Wise Old Man wrote:
Well, regardless of the true course length and true meaning of the times, let’s all bow down to NP. The greatest HS team in history dominated as expected. We won’t see anything like this again any time soon….no wait, we will, next year when NP does it again and maybe even better.
Regardless of how fast the course is, Ritz's CR is a legitimate benchmark for comparing performances.
blue 7 wrote:
Peach Pit wrote:
Appleford rounding out top 5 in 14:44 and 40th place overall.
All seven under 15 for NP! Hector Martinez 53rd at 14:52.72 and Dev Doshi 66th at 14:59.51. Even if it turns out that the course is short the NP runner's placements against a competitive field has to be acknowledged as a great accomplishment.
I’m glad I’m was wrong. 7th runner 14:59, Wow!
Shorter Than Frank wrote:
Unless the course is wheeled, it ain’t legit.
If you really believe there are 3 kids better than Dathan, then you’ve drunk the Koolaid.
I'll see you in May when those three kids run 8:25 for two miles
Wise Old Man wrote:
Well, regardless of the true course length and true meaning of the times, let’s all bow down to NP. The greatest HS team in history dominated as expected. We won’t see anything like this again any time soon….no wait, we will, next year when NP does it again and maybe even better.
Sadly, I don't think NP is going to be better next year as a team. They're losing two of their top 5, and I don't think there's going to be 7 people capable of sub 15 next year. That said, the Young brothers look like they might get even better, which sounds insane to say.
fatboy slim wrote:
Heartless wrote:
For some perspective, the 2nd best time on the MHSAA course behind Ritz’s 14:10 (held there since 1996), is 14:49 by Hough in 2020. This includes a couple national champions as well- Grant Fisher (14:52 at MHSAA) and Tim Moore (15:06). Hobbs ran low-14:50s as well.
Isn’t the Cali state meet course considered a bit faster than MHSAA MIS course?
Lol no. Michigan has the fastest course ever
You seem to have missed my first paragraph. National champions… guys that have broken 4:00 and gone ~8:40 in high school… have only managed 14:50ish.
It can be fast, but the conditions usually are usually cold and wet.
If the Young twins run RL next year, I’d expect they will be under 14 min. 5/7 NP runners return. Every reason to believe the team may be better next year.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
astro wrote:
Not really. Because times on different courses are not interchangeable. What this race showed again is that this course is extremely fast and less difficult than other courses. Which is fine. If you put stock in such things a runner whose top SR all year was 160 ran 16:03.
Someone early said it was really flat and super firm like a track...I did NOT see that from watching the video. The the splits read in the broadcast were also very odd...couldn't have been right...which makes me question all of it!
Why do you think the splits were odd? You are aware the 2nd split was for 2.1 miles, right?
Another Option wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
Someone early said it was really flat and super firm like a track...I did NOT see that from watching the video. The the splits read in the broadcast were also very odd...couldn't have been right...which makes me question all of it!
Why do you think the splits were odd? You are aware the 2nd split was for 2.1 miles, right?
I doubt he knew that.......
Steel Tapeless wrote:
astro wrote:
Not really. Because times on different courses are not interchangeable. What this race showed again is that this course is extremely fast and less difficult than other courses. Which is fine. If you put stock in such things a runner whose top SR all year was 160 ran 16:03.
Someone early said it was really flat and super firm like a track...I did NOT see that from watching the video. The the splits read in the broadcast were also very odd...couldn't have been right...which makes me question all of it!
If you look at the online splits it clarifies the 2 mile mark was really 2.1
7empest wrote:
astro wrote:
God I love being right. Victory lap time. I knew a superfast course when I saw it, and the details the course designer provided last year clinched it. I think Angelina Perez, who was the top rated girl this year would have had a great shot at sub 16. Perez top speed rating was 163 and she ran Holmdel twice, getting in the low 17s. It would have been a good data point in comparing the times on this course.
This course is a total joke!!!!! Not one of these girls will even break 17:00 at Balboa Park in San Diego next week! The course is a National race disgrace to the sport, and puts these girls in the record books above girls who actually ran real cross country courses. Just like Jenna Hutchins record is a joke. Tuohy is the real record holder! Hutchins would not have even broken 16:30 on the course Tuohy ran. Perez will win next week in San Diego, and is the only one who has a shot at sub 17:00. She ran a real course last week in NY and can handle the hills at Balboa!
I didn't see anything wrong with the course with the exception of questioning the length. I have seen way flatter courses that have not been nearly as quick...like 400m tracks.
Asking for a friend. wrote:
Results link?
Surely you know how to use a search engine
hunter wheres the coke wrote:
Shorter Than Frank wrote:
Unless the course is wheeled, it ain’t legit.
If you really believe there are 3 kids better than Dathan, then you’ve drunk the Koolaid.
I'll see you in May when those three kids run 8:25 for two miles
Really?! Where? I’m guessing you’ve never run a 2-mile before . Now, suddenly, these kids will be better than German and Lukas? Hey, I like NBP, but I prefer living in the real world.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Well, regardless of the true course length and true meaning of the times, let’s all bow down to NP. The greatest HS team in history dominated as expected. We won’t see anything like this again any time soon….no wait, we will, next year when NP does it again and maybe even better.
Regardless of how fast the course is, Ritz's CR is a legitimate benchmark for comparing performances.
No, it’s Sahlman’s 14:03. We were all saying it was impossible for Jenna to break 16 last year and then she ran 15:30s on the track.
When 4:30 milers run low 15 you know the course is short lol
Imimpresssed wrote:
7empest wrote:
This course is a total joke!!!!! Not one of these girls will even break 17:00 at Balboa Park in San Diego next week! The course is a National race disgrace to the sport, and puts these girls in the record books above girls who actually ran real cross country courses. Just like Jenna Hutchins record is a joke. Tuohy is the real record holder! Hutchins would not have even broken 16:30 on the course Tuohy ran. Perez will win next week in San Diego, and is the only one who has a shot at sub 17:00. She ran a real course last week in NY and can handle the hills at Balboa!
Good news for you- there is no “record” for cross country. Your favorite runner is still great. There are track records but not XC records across courses. If some people think otherwise, that’s their problem, and you can’t control it. Just be satisfied knowing that your favorite is still great.
Your right but Milesplit makes a big deal about it and keeps the stats and says Hutchins is the National record holder.
Peach Pit wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Well, regardless of the true course length and true meaning of the times, let’s all bow down to NP. The greatest HS team in history dominated as expected. We won’t see anything like this again any time soon….no wait, we will, next year when NP does it again and maybe even better.
Sadly, I don't think NP is going to be better next year as a team. They're losing two of their top 5, and I don't think there's going to be 7 people capable of sub 15 next year. That said, the Young brothers look like they might get even better, which sounds insane to say.
Colin will be impossible to fully replace, but I expect Doshi and Martinez to be faster than Appleford, and maybe one of them will be running close to 14:45 at Woodward, similar to Aaron this year. Youngs should be faster next year faster than Colin this year. Their team time 1-5 won’t fall off my much.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Regardless of how fast the course is, Ritz's CR is a legitimate benchmark for comparing performances.
One thing I'm glad about is that now there's a national race where people can compare times to against the best of the best. The Michigan CR is incredibly tough, but it's not like the NP park kids are ever going to get a shot at it. Ritz's FL CR is also incredibly tough, but no one can compete against it either.
With the NP kids doing RunningLane and giving it their all, we now have a national meet where we can compare performances in the future. If someone wants to show they're the best ever, there's a good chance they'll try to take the RL CR. No one can take Ritz's FL CR from him, nor can they compare their races to it because it's an XC course. Now, we have the greatest team ever to compare future teams/individuals to. Hopefully, RL keeps this going, and hopefully, top teams go to it.
I figured that was the case when everyone was coming up with these super fast last mile times...so still struggle with the actual distance of the second split and overall course length.
Reading da boards wrote:
Shout out to Aidan Cox from Northwood, NH. Off the radar screen nationally -- being hurt earlier in the season - and running tougher New England courses, until a dominant win last week at NXR Northeast. Rose to the occasion today to finish 7th.
Definitely a very nice performance by Cox. A few other top Northeast guys also did quite well. I guess something happened to Aidan Ross, who really fell off after the opening mile.
They will be better next year. Their 6 and 7 guys broke 15 making their 1-7 spread "only" 56 seconds. The 14:10 record is a benchmark but kind of irrelevant at this point. This is unquestionably the greatest high school xc race ever.
Also can anyone verify the 2 mile split? I heard one of the announcers say 9:41 but that seems 'slow' given they rolled through the mile in 4:30, so I was expecting 9:10-9:20 for the 2mile split. especially since Sahlman ran 14:03, I highly doubt that 2mile split was correct.