What bothers you so much about this girl?
She ran a great time, whether it was 15:58 or 16:05..she is an amazingly talented HS XC runner. She ran a fantastic race and won by a huge margin. Obsessing over time in XC is ridiculous. The point is to win- and she did that in spectacular fashion.
One can hope that she can go on and become the next Sara Hall or Desi Lindin, Emma Coburn .
Try to take some joy out of a great performance and not be such a d !ck about it.
astro wrote:
Come on. There are serious red flags about this course. In fact so serious that someone with intimate knowledge about the course's design felt compelled to address them. In doing so he fully admitted that the course was designed to be as fast as possible and had design features that likely make the course a statistical outlier. When I pointed out that the first and third miles are downhill I was accused of misstating this until I quoted and highlighted the actual testimony. By my calculation about 1400 meters of the final 1600 meters of the course are downhill. That is why the splits seem so off with the runners seemingly able to match their fast first mile times during the third mile.
As to the alleged deepness of the field, sure. :).
You called the course ‘primarily downhill’ when it starts and ends at the same elevation (perhaps 5 feet of difference) and you continue to act like a jealous teenager wanting to discredit the performance because of this, that, and another excuse. I suggest you get over it.
astro wrote:
Come on. There are serious red flags about this course. In fact so serious that someone with intimate knowledge about the course's design felt compelled to address them. In doing so he fully admitted that the course was designed to be as fast as possible and had design features that likely make the course a statistical outlier. When I pointed out that the first and third miles are downhill I was accused of misstating this until I quoted and highlighted the actual testimony. By my calculation about 1400 meters of the final 1600 meters of the course are downhill. That is why the splits seem so off with the runners seemingly able to match their fast first mile times during the third mile.
As to the alleged deepness of the field, sure. :).
A course that is flat is faster than a course that is not. You can bring up the “downhill” first and last miles but that means the second mile is going to add more time than you gain on the first/last two combined.
Even if the course is pancake flat, HS kids typically have their second mile as their slowest because of their fast first half mile and their push at the end.
The course is legit. Insanely fast but legit. If you take away the massive wind at XC Town, Sydney runs 16:15-16:20 on a course with thick grass and a little slop. Why can’t Hutchins run sub 16:00 on a fast course with perfect weather?
It’s unfortunate they all won’t race each other in 1.5 weeks.
Joe Jackson wrote:
astro wrote:
Come on. There are serious red flags about this course. In fact so serious that someone with intimate knowledge about the course's design felt compelled to address them. In doing so he fully admitted that the course was designed to be as fast as possible and had design features that likely make the course a statistical outlier. When I pointed out that the first and third miles are downhill I was accused of misstating this until I quoted and highlighted the actual testimony. By my calculation about 1400 meters of the final 1600 meters of the course are downhill. That is why the splits seem so off with the runners seemingly able to match their fast first mile times during the third mile.
As to the alleged deepness of the field, sure. :).
You called the course ‘primarily downhill’ when it starts and ends at the same elevation (perhaps 5 feet of difference) and you continue to act like a jealous teenager wanting to discredit the performance because of this, that, and another excuse. I suggest you get over it.
Great, now the discussion wanders over to what "primarily" means. One thing I know, it does not mean "net".
Enough. Been over this in detail. Sorry facts displease you.
Anyway a record got set and it is perfectly appropriate to discuss its merits and validity. Nothing wrong with that. Led to a lot of details about the course.
The second mile consists of gentle rolling hills that may cost 10-15 seconds off the 1st mile time and which is overcompensated for by the composition of the third mile. Net. Gross. Whatever. It is an accurate description and the race video shows it. That is why the course is insanely fast.
Correct. Facts are that the course is accurate and she is the fastest girl in history. Tuohy is not the fastest any longer. The record holder is Hutchins. This was also the deepest boys' race in history. This race probably threatens the future of NXN and Footlocker.
:)
astro wrote:
The second mile consists of gentle rolling hills that may cost 10-15 seconds off the 1st mile time and which is overcompensated for by the composition of the third mile. Net. Gross. Whatever. It is an accurate description and the race video shows it. That is why the course is insanely fast.
A downhill never negates an uphill. And the second mile in no way adds 10-15s due to hills. I've been to the course several times and you'd need at least 50 feet of elevation gain for that to happen. I'd be surprised if it had close to 25 ft.
If Tuouhy would have run on this course, you wouldn't have had an issue with it. Don't let your emotions get the best of you.
Tuohy could have come close to 16 flat on this course.
So you are agreeing . I was being conservative. So the 2nd mile that is suppose to balance the books does not even rise 25 feet. The race video agrees too.
So then I am not sure what the issue is. I have said that this is a blazingly fast course and that this was a significant factor in the record. Have not seen a single fact to dissuade me from that assessment.
As to the rest I am a stickler for the integrity of records. Go out there and set a record without any help or undue advantage and I say well done. It just so happens that Tuohy set a lot of records and did it the hard way. For example when she set the recordvat Goddard she beat Chimel's course record, a record set by a national class runner, by a minute and thirty seconds. That's earning it the old fashioned way.
That said, whether the course is an outlier or not, it still goes in the books.
astro wrote:
For example when she set the recordvat Goddard she beat Chimel's course record, a record set by a national class runner, by a minute and thirty seconds. That's earning it the old fashioned way.
.
Yeah, World Athletics should not allow records that are not an improvement of at least a minute.
Look at the elevation profile, yes the 1st mile is net downhill, the 2nd mile is net uphill, and the 3rd has a significant climb before you get a nice downhill to the finish.
SouthernFriedRealist wrote:
If Tuouhy would have run on this course, you wouldn't have had an issue with it.
+1
Saladbar who? wrote:
https://www.strava.com/activities/4370189367Look at the elevation profile, yes the 1st mile is net downhill, the 2nd mile is net uphill, and the 3rd has a significant climb before you get a nice downhill to the finish.
Also if anyone wants to continue to nitpick the distance you can, but the profile above shows his GPS watch gets nearly the exact same measurements on courses in Colorado as it did in Huntsville. And as a matter of FACT that young man's previous PR came on a course that only measured 5.01km whereas the Huntsville course measured 5.08. Keep drinking the Hatorade Folks!
Stay tuned Nike and Footlocker!
We have been over this, as has the course designers. There is a long downhill, leading to a 200 meter uphill, leading to an even longer downhill all the way to the final turn. We can spin this to the cows come home.
Missing the point. Anyway when you set a record on a well established course with a well established race history there are no questions. When you set a record on a brand spanking new course built in 2019 that seems crazy fast, there are.
astro wrote:
We have been over this, as has the course designers. There is a long downhill, leading to a 200 meter uphill, leading to an even longer downhill all the way to the final turn. We can spin this to the cows come home.
You are the only one trying to "spin" anything. Quit discrediting the hard work and efforts of Jenna, Parker, and all the other young men and women that raced their butts off on Saturday!
Presumably a lot of posters here have a PR of 15:59 or slower.
So facts are discrediting? And it apparently is not a fact that some courses are faster or much faster than others. So much for xc.