York fails yet again at the Illinois state meet. Is Joe Newton washed up?

FitzyXC wrote:

Also keep in mind that is incredibly difficult to run the tangents on that course in traffic especially during the first mile with unless you are in the lead. Even then not everybody does it.

Very true, though also true (to an extent, though I'd agree often less so) on many other courses - that's mostly a crowding issue that mostly effects pack runners and not so much front runners.

York is DONE. I repeat, York is DONE.

I bet the course was under 3 miles, some of the sectional meets in my area were 2.85 miles.

Congratulations! You have won Inane Post of the Day. Our contest is now closed.

speaking of that, all these courses are pancake flat. We shouldn't be surprised by these blazing three mile times.

So the conclusion of the course measurement by the engineering dudes was that the old course was slightly longer? Nice! Don't feel so bad about my time being slower than today's standard.

watchoutxcrankings wrote:

Very true, though also true (to an extent, though I'd agree often less so) on many other courses - that's mostly a crowding issue that mostly effects pack runners and not so much front runners.

Oh yeah it definitely happens on most courses where big meets are run. There are parts of the Detweiler course such the first turn after the start where athletes are specifically instructed to go wide so as to not get trapped on the inside of the turn. Another spot is the front/finishing stretch (not sure what else to call it), where runners tend to the middle a bit when the shortest route is probably hugging the right side on the first couple of times around.

My point is a good percentage of the field probably ends up running closer to (or perhaps in some cases, more than) 3 miles than the 2.97 number anyway.

Just the fact the everyone is running the course so fast. Even at 3 miles the 60th place runner is running 15:10. That is so much faster than any other state or regional meet, Say you add 35 seconds for the 5K equiv. 15:45 ( 5K equiv) for 60th place. That don't seem right even if ILL is a great state for cross.

I would guess kids are cutting the course legally and maybe running 2.9 miles. Just a hunch

Town Hall wrote:I would guess kids are cutting the course legally and maybe running 2.9 miles. Just a hunch

Considering the course is flagged off the entire way and lined with spectators for most of it, this is highly unlikely. The 2.97 number comes from running the tangents, and there is no way the entire field is able to cut off 100m from that.

The course is very fast. The only elevation change is a very slight incline from the north part of the course towards the start and finish area. It is grass/dirt the whole way and barring excessive precipitation the footing is usually not a problem at all. It is by all means a "grass track".

Illinois Track and Field 3200 finals , there is A race and B race because of too many runners, My Hunch is...Illinois is so good that most of the B racers would be State champion in others states, just a hunch.

BTW: especially in the Chicago Suburbs. other schools are getting very very good, each year it get's harder and harder to win.

90's runner wrote:

So the conclusion of the course measurement by the engineering dudes was that the old course was slightly longer? Nice! Don't feel so bad about my time being slower than today's standard.

The old course wasn't measured via steel tape. They did measure it w/ a calibrated bike and a biker with a garmin, however.

Those comparisons to the current course (pre-2003 listed first, 2005+ course listed second)

Calibrated Bike @ USATF SRP method: 4789.27m vs. 4782.45m

GPS Bike @ USATF SRP method: 4782.15m vs. 4797.32m

Calibrated Bike @ NFHS 20' path method: 4861.30m vs. 4858.21m

In short: essentially the same length (sometimes the current course measured longer, and sometimes the old course did, but generally the measurements were pretty close)

Indeed. In fact, that is the purpose of the former NFHS course measurement rules - measure the middle of the course because that's where the runners in the middle of packs will probably run. The 12' GPS method gave almost exactly 3 miles, which is what most runners in packs were probably running. Kids in front of big packs were probably running close to 2.97-2.98 miles.

Considering they barely qualified, 6th was amazing.

What I mean is that while these coaches may have run a total of 1 mile in their entire lives they did it cumulatively, spaced out in perhaps 30 meter increments over a total of many years. They did not consecutively run 5280 feet all at one time. I'm sure you understood all this from an initial reading of my post and were just trying to be a dickweed, congrats you succeeded.

That course on a "FAST SCALE" is 10/10!

rusder wrote:

What I mean is that while these coaches may have run a total of 1 mile in their entire lives they did it cumulatively, spaced out in perhaps 30 meter increments over a total of many years. They did not consecutively run 5280 feet all at one time. I'm sure you understood all this from an initial reading of my post and were just trying to be a dickweed, congrats you succeeded.

So when you said "consecutive," you meant continuous? Why not just say continuous if that's what you mean?

I didn't realize Joe Newton was still alive, let alone coaching. More power to him.