I, for one, was very surprised to see Dani Jones pull that upset today, but I’d heard about her finishing speed, so when I saw her there with a quarter mile to go, I thought she had a shot. I did think that Kelati would’ve made a much more definitive move to drop the pack than she did.
Is a 1500/3000 runner winning NCAA XCs proof that the women should be running 10K and not 6K? I personally find it ridiculous they run so much less than the men. Who do you all think would’ve won had it been 10K?
Even if you're a troll, it must suck to enjoy being an a$$ like this.
Whocarestho wrote:
They run less because they’re inferior. Fine by me gets us to the main event faster.
Leave.
Whocarestho wrote:
GoldenMiles wrote:
Leave.
Awe sorry I hurt your feelings. If I wanted to watch a bunch of people run 16:40 for 5k I’d go to my local high school cross country meet. I’m here to watch actual impressive athletes compete
Are you actually being serious?
GoldenMiles wrote:
Whocarestho wrote:
They run less because they’re inferior. Fine by me gets us to the main event faster.
Leave.
I think (I hope) that what he is trying to say is the following:
The last place finisher ran at a pace slower than a 20min 5k. Had she had to run for 10k, she would have been out there jogging/running for 42 min+. That's a very long time. That runner was part of one of the best teams in the US (given that they had to qualify for NCAA). Imagine how slow some of these women would be at regionals?
The spread between the strongest women and the weakest women is still too wide. Maybe 8k would be a better distance. 6k during the season and 8k for regionals and NCAA.
Typical pimply sunken-chest awkward teenage distance runner, stuck home with no friends on a Saturday and angry he's not well liked. Incel-in-training.
8K for women. Maybe for men, too. It's also ridiculous to race 8K all season then add on 2K for championships.
hardset nipples wrote:
8K for women. Maybe for men, too. It's also ridiculous to race 8K all season then add on 2K for championships.
I like that idea. Why the hell is the championship longer than the regular season? What other sport is like that? What is their reasoning?
I agree wimen should run 6000m regular season and 8000m during cgampionship meets. When they leave college World X is 10000mfor women get them prepared with some 8000m championship races.
"Preparing" for "World X" has nothing to do with collegiate running.
Agree..maybe 8k but definitely not 10k ...too much of a jump from hs distance and girls have enough challenges adjusting to college mileage ..few true freshman such as Allie O that can jump right in the mix..plus a lot of middle distance gals would get turned off cross which is a great building block for them..my 2 cents
Gbguuygbyuh wrote:
GoldenMiles wrote:
Leave.
I think (I hope) that what he is trying to say is the following:
The last place finisher ran at a pace slower than a 20min 5k. Had she had to run for 10k, she would have been out there jogging/running for 42 min+. That's a very long time. That runner was part of one of the best teams in the US (given that they had to qualify for NCAA). Imagine how slow some of these women would be at regionals?
The spread between the strongest women and the weakest women is still too wide. Maybe 8k would be a better distance. 6k during the season and 8k for regionals and NCAA.
Summary: This thread has nothing to do with Dani Jones - NCAA Division I XC Champ 2018.
Dani Jones will be the next American Women under 4:00 for the 1500 I picked her for 3rd, I still think she is better on the Track.
Will Kelati's sister Semira Mebrahtu (Born in 1999 27th in World Cross Country Juniors) run for New Mexico Next year? Kelati, Kurgat and Mebrahtu would be a good 1,2, 3 punch.
GoldenMiles wrote:
I, for one, was very surprised to see Dani Jones pull that upset today, but I’d heard about her finishing speed, so when I saw her there with a quarter mile to go, I thought she had a shot. I did think that Kelati would’ve made a much more definitive move to drop the pack than she did.
Is a 1500/3000 runner winning NCAA XCs proof that the women should be running 10K and not 6K? I personally find it ridiculous they run so much less than the men. Who do you all think would’ve won had it been 10K?
Personally, I think it's kind of sad that it is JUST 6k or JUST 10k. It would be great to see more races.
Why not make it more than one race distance? Like how they used to do world xc or whatever.
I'd rather see more races and more runners competing at a distance closer to their track speciality.
Men would be like 6k and 10k.
Women could keep the 6k and do either 8k/10k.
At the very least though the women's race should go up to 8k in the championships just like how the men's goes up from 8k to 10k.
GoldenMiles wrote:
I, for one, was very surprised to see Dani Jones pull that upset today, but I’d heard about her finishing speed, so when I saw her there with a quarter mile to go, I thought she had a shot. I did think that Kelati would’ve made a much more definitive move to drop the pack than she did.
Is a 1500/3000 runner winning NCAA XCs proof that the women should be running 5K? I personally find it ridiculous they run so much less than the men.
5K for men AND women in all college XC. If one is a 5K/10K T&F specialist, 5K XC is long enough. 5K XC for all encourages men and women college 47/52 400m runners to race 800m and possibly participate in college XC. 5K XC means some 1500m runners will be competitive.
douglas burke wrote:
Dani Jones will be the next American Women under 4:00 for the 1500 I picked her for 3rd, I still think she is better on the Track.
How many next American women will she be, exactly?
Millenialolz wrote:
Typical pimply sunken-chest awkward teenage distance runner, stuck home with no friends on a Saturday and angry he's not well liked. Incel-in-training.
Sadly, I think this guy is older.
mcvred wrote:
Even if you're a troll, it must suck to enjoy being an a$$ like this.
go off noahhhh
Sure about that? wrote:
douglas burke wrote:
Dani Jones will be the next American Women under 4:00 for the 1500 I picked her for 3rd, I still think she is better on the Track.
How many next American women will she be, exactly?
I'm guessing at least five, maybe six.