Ask yourself, does Austin Tamagno really hold the Mt. SAC record?

Oh, well as long as it looked effortless! I think the conversion on effortless vs. tryhard is ~8 seconds.

I did a road race last weekend in 20 minutes. I reckon it was about 6 minutes slower than mtsac cause that conversion makes me faster, so put me in the record books too.

You can't just view past runners through nostalgia tinted glasses and declare them better. Nelson ran 14:32 not 14:23 no matter how you shake it.

JacokNortovc wrote:

I did a road race last weekend in 20 minutes. I reckon it was about 6 minutes slower than mtsac cause that conversion makes me faster, so put me in the record books too.

You can't just view past runners through nostalgia tinted glasses and declare them better. Nelson ran 14:32 not 14:23 no matter how you shake it.

You also can't possibly think that this 14:23 is comparable to any of the great course records when 2nd and 3rd were 8 and 11 seconds behind (by good but clearly not great runners).

But that's irrelevant. Records are black and white and AT broke one. Now, if you want to argue with yourself about the greatest run on the course, by all means, have at it.

Runnnerr wrote:

JacokNortovc wrote:

I did a road race last weekend in 20 minutes. I reckon it was about 6 minutes slower than mtsac cause that conversion makes me faster, so put me in the record books too.

You can't just view past runners through nostalgia tinted glasses and declare them better. Nelson ran 14:32 not 14:23 no matter how you shake it.

You also can't possibly think that this 14:23 is comparable to any of the great course records when 2nd and 3rd were 8 and 11 seconds behind (by good but clearly not great runners).

Based on this, Babe Ruth still holds the single season HR record.

Since Jeff Nelson ran uphill both ways, through the snow, he should get a great big asterisk with a frozen cherry on top!

Pasadena Star-News Online

College: Mt. SAC thrown a curve

Course improvements call into question the validity of new marks

October 18, 2001

By Richard Gonzalez

Staff Writer

October, 2000: Glendale Hoover High's Anita Siraki stuns the national prep

cross country community when she breaks the Mt. San Antonio College course

record by a stunning 17 seconds.

November, 2000: Big Bear High's Ryan Hall runs the Mt. SAC course in

14:28, slicing four seconds off Jeff Nelson's 22-year-old boys course

record.

November, 2000: Don Lugo High's Erick Maldonado smashes the sophomore boys

course record as five of the six fastest 10th-grade course times in

history are achieved. All told, a whopping 39 revisions are made to the

all-time grade lists.

Oddly enough, these standout runners have enjoyed ample success before and

since, but not quite to the degree achieved recently along the revered

2.95-mile Mt. SAC course.

Well, maybe it's because the course had been shortened to 2.91 miles.

Mt. SAC cross country women's coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three

separate interviews since last November that the course has indeed been

shortened, an end result of safety concerns, course upgrades and

environmental effects.

"We struggled not to make the changes, because the Mt. SAC course and the

meet are so steeped in history," said Todd, who oversees this weekend's

conclusion of the 54th annual Mt. SAC Cross Country Invitational, the

nation's largest.

"Some changes were unavoidable, but it doesn't make accepting the changes

any easier."

The most notable change was reconfiguring a portion of the "Valley Loop"

as a safety matter. With the number of entrants swelling to match the

meet's growth in popularity, maneuvering along the original course's

sharp, jutting turn less than a minute into the race created logistical

problems.

Mt. SAC staff changed it to a sweeping and easier to navigate path, which

Todd estimates cut about five seconds off each loop or 10 seconds per

runner off the double loop. If his estimate is accurate, that translates

to roughly a 50-second team-time (five runners) improvement over

"pre-renovation" years.

Additionally, heavy rains a few years ago caused erosion along some

patches of the course. Throw in the beautification steps imposed in recent

years a wider running path, planting of shade-producing trees along the

route, and considerable landscaping to improve footing and the

once-imposing course becomes a more inviting one.

"We try to respect history and tradition, yet safety becomes a factor too

... a much more important factor," said Mt. SAC men's coach Mike Goff, who

is the one entrusted with the upkeep of the course.

"If course historians have a problem with it, I understand," Goff added.

"At the same time, if we can improve the course to maximum conditions for

runners, that's great, too. Bottom line, the best teams and runners will

still win."

The only drawback now is that the ever-popular time comparisons by

generations of runners might lack integrity, since the course has changed.

It used to be when one California runner would meet another, the first

question was: "What's your best time at Mt. SAC?"

Regardless, the course still offers a tough test to challengers.

"Well, Mt. SAC's been too hot, too dusty, too slow, too crowded, too

hard," said Goff, echoing some critics over the years. "And now... they

say it's too fast. That's a new one."

Nelson wasn't a 4:06 soph miler. He's not in Tamagno's league.

Trollolololo your way back in here when Topanga pops an 8:36 2 mile.

I thought everyone already knew the course was altered AND shortened back around 2000. Guess not.

gramps wrote:

Jeff Nelson's 14:32 back in the day will always be the greatest performance in Mt. SAC history in my eyes. The course back then was about 15-20 second slower than today's course, plus he made it look so effortless. Kudos to Tamagno, but Nelson's name should have an asterisk on the all-time list.

You posted this in another thread, then made a new thread just to cut and paste your own words?

The course was NOT slower then. How could it be?

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

You posted this in another thread, then made a new thread just to cut and paste your own words?

Exactly what I was going to say. Perhaps he felt his profound thought didn't get the attention it deserved there, so another thread needed to be made.