The BU track must be short because there were 4 national records set in one race and 2 American junior record set in the meet and nearly everyone ran a PR and these are world class athletes who should already be at the top of their games. Is the track short or what?
I know you are just joking, but look at more data points - https://www.tfrrs.org/results/70716/4303668/2021_BU_Sharon_Colyear-Danville_Season_Opener/Men's_1_Mile_Run/
From Track & Field News message board:
2-04-2021, 05:53 PM
At the RunningLane XC Chps today, these can NOT be 5K times:
Newbury Park
1 14:03
2 14:05
3 14:05
6 14:14
40 14:44
Regardless, NP won with 28 pts (2nd was 117)
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
coachy wrote:
Ah so true! I love these third hand accounts from "a coach" said it was 30 seconds short or 25 meters short or whatever. Or "another coach" wheeled it. Such a troll response.
If the majority of kids at a meet ran PRs of over a minute and a coaching friend of yours who was there who wheeled it stated it was 300m shorts why would you not trust him?
When you see a bunch of kids all PR at meets you aren't at do you think they are ALL coming off a great week of training or peaked perfectly for a mid season meet?!?
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
Nike is knocking wrote:
The BU track must be short because there were 4 national records set in one race and 2 American junior record set in the meet and nearly everyone ran a PR and these are world class athletes who should already be at the top of their games. Is the track short or what?
The winner of the women's 5000 set a 27 second PR.
Gotta be short.
Nike is knocking wrote:
The BU track must be short because there were 4 national records set in one race and 2 American junior record set in the meet and nearly everyone ran a PR and these are world class athletes who should already be at the top of their games. Is the track short or what?
Someone get out there and wheel that track immediately!
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
If the majority of kids at a meet ran PRs of over a minute and a coaching friend of yours who was there who wheeled it stated it was 300m shorts why would you not trust him?
When you see a bunch of kids all PR at meets you aren't at do you think they are ALL coming off a great week of training or peaked perfectly for a mid season meet?!?
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
I just checked the NP boys and their biggest PR was 41 seconds, all the rest PRd by 20 something seconds MUST BE SHORT!
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
If the majority of kids at a meet ran PRs of over a minute and a coaching friend of yours who was there who wheeled it stated it was 300m shorts why would you not trust him?
When you see a bunch of kids all PR at meets you aren't at do you think they are ALL coming off a great week of training or peaked perfectly for a mid season meet?!?
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
I was using that as an example when you say you don't trust third hand reports - a little commons sense is all I ask.
How about this comment:
Coach Sayyeau
Hard to believe this many kids broke 15min for 5K honestly.
Course is either short or downhill a lot
Look at times from regular season meets to this one you’ll see a big drop for a lot of runners. I get it’s a championship race but literally you’re telling me the top 70 runners could pretty much win Footlocker nationals. Uhhh no
129 girls ran sub 18min / The girl who place 102 in this race could have made it to Footlocker nationals in the West and Northeast Region, placed 15th in the Midwest and 22nd in the South. THE 102ND PLACE GIRL!!!!!!!!!! Here is just a handful of girls I did research on ------ Emily Lamontagne - Season average 17:53 and ran 16:53 here / Keeghan Edwards - Season average 17:53 and ran 16:58 here / Sydney Sundgren - Season average 17:32 and ran 16:59 here / Kayla Werner - Season average 18:44 and ran 17:24 here. SHORT OR DOWNHILL! Some people have the race of a life time but when the entire field damn near PR's well below what they normally run, come on
What if I said I was there and GPSd it twice myself and it was over 5K? What if my entire team GPSd it and it was over? I know it doesn't count because it's not a wheel which for some is the holy grail but doesn't even mean anything either.
You are comparing this course to a totally different course. What if I said my team ran a fast course earlier this year and that's why only 3 of my 7 PRd and the biggest one was ONLY 20 something seconds. What if Newbury Parks times were fairly equivalent to what they ran on a 3M course earlier this season? I know there is no reasoning that anyone will listen to but just throwing it out there.
coachy wrote:
What if I said I was there and GPSd it twice myself and it was over 5K? What if my entire team GPSd it and it was over? I know it doesn't count because it's not a wheel which for some is the holy grail but doesn't even mean anything either.
You are comparing this course to a totally different course. What if I said my team ran a fast course earlier this year and that's why only 3 of my 7 PRd and the biggest one was ONLY 20 something seconds. What if Newbury Parks times were fairly equivalent to what they ran on a 3M course earlier this season? I know there is no reasoning that anyone will listen to but just throwing it out there.
THANK YOU. I’m not sure why these people are so bitter. The sport is growing, and this should be a race to celebrate. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to say the course is a true 5k.
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
If the majority of kids at a meet ran PRs of over a minute and a coaching friend of yours who was there who wheeled it stated it was 300m shorts why would you not trust him?
When you see a bunch of kids all PR at meets you aren't at do you think they are ALL coming off a great week of training or peaked perfectly for a mid season meet?!?
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
Ahh, someone who was actually there and not just another internet troll who is bitter they didn't bring their kids.
It is disgusting out much people bash kids who have great performances. From my analysis of the kids who had HUGE prs, they were from kids coming down from altitude or kids who only ran hilly courses with alot less competition. Why doesn't anyone question Woodbridge? When Newbury kids run 8:30 for 3200 this spring this will all be a thing of the past.
Saladbar who? wrote:
coachy wrote:
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
Ahh, someone who was actually there and not just another internet troll who is bitter they didn't bring their kids.
It is disgusting out much people bash kids who have great performances. From my analysis of the kids who had HUGE prs, they were from kids coming down from altitude or kids who only ran hilly courses with alot less competition. Why doesn't anyone question Woodbridge? When Newbury kids run 8:30 for 3200 this spring this will all be a thing of the past.
People DO question Woodbridge. I wasn't there and my kids didn't run it, so I question it, LOL.
THE ARCADIA TRACK IS SHORT. Everyone PRs in the 3200 by 15 seconds! This is impossible! It’s not because there’s excellent competition and weather, how dare anyone insinuate that! That is a preposterous idea! The track is 390 meters! It’s the only explanation!
coachy wrote:
What if I said I was there and GPSd it twice myself and it was over 5K?
I do not trust gps around trees, buildings and on courses with several turns.
What if my entire team GPSd it and it was over?
Same as above
I know it doesn't count because it's not a wheel which for some is the holy grail but doesn't even mean anything either.
Correct, many wheels are not accurate and there can also be user error just like with gps.
You are comparing this course to a totally different course.
How am I doing that?
What if I said my team ran a fast course earlier this year and that's why only 3 of my 7 PRd and the biggest one was ONLY 20 something seconds.
That would make perfect sense - many schools ran "fast" or short courses during the regular season.
What if Newbury Parks times were fairly equivalent to what they ran on a 3M course earlier this season? I know there is no reasoning that anyone will listen to but just throwing it out there.
That could be the case but has nothing to do with the course length in Alabama.
Replies in bold above
True 5k wrote:
coachy wrote:
What if I said I was there and GPSd it twice myself and it was over 5K? What if my entire team GPSd it and it was over? I know it doesn't count because it's not a wheel which for some is the holy grail but doesn't even mean anything either.
You are comparing this course to a totally different course. What if I said my team ran a fast course earlier this year and that's why only 3 of my 7 PRd and the biggest one was ONLY 20 something seconds. What if Newbury Parks times were fairly equivalent to what they ran on a 3M course earlier this season? I know there is no reasoning that anyone will listen to but just throwing it out there.
THANK YOU. I’m not sure why these people are so bitter. The sport is growing, and this should be a race to celebrate. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to say the course is a true 5k.
Why do you think anyone is bitter?
What evidence suggest the course is "a true 5k"?
Saladbar who? wrote:
coachy wrote:
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
Ahh, someone who was actually there and not just another internet troll who is bitter they didn't bring their kids.
It is disgusting out much people bash kids who have great performances. From my analysis of the kids who had HUGE prs, they were from kids coming down from altitude or kids who only ran hilly courses with alot less competition. Why doesn't anyone question Woodbridge? When Newbury kids run 8:30 for 3200 this spring this will all be a thing of the past.
Who is bashing the kids? Even if you add 15 - 30 seconds to all of their times it would have been an extremely fast course and a great event. What's wrong with trying to verify the distance?
What anyone does on the track will not change the length of the course at Running Lane.
Saladbar who? wrote:
coachy wrote:
Did the majority of the kids run a PR by over a minute? That is not true at all but believe what you want. I brought 7 girls in the gold race and three of them got PRs and the biggest PR was 22 seconds.
Ahh, someone who was actually there and not just another internet troll who is bitter they didn't bring their kids.
It is disgusting out much people bash kids who have great performances. From my analysis of the kids who had HUGE prs, they were from kids coming down from altitude or kids who only ran hilly courses with alot less competition. Why doesn't anyone question Woodbridge? When Newbury kids run 8:30 for 3200 this spring this will all be a thing of the past.
I put Woodbridge in the Letsrun search function and found this and many others like it:
re: Chad Hall (Big Bear) 14:00 course record!!!
kcarT4detiCX
15 years ago
you are a complete dumb#ss. all XC course are not the same!!! woodbridge is TOTALLY FLAT and ON PAVEMENT!!! it is as close to a track race as you can get in XC. mt. sac on the other hand is extremeley hilly and on a slower surface. running on pavement makes a big difference. you are an idiot. good day.XCited4Track wrote:look man, i'm just offering insight based on what i've heard from more than a few people who have ran the course...and i decided to opt out of the tedious task of including..
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
True 5k wrote:
THANK YOU. I’m not sure why these people are so bitter. The sport is growing, and this should be a race to celebrate. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to say the course is a true 5k.
Why do you think anyone is bitter?
What evidence suggest the course is "a true 5k"?
1. Wachtel and Hutchins ran 14:15 and 15:34 respectively on the track 2 weeks prior last year.
2. The park is a dedicated XC venue wheeled and verified by RunningLane. There are permanent markers. I would encourage anyone who doubts the veracity of this to bring a wheel to John Hunt park and try for themselves.
3. Almost every single GPS entry on Strava (look at the segment for yourself) has the course at around 3.13. While one GPS recording can be erroneous, there is strength in numbers.
4. PRs were logical given the athletes' track times. Sahlman ran 8:43 last spring.
5. PRs were logical given NP athletes' Woodbridge times which converted to roughly 14:10.
6. Course conditions were significantly better than any course run by any of these athletes with the exception of Woodbridge.
7. I think all of this has been said dozens of times on this thread, and you're a dunce for asking without simply reading the thread.
8. I see no other reason to question the validity of a clearly valid course other than the bitterness that you/your child/your athletes did not get a chance to race.
9. Of the people I know, most PRs were between 0-25 seconds. Four boys on my team did not PR.
True 5k wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
Why do you think anyone is bitter?
What evidence suggest the course is "a true 5k"?
1. Wachtel and Hutchins ran 14:15 and 15:34 respectively on the track 2 weeks prior last year.
2. The park is a dedicated XC venue wheeled and verified by RunningLane. There are permanent markers. I would encourage anyone who doubts the veracity of this to bring a wheel to John Hunt park and try for themselves.
3. Almost every single GPS entry on Strava (look at the segment for yourself) has the course at around 3.13. While one GPS recording can be erroneous, there is strength in numbers.
4. PRs were logical given the athletes' track times. Sahlman ran 8:43 last spring.
5. PRs were logical given NP athletes' Woodbridge times which converted to roughly 14:10.
6. Course conditions were significantly better than any course run by any of these athletes with the exception of Woodbridge.
7. I think all of this has been said dozens of times on this thread, and you're a dunce for asking without simply reading the thread.
8. I see no other reason to question the validity of a clearly valid course other than the bitterness that you/your child/your athletes did not get a chance to race.
9. Of the people I know, most PRs were between 0-25 seconds. Four boys on my team did not PR.
correction: Watchel and Hutchins ran those times 2 weeks LATER in South Carolina. Link is earlier in the thread
coachy wrote:
What if I said I was there and GPSd it twice myself and it was over 5K?
I do not trust gps around trees, buildings and on courses with several turns.
That's interesting considering there were no buildings, few trees, and gradual turns.