{"comments":{"936501":{"pb_id":"30153","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936501","comment_id":"936501","member_id":"30153","comment":"what you Posted about Anna Maxwell 3200m 10:24 after Arcadia was Wrong. CCS Championships She Doubled with 2.5 Hour break 4:42 1600m and 10:22 3200m also State 4:50 1600m Trials, 4:47 1600m Finals and Came Back in 10:25 3200m! 100 plus Degree Weather Both Days. After Arcadia She Was Doubling all the Way to State. Very Hard to Do In California, a 1st Place and 3rd Place finish at State in Cali.","date_added":"Dec 17th 2013, 9:38pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"SLVTrack1","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=30153","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/SLVTrack1.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"768037"},"936382":{"pb_id":"52387","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936382","comment_id":"936382","member_id":"52387","comment":"Agreed on the divisions causing too much fragmentation in CA races. It can be hard to gauge performances by strong runners in D4 or D5 races, as they are often soloing their runs, and who knows if they would run faster (or crumble) if they had someone to race against.
\n
\nAs for Shehadeh's fall and recovery - that's the first I'd heard of it; very impressive! Thanks for pointing that out.
\n
\n

<\/a>Bill Meylan, on , said:<\/p>

\nThanks for the correction on the Stanford Invite divisions ... I wish the California girls could race head-to-head more often than seems possible due to the divisional setup.
\n
\nThe Girls Footlocker race ... In a post-race interview, Anoush Shehadeh (who finished 4th) said she took a "face-plant" and fell back to next-to-last place early in the race ... Watching some video replays of the race on MileSplit, Anoush Shehadeh was indeed gapped behind the field in next-to-last place in the opening 800 meters ... she can be seen to steadily move up throughout the race and finish a very strong 4th ... It was a super effort that deserves some praise!
<\/div><\/div>","date_added":"Dec 17th 2013, 5:25pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Not That Guy","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=52387","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Not-That-Guy.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1317589"},"936356":{"pb_id":"43675","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936356","comment_id":"936356","member_id":"43675","comment":"

<\/a>Not That Guy, on , said:<\/p>

\nA couple minor clarifications: Maxwell had the fastest time of the day at Stanford, but both she and O'Keeffe won their respective races (quote below implies Maxwell beating O'Keeffe in direct competition, which wasn't the case). At Mt. Sac, O'Keeffe won by 20 seconds over a strong field and essentially solo'd the last two miles, so not sure that her race\/effort was much different from Maxwell's similar victory.
\n
\nIn any event, both had fantastic seasons, and it will be interesting to see them compete in track this season. I predict Maxwell has edge at 1600 meters and O'Keeffe is slightly better at 3200.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nThanks for the correction on the Stanford Invite divisions ... I wish the California girls could race head-to-head more often than seems possible due to the divisional setup.
\n
\nThe Girls Footlocker race ... In a post-race interview, Anoush Shehadeh (who finished 4th) said she took a "face-plant" and fell back to next-to-last place early in the race ... Watching some video replays of the race on MileSplit, Anoush Shehadeh was indeed gapped behind the field in next-to-last place in the opening 800 meters ... she can be seen to steadily move up throughout the race and finish a very strong 4th ... It was a super effort that deserves some praise!","date_added":"Dec 17th 2013, 12:59pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Bill Meylan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43675","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Bill-Meylan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1073444"},"936193":{"pb_id":"52387","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936193","comment_id":"936193","member_id":"52387","comment":"A couple minor clarifications: Maxwell had the fastest time of the day at Stanford, but both she and O'Keeffe won their respective races (quote below implies Maxwell beating O'Keeffe in direct competition, which wasn't the case). At Mt. Sac, O'Keeffe won by 20 seconds over a strong field and essentially solo'd the last two miles, so not sure that her race\/effort was much different from Maxwell's similar victory.
\n
\nIn any event, both had fantastic seasons, and it will be interesting to see them compete in track this season. I predict Maxwell has edge at 1600 meters and O'Keeffe is slightly better at 3200.
\n
\n

<\/a>Bill Meylan, on , said:<\/p>

\nI also agree ... Fiona O'Keeffe is a huge talent, so I expect her track PRs will be lowered significantly in the coming seasons.
\n
\nWith respect to cross country, I consider Fiona O'Keeffe and Anna Maxwell to be relatively close in performance levels ... Maxwell did beat O'Keeffe handily at the Stanford Invite in late September (by 16 seconds), but O'Keefe did run 2 seconds faster at the Mt. SAC Invite and 9 seconds faster at the California State Meet ... However, in those races, Anna Maxwell was in different divisions than O'Keeffe and Maxwell won by huge margins with NO competition, while O'Keeffe had good competition to push her in both races ... One CA coach thought I should re-rate Maxwell's State Meet race because Maxwell's Division IV race was run at 1:00pm in the afternoon when it was warmer as compared to the Division I race at 8:30am.
\n
<\/div><\/div>","date_added":"Dec 16th 2013, 7:26pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Not That Guy","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=52387","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Not-That-Guy.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1317589"},"936166":{"pb_id":"43805","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936166","comment_id":"936166","member_id":"43805","comment":"Thank for the quick reply Watchout and Meylan. I love what you guys do and like you said you two are usually pretty close. That's why it was surprising for me to see NXN so different.
\n
\nIt's interesting to see how both of you approach speed ratings.
\n
\nThank you for all you guys do for high school running.","date_added":"Dec 16th 2013, 3:25pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"RunSpokane","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43805","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/RunSpokane.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1073997"},"936156":{"pb_id":"43675","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936156","comment_id":"936156","member_id":"43675","comment":"

<\/a>RunSpokane, on , said:<\/p>

\nWatchout and Meylan,
\n
\nWhy do your ratings for the boys NXN differ by so much? How did each of you choose your 200 mark?
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nAs Watchout notes above, we use somewhat different methods and I think his method is completely valid and appropriate ... In general, we are fairly close in our assessments ... The difference in the NXN Boy's ratings is probably due somewhat to the methods, but also how I view the race as a handicapping assessment ... I approach NXN and Footlocker a bit differently than typical races during the course of a season and look for several potential different factors.
\n
\nAssessing NXN is compounded by the enormous variability in the speed and conditions of Portland Meadows in December ... The difference in speed over the frozen tundra of 2013 and the swamp of 2012 is over 2 minutes (that's huge) ... and the variability in prior years is all over map ... It's not surprising that different people will have different assessments at times ... So the assessment of NXN is based almost entirely on assessing the runners as (1) individuals and (2) groups of runners.
\n
\nGraphical evaluation is an important part of my methodology in comparing races ... I use it as one method of deriving a race adjustment ... I derive a separate race adjustment by comparing individual runners and teams to their speed ratings of prior races and then combine the two adjustments to derive the final speed ratings for the race.
\n
\nI treat NXN a bit differently because a fair of number of runners run poor races at NXN compared to prior races (more so than seasonal races) and I am not forgiving<\/strong> in making that assessment ... It wasn't nearly as bad on the frozen tundra compared to the swamp of 2012, but it's still there ... I go through a process of excluding poor-performing runners and\/or teams, and that exclusion process lowers the speed ratings somewhat because the remaining runners don't rate quite as good with the poor-performers removed.
\n
\nI also go through an iteration process where I remove one or more complete teams from the results and rate those results separately for comparison ... For example, remove Gig Harbor and all teams that finished 12th or lower (teams finishing 2-11 "might" give a decent assessment on the speed assessment, but it requires other iterations).
\n
\nDoing that, my 2013 NXN Boy's assessment was in-between whole numbers ... I like my race adjustment to be a multiple of three because I use a linear scale where 3 seconds equals 1 speed rating point for 5K races ... So Kai Wilmot became 199.0 rather rather than 200.0 (I am not forgiving at NXN).","date_added":"Dec 16th 2013, 1:08pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Bill Meylan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43675","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Bill-Meylan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1073444"},"936015":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936015","comment_id":"936015","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>RunSpokane, on , said:<\/p>

\nWatchout and Meylan,
\n
\nWhy do your ratings for the boys NXN differ by so much? How did each of you choose your 200 mark?
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nFor my part, it's probably two things:
\n
\n1. I'm more dependent on what runners ran at NXR and State meets to influence how I view the NXN results (I know Meylan looks at that as well, but I don't think it's the biggest factor in developing his ratings - graphing the race plays a more important role in his system than in mine)
\n
\n2. I only separate boys and girls ratings when the results suggest there is a notable difference in how fast the races were - and this race, to me, suggested a difference of 4-4.5 seconds at most, which wasn't enough for me to really worry about (that's within what I consider to be the margin of error, as it's only a difference of about 0.5%), especially considering when I looked at the ratings for athletes I kept good track of and saw that they tended to match a bit better (in the top half of each race) with the more combined rating, rather than the separated ratings. Note that the 200.0 marks for my girls ratings and his girls ratings are pretty similar (15:06 vs. 15:07.31) -- so any difference in the girls ratings, beyond 0.4 points, is due to my using a multiplier system rather than a straight +\/- system (re: my ratings are 0.7 points higher for Efraimson, so at that level the multiplier vs. +\/- system accounted for about a second's worth of difference in the girls ratings; for Courtney Smith, it was about 0.8 points, as it was a minute further from the 200.0 mark).","date_added":"Dec 16th 2013, 2:30am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"936001":{"pb_id":"43805","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"936001","comment_id":"936001","member_id":"43805","comment":"Watchout and Meylan,
\n
\nWhy do your ratings for the boys NXN differ by so much? How did each of you choose your 200 mark?","date_added":"Dec 16th 2013, 1:28am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"RunSpokane","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43805","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/RunSpokane.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1073997"},"935986":{"pb_id":"43675","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935986","comment_id":"935986","member_id":"43675","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nI agree: 5:03.75\/10:40.17 to 10:13-10:14 would be a HUGE jump if it was completely indicative of where she was last year at her best. A more reasonable jump would be something like 10:20-10:25 to 10:13-10:14.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI also agree ... Fiona O'Keeffe is a huge talent, so I expect her track PRs will be lowered significantly in the coming seasons.
\n
\nWith respect to cross country, I consider Fiona O'Keeffe and Anna Maxwell to be relatively close in performance levels ... Maxwell did beat O'Keeffe handily at the Stanford Invite in late September (by 16 seconds), but O'Keefe did run 2 seconds faster at the Mt. SAC Invite and 9 seconds faster at the California State Meet ... However, in those races, Anna Maxwell was in different divisions than O'Keeffe and Maxwell won by huge margins with NO competition, while O'Keeffe had good competition to push her in both races ... One CA coach thought I should re-rate Maxwell's State Meet race because Maxwell's Division IV race was run at 1:00pm in the afternoon when it was warmer as compared to the Division I race at 8:30am.
\n
\nAnna Maxwell finally had the opportunity to run against top runners at Footlocker Nationals and she ran very well in finishing 5th ... But Tessa Barrett did beat her by 23 seconds.
\n
\nI'm still wondering how good Tessa Barrett actually is ... I think Barrett finished Footlocker with something "left in the tank" ... I don't think she knows her actual ability at this point in time, but she's very competitive .... A growing number of people believe she is capable of running competitively in an XC race with the top three from NXN ... Barrett did not displace them from the top of the rankings, but she has certainly made her presence known.
\n
\nI knew virtually nothing about Tessa Barrett until she popped a huge performance at a PA invitational ... She was on crutches a year ago due to an injury ... she amazingly returned to run some indoor races and finished 4th at Indoor Nationals in the 5000 meters (16:42.99) losing to Wesley Frazier and Erin Finn by only 25 seconds when the National Indoor record was set ... Barrett set track PRs in outdoors at 1600m (4:55.63) and 3200m (10:25.16), and finished 4th in the Penn Relays 3000m (9:40.45) ... So her success in XC is not really that much of a surprise IF you knew who she was.
\n
\nBy comparison, Anna Maxwell has track PRs of 4:43.01 (1600m) and 10:10.51 (3200m) ... That 10:10.51 was run at the Arcadia Invite and her next best time at 3200m is 10:24.29 (nearly the same as Barrett's PR).","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 11:06pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Bill Meylan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43675","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Bill-Meylan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1073444"},"935916":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935916","comment_id":"935916","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>newfan, on , said:<\/p>

\nPeople have been under-estimating O'keeffe all season. She was injured during FL last year and for most of the track season as a freshman. She only gradually came back to run in the final couple of meets to have the experience of the state meet. Her 1600 and 3200 times from last spring tell little about how fast she is. But, we shall see.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI agree: 5:03.75\/10:40.17 to 10:13-10:14 would be a HUGE jump if it was completely indicative of where she was last year at her best. A more reasonable jump would be something like 10:20-10:25 to 10:13-10:14.","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 7:35pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"935912":{"pb_id":"43690","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935912","comment_id":"935912","member_id":"43690","comment":"People have been under-estimating O'keeffe all season. She was injured during FL last year and for most of the track season as a freshman. She only gradually came back to run in the final couple of meets to have the experience of the state meet. Her 1600 and 3200 times from last spring tell little about how fast she is. But, we shall see.","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 7:32pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"newfan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43690","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/newfan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1079915"},"935899":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935899","comment_id":"935899","member_id":"43715","comment":"Why would you have an issue with my NXN ratings, when they are higher than Meylan's?
\n
\nA 160 is rare. The fact that 3 girls ran ratings that higher than that is extraordinary. It is All-Time caliber. It's like 3 runners that go sub-10 in the same 3200m race in track, with the leaders around 9:50-9:52... never happened before (closest was Hasay vs. Chetelat in '08, but slightly faster and with a third runner in the mix). So I'm not sure what the problem is with the ratings. They are the three highest ratings ever at NXN, and there have been some very good girls that have raced at NXN.
\n
\nAnd yes, I know she is from California. It was a typo when I was quickly transferring data (saw "Davis" for the school, typed UT instead of CA because I didn't look in the parenthesis and didn't look at the runner's name). I fixed that as soon as I saw your first post in this thread.
\n
\nDo you think O'Keeffe is that much faster than 10:13-10:14 for 3200m? You do realize her PR's are only 5:03.75\/10:40.17? And you do realize that the same rating at Woodward would be ~16:54, 5 seconds faster than she ran at state?
\n
\nAs for the rest of California... as you can tell by what I wrote in my "By the Numbers" article reviewing the NXN meet, there were many California runners that had good days at NXN.
\n
\n
\nThat's why I mentioned the difference between my ratings and Meylan's, and why I specifically pointed out what 3200m times would correlate to the ratings. I don't think you have a problem with my ratings for NXN, as much as a misunderstanding of how good those ratings actually are.","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 7:11pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"935425":{"pb_id":"49498","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935425","comment_id":"935425","member_id":"49498","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nmaybe I overestimate FLN (a poster on Letsrun said the same thing when I compared Woodward to Balboa), but I have the 200.0 marks at 15:07.31 for NXN and 15:13.83 for FLN.
\n
\nFYI, for a more understandable comparison, in my estimation a 160 is ~ 10:00 for 3200m and 152.5 is ~ 10:13-10:14
\n
\nEDIT: If you want another opinion, Meylan just posted his ratings for FLN.
\n
\nHe gave O'Keeffe a 151.63, and Devin Clark (FLN#12) a 151.67.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nMy beef isn't the estimate of FLN it's the estimate of NXN. You don't have the same amount of data from that course. Each year the course is so different (unlike FLN). Fiona O'Keeffe (from CA not UT) just ran 16:59 at woodward (17:30), Marissa Williams ran 17:04 at woodward (18:01 at NXN and ran 17:41 last year at FLN), Destiny Collins ran a 17:09 at woodward (18:13.1) Robinson 17:16 at woodward (17:51 at NXN), Bethan Nights 17:07 at woodward (18:14 at NXN), Addi Zerrenner 17:17 at woodward (19:07 at NXN), Leigh Moffett 17:24.1 at woodward (18:57 at NXN)
\n
\nBased on your course rating of NXN, I think you would say that besides Baxter, no CA individual ran even remotely comparable to their woodward performance, which is possible.","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 5:04pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"MatthewXCountry","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=49498","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/MatthewXCountry.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1194309"},"935371":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935371","comment_id":"935371","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>drarcher, on , said:<\/p>

\nNot sure how you put Clark at 16th ahead of a bunch of girls who just beat her at NXN where she finished 27? You have her ahead of Anna French who finished well in front of her when they went head to head a week ago at NXN.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nBecause she ran better at FLN than NXN, and what I posted was the best performances of the two meets combined.","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 5:53am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"935369":{"pb_id":"53089","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"935369","comment_id":"935369","member_id":"53089","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nmaybe I overestimate FLN (a poster on Letsrun said the same thing when I compared Woodward to Balboa), but I have the 200.0 marks at 15:07.31 for NXN and 15:13.83 for FLN.
\n
\nFYI, for a more understandable comparison, in my estimation a 160 is ~ 10:00 for 3200m and 152.5 is ~ 10:13-10:14
\n
\nEDIT: If you want another opinion, Meylan just posted his ratings for FLN.
\n
\nHe gave O'Keeffe a 151.63, and Devin Clark (FLN#12) a 151.67.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nNot sure how you put Clark at 16th ahead of a bunch of girls who just beat her at NXN where she finished 27? You have her ahead of Anna French who finished well in front of her when they went head to head a week ago at NXN.","date_added":"Dec 15th 2013, 5:46am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"dra","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=53089","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/drarcher.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1334077"},"934544":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"934544","comment_id":"934544","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>MatthewXCountry, on , said:<\/p>

\nI don't know about that. How are you rating the NXN course this year? The list for the girls seems skewed towards FLN. I think O'Keefe's in 4th at NXN had in that race was equivalent to winning the FLN race this year. Efraimson, Cranny and Baxter are all time greats, that went head to head. Rarely do runners at that level get good competition, and we saw the result. I understand that it's hard to do historical numbers on NXN, because of the wildly different conditions from year to year, so it's almost impossible to do a good statistical comparison.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nmaybe I overestimate FLN (a poster on Letsrun said the same thing when I compared Woodward to Balboa), but I have the 200.0 marks at 15:07.31 for NXN and 15:13.83 for FLN.
\n
\nFYI, for a more understandable comparison, in my estimation a 160 is ~ 10:00 for 3200m and 152.5 is ~ 10:13-10:14
\n
\nEDIT: If you want another opinion, Meylan just posted his ratings for FLN.
\n
\nHe gave O'Keeffe a 151.63, and Devin Clark (FLN#12) a 151.67.","date_added":"Dec 14th 2013, 7:30pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":198346,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"934538":{"pb_id":"49498","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"934538","comment_id":"934538","member_id":"49498","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nHardy, Hurlock, Corcoran and Kramer were the only senior qualifiers out of the west. Corcoran and Kramer were two of the last three finishers from the West (#14 and 23).
\n
\nStrong year out West, and should be again next year!!
\n
\nBy the way, using my NXN ratings from this year and average FLN ratings of the last half decade... here's how my top 25's would shake out if you combined the meets -
\n
\nBoys =
\n
\n