Flattest and fastest course I have ever seen and with perfect weather. The long stretches on concrete let the super shoes shine. For those of you who haven’t run it, the course has also changed significantly over the past few years.
From the Rift Valley to the fjords of Norway to the bowl at Holmdel, the cross country world dreamz of a flat xc course with long stretches of concrete and super shoes.
Flattest and fastest course I have ever seen and with perfect weather. The long stretches on concrete let the super shoes shine. For those of you who haven’t run it, the course has also changed significantly over the past few years.
But three miles is still three miles, however it’s sliced. (And Pookiethe Blade sliced it pretty good this year.😍)
And I venture it’s slower than three miles on a track; but how much so depends upon one’s high-stack super-shoe response, that is not afforded on the track.
it's probably 4800 meters first off, secondly it's a race track. no hills, fast turf, get out of here right now. put these kids on an east coast course or mid west course that rolls, is on crab grass, and they'll eat it.
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
3 miles dead-flat on concrete and short grass is a pretty darn fast course. 13:30 for 3 miles is about 14:00 for 5k, 15:20 for the girls is about 15:54. I expect that's about what these athletes would do on the track (Tostenson has run 4:03 for the mile and 8:39 for 3200, Powell has run 4:02 and 8:41). Given that a track also requires you to run slightly further than 5000m (400m is measured from the white line on the inside of lane 1, and you are not allowed to step on this line), plus you're spending less time turning and losing energy overall (with long straightaways), I wouldn't be shocked if this course is even slightly faster than a track.
Important to remember that speed ratings are a product of runner-to-runner comparisons within a single year, and if the entire body of runners gets faster over time, speed ratings will seemingly go down to compensate. Meylan will deny this to his deathbed but the truth is runners ARE running faster, not just on the track but in XC too, and it's harder than ever to get a high speed rating for that reason. A 195 in 2024 is not the same as a 195 in 2004, no question about it. That said, a 195 in 2024 would put you on the same level relative to the middle 50% of runners as it would in 2004, and it probably doesn't change too much on the national level either. If a runner like Ritz came through today, I have no doubt he would run speed ratings above 205 and likely above 210, but he would likely do so with much faster times, given the improvements in technology, training, and the increased focus on times in general.
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
People just inventing stuff to fit their agenda is so sad.
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
People just inventing stuff to fit their agenda is so sad.
I know a coach who wheeled it and he was also about 2.88
Its more sad the race director cared more about records then creating a honest race
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
People just inventing stuff to fit their agenda is so sad.
Yeah he was making stuff up in the other threads too. there were people there wheeling it and most were getting 3 miles or close to it.
My daughter ran there, 7 seconds per mile faster than her 5k PR pace, and pretty much spaced exactly the same from all her teammates and local competitors as in every other race so the performance was pretty much an average one for her or at least very comparable to her PR race. The difference between her 5k PR race and Woodbridge is that it was about 20 degrees cooler at WB and a month later in the season. It seems completely reasonable that she would run 7 seconds a mile faster under those conditions and I was actually expecting her to be faster than she was.
One of her male teammates ran in the sweeps race, placed well, and also about 7 seconds a mile up on his PR. Again, 200m shorter, 20 degrees cooler, and later in the season. He's been crushing workouts and I thought he'd be 10-20s faster. Based on his performance I think there's no chance the course is short, it's just super fast.
I follow all the runners in my kids' sphere of competition and all their times were pretty expected. One girl ran 30-40 seconds faster than her early season times would indicate but she's been surprisingly slow in the early season so has finally leveled up to where she belongs based on track PRs. Other than that everyone is in line with expectations.
I think the course is legit. The comparison with Arcadia is solid; Woodbridge is definitely a race where you'll get your best performance of the year.
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
What kind of ocd psycho wheels a hs cross country course TWICE? You'll fit in well here.
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
What kind of ocd psycho wheels a hs cross country course TWICE? You'll fit in well here.
That’s guy is misinformed. Just lying. There’s enough data on Strava now to confirm it’s over 3.0x miles.
BTW for you newbies, the rule at Woodbridge is that you run at Woodbridge you can run for 5000m on a track come Spring.
Very short is the conclusion. The meet director was yelling at me for wheeling the course because he knows its short. Last year the course was 3 miles on Friday and remember no one was running fast so he changed the course over night so people would run fast. The race is a joke as is the course.
What kind of ocd psycho wheels a hs cross country course TWICE? You'll fit in well here.
Of course you have to wheel it multiple times to check for consistency to satisfy the armchair RDs here. On a serious note I’d like to give them the benefit of the doubt that it is at least close as possible to the right distance since there is so much scrutiny.
Walking around in person on the day, I thought that the start line was higher than the finish line. Checking a few elevation profiles later, it definitely appears to be net 30-40 foot down hill. In particular, it generally rolls downhill after mile 1 with a bit of a mild kick back up at the finish. This may have helped a little bit to get the momentum going.