Official RunningLane National Championships thread

rocky mtns... wrote:

Peach Pit wrote:

[quote]SDSU Aztec wrote:

... we now have a national meet where we can compare performances in the future.

I seem to be in the minority, but fast XC times should not be the focus of a national championship race. I'd prefer a strength course determine the national champion. Times should be irrelevant. Does anyone at the NCAA or World level obsess about XC times? Why is that the trend of HS XC?

It'll be irrelevant in the future as NXN returns and pays for the teams to travel for a real cross country race. Runninglane will just turn into one of those remember when stories.

Wise Old Man wrote:

I was referring more to the Woodward times. Aaron was 14:46. It would be a 30 sec improvement for Martinez, but I think he can do it in that system and with those teammates. Youngs are going sub 14:20 at Woodward next year. Their strength is unreal.

It's for sure a possibility, especially since 5,6, and 7 all made big improvements since the beginning of the season. I'm super excited to see what the school can do in the next two years!

I'm sorry but you cant tell me that this course is legit lol, you had 70 boys break 15, maybe more, these kids run like 4:20-4:25, and 9:20-9:30 2 miles. A 4:25 miler may be able to go sub 15 if they have a ton of strength, but in XC? Come on. This course is a joke. This is why I think that in distances under 10.000 meters your true PR needs to be run on a track. Anything not run on a track is not your PR.

Are they gloating? Are they claiming to be better than Ritz man for man? Why are you so upset that we have seen the greatest xc TEAM do their thing?

That being said, I think one or both Young twins will put up times next year that we will recognize as being the best ever. They are not saying it, but I think they can do it. Time will tell.

No need. German’s 14:24 is & always sill be a better performance than Ritz’s 14:10. We’ve seen how they compared to him.

Lol 71 guys under 15. Has to be the easiest course ever.

ragingclue wrote:

hope this puts to rest the argument that Brosnan is not a great coach. Many seem to claim he got lucky with the brothers, but today he proved that he can develop his other athletes into great runners. 6 and 7 runners for NP broke 15 and are coming back next year.

+1

He definitely got lucky with the brothers, but he's proven that he can develop other kids too. A lot of people seem to think that coaching is just telling your kids what workouts to do, but Brosnan really goes above and beyond. I read an article on the front page the other day that showed me he really is passionate about running and coaching. Things like talking to other coaches constantly about their training philosophies, staying up late at night to crunch numbers, make plans, read more about training, etc. He even said he coaches everyone that comes out to XC, even if they're not the super talented top kids. He obviously puts in a ton of work.

Another thing is that he's good at motivating his kids to work hard. One thing that stuck out was that he made the mile repeats a few seconds long to show the kids that they were setting mental barriers and could run faster than they thought they could.

Another thing that really stuck out was how he held multiple practices the day that some kids took the SAT. He did the normal workout at 8, and then that afternoon came back and held workouts for the SAT kids. My coach in HS just told us to run on our own when we missed practice for ACTs. He earned my respect just for showing how passionate he is for the sport.

blue 7 wrote:

For all of you griping about the length of the course or that nobody can measure up to Ritz just STFU. Really, STFU. The runners today were concerned only about beating the other competitors. And the teams wanted to beat other teams. That's it. Everyone knows that only track times can be compared to other performances. And even in track there's variability with the speed of the track's surface, weather conditions, etc. First and foremost runners compete against each other, and only secondarily against the clock.

As for NP, they've accomplished whatever has been asked of them. This is the greatest boys' high school cross country team.

I don't think any of us questioning the length or apparent focus on fast times are being critical of NP. They are absolutely the best HS boys team ever and most of us expect that they will run super fast next spring as well. That said, it is disingenuous to say there hasn't been a RL focus on fast times. If you watched the webcast, it was certainly a point of reference throughout. And for teams/individuals not near the top, running an all-time XC best was certainly a main motivating factor. Actually, even for NP, running super fast was a point of emphasis based on Coach Brosnan's pre-race comments.

Here’s the rational view of the world.

Riley Hough ran a best of 14:37 on a very fast course at Portage Invite mid-year. He’s an automatic sub-15:00 on most courses with some effort. Probably could break 14:30 top end on a legit fast course.

He just went 14:10. Pretty crazy.

Kole Mathison of IN is a legit sub-15:00 guy on a fast course. Absolute top end of probably a bit under 14:50.

He just went 14:23. Absurd.

This course is :20 short (err… “fast”). The last mile splits are seriously funny.

Every serious runner at RL knows this in their heart.

The SRs told an accurate story. I think 163 is 16 flat on this course. As to track times, i think Tuohy's sophomore run holds up pretty well to a paced time on a longer outdoor track in a pro race, especially when there was no 15:30s time to pace for. Point is 173 is significantly faster than 166, which I thought was a bit generous.

As to since, that's the trick. No one has cracked it yet. Longevity can never be assumed.

$0.02 wrote:

I challenge every single Newbury Park runner gloating over their finishing times to step foot on the speedway and try to replicate what Ritz did. I will get on the phone with Superior Timing right now and foot the bill for the setup. I also call on Hansons-Brooks to get the athletes travel fares and lodging.

Just get over it. The NP team ran on the course they were provided against the competition that showed up and they delivered. Just appreciate their performance today for what it was not what it could have/should have been.

rocky mtns... wrote:

I seem to be in the minority, but fast XC times should not be the focus of a national championship race. I'd prefer a strength course determine the national champion. Times should be irrelevant. Does anyone at the NCAA or World level obsess about XC times? Why is that the trend of HS XC?

As a fan, I see where you're coming from. Watching track should be for fast times, and cross country should be to see who can grit it out the most. As someone who pretty recently was running HS XC though, I can sympathize with most kids who want to run a course where they can get a PR. If RL was a super hard course, I guarantee way fewer kids would be out there right now.

For the top 1% of runners competing to win, they won't care as much about their fastest time unless they're shooting for a CR, but for the other 99%, they don't want to end their final race of the season (maybe ever) 2 minutes slower than their PR.

The solution to this? Maybe add some road races to the track season? Kids who want to run a fast 5k/10k could try to run it on the road during track season, and save the hard races for cross country? It also means track meets won't have to spend a few hours running 3-4 heats of a 5k/10k.

Heartless wrote:

Here’s the rational view of the world.

Riley Hough ran a best of 14:37 on a very fast course at Portage Invite mid-year. He’s an automatic sub-15:00 on most courses with some effort. Probably could break 14:30 top end on a legit fast course.

He just went 14:10. Pretty crazy.

Kole Mathison of IN is a legit sub-15:00 guy on a fast course. Absolute top end of probably a bit under 14:50.

He just went 14:23. Absurd.

This course is :20 short (err… “fast”). The last mile splits are seriously funny.

Every serious runner at RL knows this in their heart.

So to finish the thought, the NP guys are legit 14:20s guys on a 5K XC course, not 14:05.

Ritz’s solo 14:10 (4:28-:34-:38) remains the greatest individual 5K performance in high school XC history.

A more rational view would be to look at track times.

Last year, Parker Wolfe ran 14:26 and went on to run 8:43 for 2 miles in the spring.

Last year, Jenna ran 15:58 here and went on to run 15:34 3 weeks later.

You can’t compare Hough’s times on other courses because he won those races so we don’t know much how faster he could’ve gone. Today, he lost to 4 people.

I would hesitate to call the course today short, but in all honesty it's probably equivalent to what these kids can run on a track right now. There were at least two downhills to complement the already flat course, so my guess is times run similar to the oval. keep in mind the last mile split will seem absurdly fast because the second mile read was actually 2.1 miles (the commentator quoted the two mile split as 9:41 which is incorrect but more like 9:15).

I agree with this 100%

NP is the greatest HS team, full stop.

But arguing the meaning of times course to course is a fool’s errand. Course records have internal validity, but no external validity. Absolute comparisons are only possible on the track.

For example, I’d argue Ches’s Van Cortlandt Park 2.5 mile record of 11:55 is the best of all HS xc records, but this sort of statement and argument is basically a waste of energy.

Heartless wrote:

Heartless wrote:

Here’s the rational view of the world.

Riley Hough ran a best of 14:37 on a very fast course at Portage Invite mid-year. He’s an automatic sub-15:00 on most courses with some effort. Probably could break 14:30 top end on a legit fast course.

He just went 14:10. Pretty crazy.

Kole Mathison of IN is a legit sub-15:00 guy on a fast course. Absolute top end of probably a bit under 14:50.

He just went 14:23. Absurd.

This course is :20 short (err… “fast”). The last mile splits are seriously funny.

Every serious runner at RL knows this in their heart.

So to finish the thought, the NP guys are legit 14:20s guys on a 5K XC course, not 14:05.

Ritz’s solo 14:10 (4:28-:34-:38) remains the greatest individual 5K performance in high school XC history.

German’s 14:24 > Ritz 14:10

German > Ritz

$0.02 wrote:

I challenge every single Newbury Park runner gloating over their finishing times to step foot on the speedway and try to replicate what Ritz did. I will get on the phone with Superior Timing right now and foot the bill for the setup. I also call on Hansons-Brooks to get the athletes travel fares and lodging.

I doubt they'll get a chance to challenge Ritz's CR, but if they ran faster than 13:44 this track season (or maybe 8:30), will you think they're better than Ritz?

What's something they could do to prove themselves better than Ritz? They can't run the course in Michigan or Balboa Park. Would they have to place 3rd or better in world jr XC? Or could they skip that and just break records on the track?

The splits give away that it's off. If we assume the splits are correct.

Just a sampling for actual mile splits (converted 2.1 to 2miles.)

1. Sahlman- 4:29- 4:42- 4:21

10. Teeples- 4:30- 4:51- 4:34

13. Brosnan- 4:34- 4:53-4:33

19. Nenow- 4:37- 4:49-4:40

36. Quigley- 4:38- 4:55- 4:39

No one runs the best race of their life like this. All these kids magically did. Either the splits or overall distance, or a combo of both are off. I browsed through the top 50, and struggled to find anyone who had a slower last mile than 2nd. That's not how racing works. Someone would have fallen apart. Not everyone magically picks it up the last mile to run as fast or faster than their first mile.

That's not to take away from the athletes racing. Places matter. But it's laughable that anyone thinks this is legit.