Eastbay vs runninglane Times

the pace was pushed as much as could be reasonably expected at east bay. i think the splits were something like 4:45/5:00/4:52

this was not tactical. nothing was held back for a big negative split. 

We now have had two years of data. There is no getting around that Runninglane is absurdly fast, which is why both boys and girls who ran both average over a minute slower at Balboa Park.

astro wrote:

We now have had two years of data. There is no getting around that Runninglane is absurdly fast, which is why both boys and girls who ran both average over a minute slower at Balboa Park.

ok? that doesn't make the claims in this thread any less absurd

Not that short wrote:

freekiprop wrote:

wow if its 2.91 miles downhill, the track Jenna Hutchins ran on 3 weeks later must've been 2.75!

Or she finally had someone to run with and push her. I hear that helps?

Well she was in the lead the whole time and had a like an 8 meter lead a mile in. If someone 2-3 seconds behind you makes you run 24 seconds faster maybe meets would start telling pacers to run behind athletes.

freekiprop wrote:

astro wrote:

We now have had two years of data. There is no getting around that Runninglane is absurdly fast, which is why both boys and girls who ran both average over a minute slower at Balboa Park.

ok? that doesn't make the claims in this thread any less absurd

Explain what claim is absurd

pain wrote:

freekiprop wrote:

ok? that doesn't make the claims in this thread any less absurd

Explain what claim is absurd

that josh methner could run 14:02 at running lane, that hunter and ches would've been under 13:50, and that the course is 2.91 miles

Before today, we were thing that Hough and Bergen were probably going to run 13:5X this year for 5000m on the track, given their performance at Running Lane.

After all, last year:

Wolfe ran 14:26 at Running Lane and 14:06 later for 5000m on the track

Wachtel ran 14:36 at Running Lane and 14:15 later for 5000m on the track

Their times were so slow at Eastbay, I am now doubting it.

Perhaps Eastbay has simply been running slower and slower every year recently. We will see shortly

What’s so absurd about that? Might be 5 seconds too aggressive, but are you thinking this year’s best are wildly better than his class’? Methner would’ve blazed Running Lane no doubt about it.

Another thing to remember is that last year was messed up due to Covid and athletes had much less hectic schedules and more time to train. So you probably had athletes that took advantage and targeted track times in a way that normally high school runners would not have been able to. I actually expected more track to records to fall but it didn't quite happen.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

What’s so absurd about that? Might be 5 seconds too aggressive, but are you thinking this year’s best are wildly better than his class’? Methner would’ve blazed Running Lane no doubt about it.

Nico was 14 seconds faster than Methner at NXN and he wasn't any faster than NB's top 3 this year on the same courses.

*NP's top 3

What's wrong with the first two? We have direct evidence this year of kids who ran both meets running a minute slower at Balboa. Why couldn't a 15:02 at Balboa equal a 14:02 at RunningLane?

Not every race is the same year over year and who’s to say Nico was pushed the exact same as the NP top 3 who have each other as company every race. It is more plausible that Nico had his best performance of the season to blow out Methner than that the second best XC runner this year who ran very fast at Balboa/IL State Meet etc. would be a distant finisher at Running Lane

Short Course wrote:

What's wrong with the first two? We have direct evidence this year of kids who ran both meets running a minute slower at Balboa. Why couldn't a 15:02 at Balboa equal a 14:02 at RunningLane?

We also have direct evidence of people hopping on a track a couple weeks after running lane and running 20, 21, and 24 seconds faster. That puts cheserek (and fustum) at a 13:22 and hunter at a 13:25.

And the np boys are right around where Nico was his senior year. Nico beat methner by 14 seconds and was clear of him 600m in. So no he would not have beaten all 3 at running lane .

You’re just very sensitive to a few seconds. It’d likely be very close between Methner and the NP top 3. Nobody will be shocked if the NP top 3 can run in the 13:50 range with super spikes. But you also have to acknowledge the disparity between Balboa and Running Lane times indicates that the Huntsville course is closer to on the track than a challenging XC course.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

You’re just very sensitive to a few seconds. It’d likely be very close between Methner and the NP top 3. Nobody will be shocked if the NP top 3 can run in the 13:50 range with super spikes. But you also have to acknowledge the disparity between Balboa and Running Lane times indicates that the Huntsville course is closer to on the track than a challenging XC course.

1. Pretty close between Nico and methner too I guess.

2. I have literally never once said the course was challenging, idk what you're on about.

3. Oh yeah, super spikes. Ches ran 13:22 equivalent without super spikes, so really a 13:12. Hunter 13:15, even though he's yet to do that in the 6 years since.

Updated data on top girls speed ratings (>160) including results from a variety of courses

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16kLSetISoA-Dx_yOn86l_mu5bAjRzqX1YEYcQ5SEFdY/edit#gid=0

Hutchins ran the fastest time in history at 15:58 and won by 1 minute. She then ran the fastest track time in history 2 weeks later. But her performance is behind dozens of others. Provide those facts to any runner or non-runner who is unfamiliar with the ratings and ask them what they think of them.

You can rationalize the fast times at Running Lane all you want. It is just a really fast course. Courses like Balboa, or Kenosha (because I’m familiar with it) that have been raced on for years are much better indicators of a true time. Personally I take courses like Running Lane and throw them out like a data bell curve. Throw out the high and low and look at the average.