I just read Running With the Buffaloes- Here's my "Hot Take"

Raysism wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

GPS is not accurate at all. Overhead mapping is also not absolutely accurate as it typically does not take into account elevation, only point to point on a flat surface.

Alan

Modern GPS devices are actually quite accurate -- their reported margin of error is what you'd expect of someone hand/wheel measuring a course if they weren't using humidity controlled steel tape with super careful measurements.

I promise you that if you take someone with 2020 GPS technology and put them against someone who isn't a perfect wheeler (especially on bad surfaces for wheeling), they can be just as accurate (or equally inaccurate, as it were).

Keep telling yourself that. Any certified or legit course I’ve run on ends up being significantly long according to GPS.

The reality in comparing XC courses commonly run in the 90s and before to now is currently the trend seems to be “how short can I make the course and still call it 8k?” I know that Wisconsin changed their 8k for pre-nats and then kept the new layout so I don’t know how short it is now, but previous editions of adidas/Nuttycombe were definitely short. First 7k were accurate and then everybody runs 2:40 (slight exaggeration) for their last k.

Also, as evident in this thread, there has become an obsession with XC times. Probably a result of the Dyestat/Milesplit generation. I grew up taking XC times with a grain of salt. Track was for time and XC was for beating people. I remember in HS and college being excited to run “cool” XC courses that included something different…Unusual hills, trails through the woods, etc… I think it is funny that people claim Terre Haute is a challenging course. C’mon! It’s gotta a few slight inclines.

Oh well. Old man rant over.

The book gives the behinds look to what it takes to win an NCAA title. Goucher had all the talent yet still had to train at a borderline dangerous level while severely limiting his caloric intake. He came across as a huge JO but that's what it takes at that level to an extent.

I've always felt that he sold his long term potential with the way he training that fall. His pro career was a roller coaster of injuries with intermittent periods of good health where we ran some fast times.

I graduated HS in 2002 and ran XC and track.

True about times for track and competition for courses, as our first coach liked to say.

Run for place at XC, not time. One of our assistant coaches who later became my coach a few years later was about running for time in XC but place matters.

In track I think time matters more in some of the events.

+1

Runner10287 wrote:

The book gives the behinds look to what it takes to win an NCAA title. Goucher had all the talent yet still had to train at a borderline dangerous level while severely limiting his caloric intake. He came across as a huge JO but that's what it takes at that level to an extent.

I've always felt that he sold his long term potential with the way he training that fall. His pro career was a roller coaster of injuries with intermittent periods of good health where we ran some fast times.

how was his training more difficult than what people these days are doing?

OldSteepleDude wrote:

Keep telling yourself that. Any certified or legit course I’ve run on ends up being significantly long according to GPS.

Which it should, because there's no way you're running the tangents perfectly.

So the NCAA is deeper now and Colorado peaks at the end of the season. Real scalding takes there.

Raysism wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

GPS is not accurate at all. Overhead mapping is also not absolutely accurate as it typically does not take into account elevation, only point to point on a flat surface.

Alan

Modern GPS devices are actually quite accurate -- their reported margin of error is what you'd expect of someone hand/wheel measuring a course if they weren't using humidity controlled steel tape with super careful measurements.

I promise you that if you take someone with 2020 GPS technology and put them against someone who isn't a perfect wheeler (especially on bad surfaces for wheeling), they can be just as accurate (or equally inaccurate, as it were).

Steel tape? Wheel's don't use any tape. Do you even XC kid?

Raysism wrote:

OldSteepleDude wrote:

Keep telling yourself that. Any certified or legit course I’ve run on ends up being significantly long according to GPS.

Which it should, because there's no way you're running the tangents perfectly.

Would the leader not be able to run the tangents perfectly?

Raysism, which "modern GPS watch" are you using?

Is it really possible to label an opinion on a book that is 20 years old a "hot take?"

I Want A Better Pair Of Running Shoes! wrote:

DollyP wrote:

I also wonder who accurate XC course were back then.

How were they measured? It was before map my run.

Somebody with exactly 12" shoes walked the course heel-to-toe the whole way.

The Nike course was measured using 11.52 inch shoes.

areusure? wrote:

Raysism wrote:

Modern GPS devices are actually quite accurate -- their reported margin of error is what you'd expect of someone hand/wheel measuring a course if they weren't using humidity controlled steel tape with super careful measurements.

I promise you that if you take someone with 2020 GPS technology and put them against someone who isn't a perfect wheeler (especially on bad surfaces for wheeling), they can be just as accurate (or equally inaccurate, as it were).

Steel tape? Wheel's don't use any tape. Do you even XC kid?

I think the issue is "What type of GPS device is used?" Using your GPS watch? Obviously this is going to be less accurate than those used for land surveying or military uses for various reasons. This says your Garmin Forerunner will be off by 11m or 3sec a mile on average.

As long as a wheel or mounted jones counter is calibrated it is never off. Your path may be off but the device will be spot on.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

I think the issue is "What type of GPS device is used?" Using your GPS watch? Obviously this is going to be less accurate than those used for land surveying or military uses for various reasons. This says your Garmin Forerunner will be off by 11m or 3sec a mile on average.

As long as a wheel or mounted jones counter is calibrated it is never off. Your path may be off but the device will be spot on.

Alan

I think this minimizes the difficulty of measuring a cross country course.

A wheel can definitely be off, because it bounces and loses contact with the surface. It also depends on consistent pressure. These are very difficult on a road course and are multiplied on a cross country course. There is a reason a wheel is not used for certifying courses.

A jones counter is much better due to the relative ease of maintaining surface contact and consistent pressure on the bike. However, the bike/jones counter would have to be calibrated for every different surface that was present on a course, as the certification only really works on a like-to-like basis. Not very practical on many XC courses.

Of course there is no reason to get all that hung up on exact measurements on a XC course anyway. It is a race for place. Pick a measuring standard that gets reasonably close and race.

DollyP wrote:

LOL guys.

Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?

Genuinely curious.

They didn't make the courses 100(.01)% accurate like road courses. I think one US Nationals 10K I ran was listed as something like 10,250 meters.

The Nike course was measured using 11.52 inch shoes.

And a 10-inch schlong.

I think Goucher would win NCAAs pretty much every year with his race. That 29:26 on that course is almost untouchable. Also, Colorado lost Chris Severy who was their number two runner or they would have been in the mix to win the team title. The NCAA is deeper now but it was other programs following the example of programs like Colorado that helped restart the higher mileage era and improve the level of competition.

Goucher great in any era wrote:

Goucher would be great in any era. His win at NCAA X was as a senior but he was in the mix the other years. Highly competitive runner who knew how to race and win. Well coached and part of a great program.

You haven't lived until you measure a course using the old method of a length of metal wire end to end for 8,000 to 10,000m!

This is exactly correct. Any current Garmin watch vs. a wheel/Jones Counter on an unpaved XC course is going to be equally as valid.