100m wide starting line
580 - 600m to the first turn
Each box is 2m wide -> 50 boxes
Box 25 is the center
The "toe line" of box 25 would be 2.07m (6' 10") behind the toe line of boxes 1 and 50
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
600^2 + 50^2 = C^2 (distance from box 1 and box 50)
True 5k wrote:
True 5k 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.
Yes, two weeks AFTER and a track should be faster than a CC Course.
2. The park is a dedicated XC venue wheeled and verified by RunningLane.
Great! The issue could be with the type of wheel and where they wheeled the course. But I hope it is spot on!
There are permanent markers.
That's a nice touch. How often and at what distance do they have these permanent markers?
I would encourage anyone who doubts the veracity of this to bring a wheel to John Hunt park and try for themselves.
I'm looking forward to doing do that sometime.
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.
"Almost" and "at around" don't give me much confidence and I have had bad luck with gps devices on CC Courses. I'm not a strava user - can you post what you are talking about?
4. PRs were logical given the athletes' track times. Sahlman ran 8:43 last spring.
Not really. Way too many fast times by the majority at a race in December, and track times from last spring are just that - track times from last spring.
5. PRs were logical given NP athletes' Woodbridge times which converted to roughly 14:10.
Not sure what that has to do with the course length? Maybe both are easy and short?
6. Course conditions were significantly better than any course run by any of these athletes with the exception of Woodbridge. Weren't there like thousands of kids that raced? You really think this was the best conditions ALL these kids have seen this season?
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. Yes, and none of it verifies the course length.
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. No bitterness , just would like concrete confirmation on the course length. I have seen situations like this in the past and all checked out as I expected. When a bunch of kids run fast there is a reason. When a bunch of kids run average there is a reason, and when a bunch of kids run slow there is a reason. The number one reason in my research, and past experiences, has been course length. It is really pretty simple.
9. Of the people I know, most PRs were between 0-25 seconds. Four boys on my team did not PR.
A quick look at results show many quality runners improved by over a minute as has been noted on this thread or others about this meet. Yes, if you have ran on "fast" or short courses during the regular season that could happen.
replies above in bold
True 5k wrote:
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.
Yep, but there are trees along the course and several turns, correct?
My team was lucky enough to run two meets at the course this year. I was fun to see how much they improved from Southern Showcase to Running Lane.
You couldn't just say that I had it right at 2 meters?
Out of the top 25 athletes in the boys gold race
ALL 25 athletes set a PR.
The average PR set was 30.4 seconds
The greatest PR 85.1 was seconds
The smallest PR was 4.5 seconds
Only one athlete had a single-digit PR
This meet is a month after most state meets. You're telling me that every single one of these kids can run a PR in the 2-5 weeks after their state meet? Not every kid is going to peak well for this meet considering the time difference. If the average kid in the top 25 is setting a 30 second PR you have to question the integrity of this course. We are talking about beating the fastest time you've ever run by nearly 200 meters. That is ridiculous! The idea that these kids are quite literally some of the best xc runners in the nation this year and are setting 30 second prs in a matter of weeks is just impossible to believe. A lot of these kids if they didn't run this short course wouldn't even set a 30 second PR from last year!
I don't think it is a short course, just a course that is designed to be extremely fast to the point that it throws off comparisons with other performances. 75 boys ran sub-15. 20 girls ran sub-17. Four runners broke mark in the same race. A 165 speed rating produced a 16:03 the year after a 166 produced a 15:58.
I guess we have entered the age of superfast XC courses.
True 5k wrote:
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.
Enough already. Us skeptics are not bitter nor are we bashing kids. Part of me actually does believe the course is accurate or insignificantly short. The talent and depth across the US is at an all-time high. It's exciting, almost mind-boggling. The NP kids are very capable of historic times and we may have just witnessed an unprecedented race on Saturday. I had friends in Huntsville and they talked very highly of the venue, course conditions, and mentioned near-perfect racing weather.
However, if RL is going to make the claim that this is the fastest course in the country and these times are "records" or all-time best performances, then the onus is on them to get the course certified by USATF officials. I'm sorry, but measuring it multiple times with a wheel and/or using GPS data is not the same. And, yes, I realize very few XC courses get certified, but none are claiming to be the "fastest course in America."
I may be in the growing minority with this viewpoint, but I don't think an emphasis on time is a positive thing either. Will it hurt the sport? No. But cross has always been about place or how a time stacked up on a historic course. I would like to see the "national champ" crowned on a course that was fair, but challenging. Not a track meet on grass. (BTW, NP would have dominated on any course in America. It's not about them.)
Thank you for stating the fact that the first 25 boys officially set a PR in the race. Everything else that you posted is irrelevant because the times have been posted.
astro wrote:
I don't think it is a short course, just a course that is designed to be extremely fast to the point that it throws off comparisons with other performances. 75 boys ran sub-15. 20 girls ran sub-17. Four runners broke mark in the same race. A 165 speed rating produced a 16:03 the year after a 166 produced a 15:58.
I guess we have entered the age of superfast XC courses.
Why is that when we have super fast courses we more often than not have short courses?
If you could design a track to be super fast would you add any undulations or hills? Would you add any fur to the track surface to quicken it?
Nike is knocking wrote:
Thank you for stating the fact that the first 25 boys officially set a PR in the race. Everything else that you posted is irrelevant because the times have been posted.
Did he strike a nerve? His research is what is needed to look at this objectively.
Every design feature of the course is made for speed. The surface, which was steamrolled before the race apparently. The course width. The absence of sharp turns. The course is a gentle downhill in mile one, has some gentle rollers in the middle, and after a short hill the third mile is again a gentle dowhill. That's why you see runners able to almost match their first mile in the final mile.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
True 5k wrote:
1. Wachtel and Hutchins ran 14:15 and 15:34 respectively on the track 2 weeks prior last year.
Yes, two weeks AFTER and a track should be faster than a CC Course.
2. The park is a dedicated XC venue wheeled and verified by RunningLane.
Great! The issue could be with the type of wheel and where they wheeled the course. But I hope it is spot on!
There are permanent markers.
That's a nice touch. How often and at what distance do they have these permanent markers?
I would encourage anyone who doubts the veracity of this to bring a wheel to John Hunt park and try for themselves.
I'm looking forward to doing do that sometime.
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.
"Almost" and "at around" don't give me much confidence and I have had bad luck with gps devices on CC Courses. I'm not a strava user - can you post what you are talking about?
4. PRs were logical given the athletes' track times. Sahlman ran 8:43 last spring.
Not really. Way too many fast times by the majority at a race in December, and track times from last spring are just that - track times from last spring.
5. PRs were logical given NP athletes' Woodbridge times which converted to roughly 14:10.
Not sure what that has to do with the course length? Maybe both are easy and short?
6. Course conditions were significantly better than any course run by any of these athletes with the exception of Woodbridge. Weren't there like thousands of kids that raced? You really think this was the best conditions ALL these kids have seen this season?
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. Yes, and none of it verifies the course length.
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. No bitterness , just would like concrete confirmation on the course length. I have seen situations like this in the past and all checked out as I expected. When a bunch of kids run fast there is a reason. When a bunch of kids run average there is a reason, and when a bunch of kids run slow there is a reason. The number one reason in my research, and past experiences, has been course length. It is really pretty simple.
9. Of the people I know, most PRs were between 0-25 seconds. Four boys on my team did not PR.
A quick look at results show many quality runners improved by over a minute as has been noted on this thread or others about this meet. Yes, if you have ran on "fast" or short courses during the regular season that could happen.
replies above in bold
You have got to be shi*ing me. Your nitpicking is trivial.
"Almost" and "at around" because some were 3.14, some 3.15, some 3.12. some 3.11, some 3.17. You're a dolt. You are literally the dumbest or most stubborn person I have ever spoken with. If the course was really short and that explained massive PRs, then track times would reflect that. Wachtel and Hutchins would not run 20 seconds faster on a track with less competition than on an XC course with the best competition of their lives. You are like a Trump supporter. You probably are a Trump supporter. You deny facts in favor of these wild, baseless theories.
Why do kids routinely PR by 15 seconds at the Arcadia 3200? Track length? 390 meter track?
Don't bring politics into it. I am a Trump supporter and I am on your side of the argument. I have a feeling most are.
There is nothing to look at. The results are in. They are official. They ran the fastest times ever. They took Ritz down.
True 5k wrote:
"Almost" and "at around" because some were 3.14, some 3.15, some 3.12. some 3.11, some 3.17. You're a dolt. You are literally the dumbest or most stubborn person I have ever spoken with. If the course was really short and that explained massive PRs, then track times would reflect that. Wachtel and Hutchins would not run 20 seconds faster on a track with less competition than on an XC course with the best competition of their lives. You are like a Trump supporter. You probably are a Trump supporter. You deny facts in favor of these wild, baseless theories.
Not sure what you are up set about. You post a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the course length and get called out for it then have to go off about Trump! Did Hutchins have anyone to run with on the CC course? Don't you think she would run faster with competition and on a track? Isn't that why you think so many athletes run fast - the competition? Wouldn't that also apply to her?
Steel Tapeless wrote:
True 5k wrote:
"Almost" and "at around" because some were 3.14, some 3.15, some 3.12. some 3.11, some 3.17. You're a dolt. You are literally the dumbest or most stubborn person I have ever spoken with. If the course was really short and that explained massive PRs, then track times would reflect that. Wachtel and Hutchins would not run 20 seconds faster on a track with less competition than on an XC course with the best competition of their lives. You are like a Trump supporter. You probably are a Trump supporter. You deny facts in favor of these wild, baseless theories.
Not sure what you are up set about. You post a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the course length and get called out for it then have to go off about Trump! Did Hutchins have anyone to run with on the CC course? Don't you think she would run faster with competition and on a track? Isn't that why you think so many athletes run fast - the competition? Wouldn't that also apply to her?
Everything I posted has everything to do with course length. GPS, wheeling, track times, everything. If you are going to deny GPS and wheeling data because you don't think kids are getting faster, that's on you. bro. Of course, competition is a major factor and Hutchins could have probably run faster with someone her speed, but she had been running alone all year and was used to it. She was chasing that record. But the facts clearly show that the course is a 5k. Daddy Ritz doesn't have the record anymore, but his performance was still probably more impressive. Those two facts can coexist.
Please go onto a route builder and plot out the exact course and come back to me with the distance ;)