Great run, but here is one reason why I don't think this is really a 6k:
Mercy Chelangat. She ran an 18:33. That converts to a 31:52 10k with Riegel or a 31:00 at same pace (3:06/km) both of which are far faster than she has ever run a 10k on a track. With grass / surface conversions this seems very unlikely.
So, unless this race was actually on a track and the XC course was added for effect in video post-production (joke), the course was probably short.
INXS "New Sensation" official music video, remastered in HD. Stream New Sensation: https://INXS.lnk.to/Sensation"New Sensation" is the 3rd single from INXS 6...
We know the course was short. But Valby is winning the championship and breaking the 5000 meter record in the spring.
How do you know the course is short? It will have been measured electronically, not by someone just making a guess.
In the US courses are inaccurate all the time! In any case, all you have to do is look at the times of some of the other runners (ie Chelangat as I mentioned) and it looks plausible.
simple, by where they measure the course from....ie, I have seen courses where certain corners were measured on the 'outside' of the running path rather than the middle or inside. This can lead to a 10 or 15 meter shortage from one corner alone. Have 2 or three corners like this, and do 2 loops around and you are now easily short 100m. Not a big deal, since everyone is running the same distance...but definitely affects the final time splits.
The SEC course had several corners where the course map was well off of where the runners actually ran. Again, makes no difference to the race results...but certainly affects the times.
Course measurement is a popular discussion every year. Circle Christian coach and licensed surveyor and mapper Mark Caulfield gives us a practical consideration on the topic.
How do you know the course is short? It will have been measured electronically, not by someone just making a guess.
In the US courses are inaccurate all the time! In any case, all you have to do is look at the times of some of the other runners (ie Chelangat as I mentioned) and it looks plausible.
It is a "thread-derailing post" to say that the course is unlikely to be short because it is electronically measured? The mods have surpassed themselves here.
simple, by where they measure the course from....ie, I have seen courses where certain corners were measured on the 'outside' of the running path rather than the middle or inside. This can lead to a 10 or 15 meter shortage from one corner alone. Have 2 or three corners like this, and do 2 loops around and you are now easily short 100m. Not a big deal, since everyone is running the same distance...but definitely affects the final time splits.
The SEC course had several corners where the course map was well off of where the runners actually ran. Again, makes no difference to the race results...but certainly affects the times.
Did you actually see how those courses were measured or were you guessing that's what happened? It is hard to believe that the course is not measured from shortest point to shortest point, and that the person doing it would veer wide on the corners and bends. Why would they do that?
Around the world everyone knows that XC courses are rarely accurately measured and hard to compare because of profile, tight turns, muddy/dry ground etc. Only in the US people seem to obsess about extrapolating what a runner would run on a different course or on track. Especially wrt the latter, there are also runners uncommonly good/bad in XC vs. track
Around the world everyone knows that XC courses are rarely accurately measured and hard to compare because of profile, tight turns, muddy/dry ground etc. Only in the US people seem to obsess about extrapolating what a runner would run on a different course or on track. Especially wrt the latter, there are also runners uncommonly good/bad in XC vs. track
most of that gets thrown out the window when you start discussing times that are almost track equivalent.
Around the world everyone knows that XC courses are rarely accurately measured and hard to compare because of profile, tight turns, muddy/dry ground etc. Only in the US people seem to obsess about extrapolating what a runner would run on a different course or on track. Especially wrt the latter, there are also runners uncommonly good/bad in XC vs. track
I might expect some minor variation but not the kinds of inaccuracies posited here. However, I would agree that a xc time doesn't closely reflect a track performance of equivalent distance.
I might expect some minor variation but not the kinds of inaccuracies posited here. However, I would agree that a xc time doesn't closely reflect a track performance of equivalent distance.
Some of the women in this race split 5k times very close to what they have run on a track. Hence the speculation.
I might expect some minor variation but not the kinds of inaccuracies posited here. However, I would agree that a xc time doesn't closely reflect a track performance of equivalent distance.
Some of the women in this race split 5k times very close to what they have run on a track. Hence the speculation.
or faster (Valby) if you believe the final 5K is accurate
I might expect some minor variation but not the kinds of inaccuracies posited here. However, I would agree that a xc time doesn't closely reflect a track performance of equivalent distance.
Some of the women in this race split 5k times very close to what they have run on a track. Hence the speculation.
Nothing wrong with speculation. That's what this place is about. But it doesn't necessarily amount to fact.
