Statistics
262 total views | Who I Am...just some old dude still gunnin for a fast mile Latest BlogsNo articles found
Wall - 0 followersLatest NewsNo articles found
| VideosYou can link to any video on RunnerSpace and put it in your video box on your profile! |
Did get ahead of Palos Verdes and St John Bosco though.
Should be an interesting weekend.
DontStopPre, on , said:
They ran well early, and most didn't improve all that much since then. There was at least one injury and/or sickness, Mike Newman can provide more detail on that.
watchout, on , said:
Thanks. So any reason? Injuries? Peak to soon? Over rated to begin with? Weak schedule early in the season? All of above?
RunningPrince, on , said:
I wouldn't be surprised at all.
Burbank in the last three weeks:
78:32 CIF-SS Prelims
75:10.47 Pacific League
78:31 Mt. SAC
... pretty consistent, suggesting the Pacific League course ran ~40 seconds faster than Mt. SAC.
Crescenta Valley in the last three weeks:
78:19 CIF-SS Prelims
75:34.69 Pacific League
79:42 Mt. SAC
... an average of 3:25, suggesting the Pacific League course ran ~41 seconds faster than Mt. SAC.
Burroughs (Burbank) in the last three weeks:
79:48 CIF-SS Prelims
77:15.14 Pacific League
80:38 Mt. SAC
... an average of 2:57, suggesting the Pacific League course ran ~36 seconds faster than Mt. SAC
Arcadia girls:
94:00 CIF-SS Prelims
89:54.93 Pacific League
93:49 Mt. SAC
... an average of 4:00, suggesting the Pacific League course ran ~48 seconds faster than Mt. SAC
Crescenta Valley girls:
96:22 CIF-SS Prelims
92:52.12 Pacific League
98:56 Mt. SAC
... an average of 4:47, suggesting the Pacific League course ran ~57 seconds faster than Mt. SAC
Burbank girls:
98:20 CIF-SS Prelims
95:13.48 Pacific League
100:32 Mt. SAC
... an average of 4:12, suggesting the Pacific League course ran ~50 seconds faster than Mt. SAC
Obviously, that's a very rough and incomplete way to look at it, but the implication is pretty obvious:
the Pacific League course was definitely more than 25 seconds faster than Mt. SAC.
watchout, on , said:
There has been some talk recently whether we are getting ahead of ourselves and prematurely declaring this the best season ever. On one hand people do tend to let their emotions get the best of them and think that way: this season is the best ever of this generation is the best ever, my generation of music is the best ever, etc. However if you look at the 2012 xcnation postal results I think it's clear that last spring was the best year ever for distance teams in US history. Then when you compare this season's xc teams to last season's it does seem that '13 is better than '12. And not just a little bit better, but substantially (though not, head and shoulders better, but substantially). Can '14 be even better? Perhaps, many of the top teams have seniors but I tend to think they will reload well. One thing I feel strong about is that IF NXN somehow doesn't deliver (ie the course is slow because of sloppy conditions, or it surprisingly becomes a slow tactical race) this is still one of if not the best years ever. Some people have said we must wait till the championship race to evaluate the season, I disagree, I feel that most people know it's top 5 all-time, it's just up to each individual where in the top 5 you rank it.
I will, of course, continue to review the ratings if it seems off compared to the races over the course of the next couple weeks.
By the way, if the Pacific League Championships course was about on par with the Irvine Regional Park course, this is how the two teams would compare based on last weekend's races alone:
Elliot Choe 12 Burbank CA 14:44.09
Arsen Mkrtchyan 12 Burbank CA 14:49.12
Gabriel Ellman 12 Burbank CA 15:08.38
Ethan Moskowitz 12 Burbank CA 15:09.91
Enrique Vizaino 11 Burbank CA 15:18.97
Brennan Doyle 11 Burbank CA 15:22.93
Andres Vasquez 12 Burbank CA 15:59.88
Garrett Kraal 12 Kamiakin WA 14:38.22
Andrew Snyder 11 Kamiakin WA 14:40.59
Cameron Glade 11 Kamiakin WA 14:42.07
Phillip Fishburn 10 Kamiakin WA 15:04.07
Keegan McCormick 12 Kamiakin WA 15:10.78
Daniel Sanchez 12 Kamiakin WA 15:28.43
Ben Brooks 11 Kamiakin WA 15:36.71
Kamiakin ahead by ~5 seconds at #1, ~10 seconds at #2, ~25 seconds at #3, ~5 seconds at #4, and ~10 seconds at #5.
However, based on times ran by all the athletes in the field, I think the course ran a little faster than that even.
A better straight-up comparison would be looking at the Clovis Invite, since that course runs much more closely (Woodward being about 5-10 seconds faster) to Sun Willows (WA State) - not to mention it's a well known course, making comparisons much easier:
Elliot Choe 12 Burbank CA 15:55
Arsen Mkrtchyan 12 Burbank CA 16:16
Gabriel Ellman 12 Burbank CA 16:29
Ethan Moskowitz 12 Burbank CA 16:23
Enrique Vizaino 11 Burbank CA 16:25
Brennan Doyle 11 Burbank CA 16:40
Andres Vasquez 12 Burbank CA 16:44
Garrett Kraal 12 Kamiakin WA 15:31
Andrew Snyder 11 Kamiakin WA 15:34
Cameron Glade 11 Kamiakin WA 15:35
Phillip Fishburn 10 Kamiakin WA 15:59
Keegan McCormick 12 Kamiakin WA 16:06
Daniel Sanchez 12 Kamiakin WA 16:24
Ben Brooks 11 Kamiakin WA 16:33
(this was the more conservative 5 second comparison... though it's been pretty consistent at 8-12 in the past)
Obviously, Burbank has improved since then (as shown above), but not enough to put them in the conversation with a top-15 team just yet.
FYI, based on the Pacific League Championship meet alone, that course would have to be within < 25 seconds of Mt. SAC to get Burbank past Palos Verdes and St. John Bosco.
Did get ahead of Palos Verdes and St John Bosco though.
Should be an interesting weekend.
1446
1448
1450
1516
1521
1539
1548
NR Burbank 3mile at the Pacific League Championships.
1444
1449
1508
1509
1518
1522
1558