the program's success beyond high school? Some see long-term development as the purpose of a program and some don't. Neither is inherently right or wrong, just different.

The comment that it is "a crazy high school time, and leave it at that," is well said.

Show me any program that does a long term development successfully. We complain when people don't traing and we complain when they do. We lose a lot more people who don't train (they run a 4:25 mile and quit the sport. If they would have trained better an ran a 4:12, they might have kept on going) than ones that burn out. In HS you can out train the competition (you run 60mpw. They run 30). That doesn't happen in college and beyond.

Oh, no. I am very happy for her. She's such a talent! I just hope it continues throughout college and maybe even into a pro career.

Kate is a little different than alot of other hs top runner only ran 20:01 at state meet her frosh year as #4 runner for LB. I'm pretty sure she didn't take running seriously til her sophomore year. Not much mileage on her body yet.

Nf nnknknknj wrote:

It is likely that no women who competed in the NCAA this year will ever run sub 4:07.21 in their lives (however I do think that 3 or 4 will, but maybe not).

Are you drunk or stupid? One of the most idiotic statements written on let's run,

Unlikely anyone will, but I think several will, but maybe not.....my head is spinning because I'm stoopid.