Would have been interesting to see what Davis UT could have done - their leadoff last night ran a 5:09 split, and their top 3 (none were in the relay last night) ran 5:06y, 5:03y, and 4:52y... they definitely could have tested 20:00.
Would have been interesting to see what Davis UT could have done - their leadoff last night ran a 5:09 split, and their top 3 (none were in the relay last night) ran 5:06y, 5:03y, and 4:52y... they definitely could have tested 20:00.
No offense to Nikki Hiltz but Saugus' Sabrina Janes would have out-kicked her assuming Saugus had her on the anchor in the invite and they were close. I saw her out-kick in the entire field at APU two weeks ago in the 800. Her kick is impressive.
I was talking about Aptos, not Grosse Pointe South.
cow pig dog wrote:
No offense to Nikki Hiltz but Saugus' Sabrina Janes would have out-kicked her assuming Saugus had her on the anchor in the invite and they were close. I saw her out-kick in the entire field at APU two weeks ago in the 800. Her kick is impressive.
The Saugus girl would have outkicked the defending state champ in the 1600 (with a 4:42 PR) who has also run 2:09 in the 800?
watchout wrote:
... that's why smaller schools don't often do as well in team sports as bigger schools
Actually, smaller schools (i.e., private schools) do quite well in all team sports in CA. They often compete in D1 but don't actually belong there based on school population.
Yes. Sure she has personal bests of 4:42 and 2:09, but that was before her stress fracture in cross country. She's still run great times this spring, but she's no speed demon in the last half quarter. I can think of several runners that could easily out-kick Hiltz in the final 100 meters. Redondo's Kayla Ferron and Saugus' Sabrina Janes to name a couple.
My point is Hiltz was 4:54 in the invite and Janes was 5:02 solo in the seeded race, but much of Hiltz's time was spent catching up to teams La Costa Canyon, Saugus and Xavier Prep. Throw Saugus' anchor Ortega on the second leg and they would have been with La Costa Canyon up front, if not ahead, when Janes received the baton on the anchor. Hiltz wouldn't have been able to regain that much ground and out-kick another great 800-meter runner.
Here's the three team's splits through three legs.
15:30 La Costa Canyon
15:33 Saugus
15:36 Aptos
With Janes on the anchor in the invite race and Ortega replacing their weakest leg, Saugus would have been 15:23-27 through three legs, 9-13 seconds ahead of Aptos. Janes ran 5:02, according to Great Oak, and probably would have done the same in the invite race. The race would have played out the exact same way in the seeded race, and with all due respect to Hiltz, I doubt she could close a 9-13 second gap and out-kick Janes.
We will never know what could have been, but it's always fun to speculate ;)
The Animal Without wrote:
My point is Hiltz was 4:54 in the invite and Janes was 5:02 solo in the seeded race,
Mr. Janes, you realize that Hiltz was just running fast enough to win? She ran 4:51 for the mile at Stanford last weekend and came back in the DMR on Saturday. As for Hiltz not being a speed demon, you seem to have missed the state meet last year.
If you think Sabrina Janes would have out-kicked Nikki Hiltz, watch this from 4:10 http://youtu.be/l6DhYBA9GU4?t=4m10s
cow pig dog wrote:
No offense to Nikki Hiltz but Saugus' Sabrina Janes would have out-kicked her assuming Saugus had her on the anchor in the invite and they were close. I saw her out-kick in the entire field at APU two weeks ago in the 800. Her kick is impressive.
As I said, we will never know.
I understand what The Animal Without is trying to imply. Aptos would have passed the baton to Hiltz too far back and Saugus would have won from the front, had Janes been in the invite. It's definitely a possibility, but like he said, we'll never know.
watchout wrote:
Not to dampen spirits or anything (because having a 'B' team run under 20:45 is pretty darn good), but... having their teams be top-6 in the US this year isn't too impressive in that event, considered it's rarely run (same for things like the Shuttle Hurdles).
Don't get me wrong, I like the event. It just doesn't mean as much to say you're top X in this event when it's so rare.
Also, only their 'A' team makes the meet's All-Time Top Ten list (at #9)
2008 Saugus CA 20:03.73
2006 Saratoga Springs NY 20:22.33
2010 Xavier Prep AZ 20:23.85
2010 Mira Costa CA 20:25.97
2013 Aptos CA 20:30.02
2009 Saugus CA 20:31.56
2013 La Costa Canyon CA 20:35.47
2013 Saugus CA 20:37.19
2009 Dana Hills CA 20:39.14
... and while it is the Arcadia Invite, it also hasn't been that long that they've held the event (2002?), and it has always conflicted with the 4x800 (and maybe sometimes the DMR). Both the 4x800 and DMR lists are quite a bit stronger (9:12.15 being #10 for the 4x800, and the DMR 11:56.97 but will probably lower a bit after this year's races are included)
tl;dr - Congrats to Saugus for continuing to show they have nationally elite depth, with 8 girls that can average 5:10.26. But the Girls 4x1600m fields just aren't too competitive, exemplified by how they got beat by two teams that didn't make it to NXN (though they also finished two spots ahead of one other team that also qualified for NXN and one spot ahead of a team that might have been considered for an at-large spot, but I'm not sure who ran on those teams so they may have been missing runners - they both ran 4x800 teams while Saugus did not).
/having two teams from ONE year's squad nearly make the top-10 all-time is pretty good. CLearly they got the lineup a little wrong, as if they had put their best four in the Invitational event would have moved them up the all-time list.
I do understand what you are saying (averaging 5:08-9 makes the all-time list) and that those marks are not that strong, but it's not their fault that for all of history, nobody has put 5:00-milers together consistently.
I remember the 4x1600 being very frustrating as we had a team with 4 guys under 4:30 and several sub-2:00 800 runners, and every time we tried to put it together, somebody ran a 4:48. Sometimes it was the 800-runners, sometimes the miler couldn't run well without a pack, but we rarely broke 19:00 even when we were shooting for sub-18:00.
Nice name.
But if you are trying to save face for your third place performance than you are doing a bad job. Different races, you have no idea howmitmwouldmhave gone. No one runs PRs in relay races, they become 4 individual races within the race.
If they could have won they would have. To think they would drop 40 seconds is laughable.
The mighty southern section got beat by a community of 50,000 people got smoked. Coulda Woulda Shoulda.
Are you the same guy this summer that said their coach is the best in the USA (despite him not being successful in the LA section) and should be the head coach of Oregon? Not saying he's not good but just wondering...
The person using the "Great Oak" name is not from the Great Oak program, looks like they are from the Saugus program. Brando?
Anyway I think it is clear that Saugus is the #1 overall distance program in California once again.
The Arcadia Invite 4x1600 is usually won by a team with 4 pretty good runners running a little under 5:10 or a team that has 2 good kids and a couple pretty good kids. Hats off to Aptos, they won and have 2 sub 4:50 1600 girls to lead off and anchor the win. They deserve it.
All programs have different focuses. Redondo obviously sacrifices XC success for track success. Great Oak seems to focus more on the 3200 and XC. Saugus has always focused on XC under Paragas, but has had lots of success on the track. None of this is right or wrong, just where the focus is. 800m runners don't make a winning XC team against the best, and good 3200m runners usually don't dominate 800m runners at 800m. Look at all of the teams that have won the 4x800 Invite at Arcadia. How many won the state XC title that year of the next?
Congrats to all teams for an amazing meet.
watchout wrote:
(this whole post isn't directed towards you, 'Great Oak', I just don't want to post multiple times responding to everyone)
How can I say it's rarely run? Becuse it IS rarely run.
What, about a dozen meets run it? Mostly in California? And only two or so of those meets, besides Arcadia, has been held so far this year?
And yes, this isn't cross country, but good cross country runners are (in general) good distance runners, especially when you're talking about program depth - we're talking about teams running 4/8 girls for a mile. Certainly not exactly the same as cross country, but you'll have to have at least 4 good distance runners to be able to compete well at an event like this - If you don't have 4 good distance runners, you're not making it to NXN. And I can't think of a better way to compare how good teams are, this early in the season, through 4+ distance runners than mentioning how strong their cross country team was. Not all good cross country runners are good distance 1600m runners on the track, but in general they are (because the events, while not identical, are similar enough - they are distance events). If we were talking about something in May, I wouldn't be referring to XC nearly as much because kids would have actually had multiple chances to run fast times on the track.
I agree that Aptos and La Costa Canyon ran outstanding races, and so did Saugus. To repeat, congrats to Saugus for continuing to show they have nationally elite depth, with 8 girls that can average 5:10.26. To review my point: their top team, while good, didn't run an All-Time type performance, and saying that a team is in the top X in the nation so far at a rarely run event doesn't really say much about the performance.
You really don't think other teams might have run better if they didn't also run the 4x800? and had everyone in the race? 800 runners can often (though not always) make good milers, if you didn't know... and in case you don't get it, splitting your top 6 athletes into TWO races (or more, with the SMR's included) isn't going to be as good as putting your top 4 athletes into ONE race. Especially if you don't have dozens of national caliber athletes to work with.
Yes, of course population does matter: The best 4 athletes out of 2,000 people are, in general, going to be better than the best 4 athletes out of 20 people. Plus, having more teammates means more training partners, etc. ... that's why smaller schools don't often do as well in team sports as bigger schools (e.g., in California, most of the best teams and runners often come from Division 1/2/3 rather than Division 4/5)
Lack of sub-20's: It's early enough in the season, and doesn't include many of the top programs outside of CA/WA/NV/AZ/UT, so it's not all that surpising that there hasn't been a sub-20 yet (though I do agree there have been teams capable of it under the right circumstances). I think the average winner could probably be something like 20:15-20:20 though if more of the top California programs started loading up on it, with occassional sub-20:10's.
Back to my point -
There are programs out there who could probably run 19:40's or faster (e.g. GPS, FM ... GPS's indoor season bests this year adds up to 19:30.36 and their PR's 19:16.64, for example). And also others that could have 'B' teams sub-20:50, especially if it isn't their #5-8 runners. Not many, but they are out there. A US Top-5 type program like Saugus managing it shouldn't surprise anyone.
So, once again: kudos to Saugus for showing they have nationally elite depth. I knew you could do it, and I'm sure there are others out there that felt the same way. Keep up the good work.
As usual, you are wrong. A dozen meets run it? Mostly in California? Well, AT LEAST 17 meets in California ALONE have ALREADY run that event this year.
There are more errors and bad logic in the rest of your post but since most that are in the know are already aware of that, we'll leave it at that.
No one ever said he should be head coach at Oregon and please explain why he would have to successful in the LA section to considered successful? Rene has built a winning girls program that has won seven straight state titles, owns the top three team times at Mt Sac and Woodward, and finished top four at nationals four years in a row. That's easily enough to make him one of the best in the USA.
Keeping it real wrote:As usual, you are wrong. A dozen meets run it? Mostly in California? Well, AT LEAST 17 meets in California ALONE have ALREADY run that event this year.
There are more errors and bad logic in the rest of your post but since most that are in the know are already aware of that, we'll leave it at that.
By all means, if I'm wrong, please enlighten me as to what notable invitationals run the event (and I'm not saying I'm not wrong on the number, I was purposefully vague because I don't know the exact number, and I sincerely doubt you do either - all I know, and the point I was conveying, is that it is definitely one of the least common events run - probably less common than even the 5k or Steeple or Hammer Throw, though probably more common than the 10k - and the vast majority of teams in the nation - including a very large portion of the best programs in the nation - don't run it, whether we're talking about doing it this early or by the end of the summer). If there are little meets that I've never heard of that run it, then that's interesting as well. But you only really hear about it at meets like Arcadia, New Balance Nationals, Mt. SAC Relays, and I think The Woodlands has one at their invitational... and, I suppose you can count the Portland Track Festival because they usually try to include either a 4xMile or DMR at their meet, which has usually been just North Central vs. maybe another team or two. Now, I'm honestly sure I'm missing a handful of notable meets that do, but I just can't think of them... so please, fill me in on the dozens of meets I'm forgetting.
Also, please feel free to point out the glowing errors and bad logic in my post. I am interested to hear your viewpoint on how splitting up runners to run different races, or having runners run multiple races in short amount of time, or holding athletes out of relays, don't play any kind of role in how fast a relay a school can put together.
Typical. You put out incorrect (way off) statistical info, get called on it, then try to distort the message with a typical flub response. If you're going to reference stats, then get them correct (or at least be in the ballpark and note that), rather than be way off at the beginning, then try to hide/misdirect from that with a meandering post later.
Keeping it real wrote:
Typical. You put out incorrect (way off) statistical info, get called on it, then try to distort the message with a typical flub response. If you're going to reference stats, then get them correct (or at least be in the ballpark and note that), rather than be way off at the beginning, then try to hide/misdirect from that with a meandering post later.
12 and 17 are in the same ballpark
8 kids at 5:10 would not be embarrassing for a BOYS team, at the beginning of April.