JENNA MF HUTCHINS - Runs 15:58 - 1st US HS Girl To Break 16:00 in XC!!

BMeylan wrote:Jenna Hutchins was excluded as an outlier data point when I speed-rated the girls race ... Her speed rating was determined by how fast the other girls ran relative to each other as correlated by their seasonal speed ratings with exclusion of outlier data ... The resulting value of 167 for Jenna Hutchins simply reflects how well she ran relative to the other girls in her race, and it is neither generous nor under-rated (most people think I under-rated her when, in fact, I did not even consider her in the deriving stats).

Can you expand on the above a bit for the sake of the ‘speed ratings are everything’ crowd? It sounds like a stacked field and good conditions could easily create a situation where an exceptional time results in just a ‘good’ speed rating. But I also get that there are several adjustments you (can) apply when creating speed ratings

This Runners World article says she is scheduled to run a 5K track race in Nashville.

There is a "ASICS Best of the East HS Girls' 5000" on 12/4 so that is probably it. They will also have paced heats for women at 15:00, 15:30, 16:00, etc.

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a34762354/jenna-hutchins-sets-national-cross-country-record/

No. That is precisely what the complainers are trying to do. They are comparing courses. Otherwise, they would just celebrate it as the fastest time in history. So by definition, she is the GOAT.

LetsRun should be selling 15:58 GOAT shirts.

I'd love to hear bills thoughts more because I've taken a look at his work and it is very sophisticated and from what I can tell accurate and reliable

But I can jump in and shed a little light and say you'll never get skewed results from conditions or having a good field because your speed rating based on the relative performances compared to past speed ratings

It should be a little tougher on a course like this because you don't have past data points at the new course but I'm pretty sure that bill uses passed Runner performances to get some standard of what would be expected from a group of runners in the race

And if you have enough Runners and a big race like this would easily have them you can get a standard of comparable run times between other course's

Anyway with enough data points you should be able to get a very accurate picture within a small margin of error of how any Rays compares to a standardized or idealized race

So there's never a situation where conditions or quality of the field will impact it

The only thing would be the amount of reliable data points

So I do have a couple of additional questions for Bill, do you ever examined the races with some sort of margin of error of how reliable you think the quality of the data is?

So like would you ever give a speed rating and say what your margin of error is compare do another speed rating that have them much less margin of error

Anyway the only way is speed rating could really be way off would be if one Runner gave an all-out effort and the rest of the field Tanked. That is a intentionally ran at 3/4 effort. But such conspiracy type thinking would not happen in these types of conditions. As well as most conditions

Having watched the video the course is frankly absurdly easy. The amount of downhill and downward slopping on the course is extraordinary and there are no real hills to speak of. Even the so-called rolling section seems downhill. You cannot really appreciate it until you see the cart footage, but the first and third miles are downhill and there is really nothing to offset it.

So yes this is an ultrafast course.

He addressed this issue in his comments on this race, The rating is lower and there is no adjustment made.

"Jenna Hutchin's rating today was 167, and I'm sure some people were expecting a higher speed rating ... Remember that fast, easy courses give less time for the very best runners to separate themselves from the field and other good runners of known ability, and that typically lowers the rating somewhat for the winner."

Her form is interesting. Would like to see her against better competition but she is clearly in the top 3 nationally.

astro wrote:

No one takes that "time trial" setiously. I think the speed ratings we are seeing now prove the point.

You are an embarrassing troll and no one should continue to waste their time responding to your nutty ramblings. Go find something else to obsess over.

You got it. None of my runners come close to their PRs in time trials, even with pacers. If I have a guy who can hit 9:39, he is ready for 9:29.

Jenna Hutchins had approximately 16 minutes to separate herself Katelyn Tuohy had 16 minutes and 7 Seconds to separate herself Katelyn Tuohy speed rating was 176, Hutchins 167 they both ran for approximately the same amount of time and the same amount of time to separate themselves On an average course you have approximately 17 minutes to separate yourself The point is that this is a really insignificant detail and means very little when comparing relative performances So obviously the reason there was a huge difference in speed rating was the difficulty of the course relative to the winning time Bill is clearly being overly generous here and saying something that has very little significance that unfortunately people run wild with Amber Trotter got a 180 speed rating running for about 16 minutes and 20 seconds Anyway bill should correct for that because it's not hard to have a formula or that slightly raises shorter course times based on the amount of time you have to separate yourself It would raise the speed rating by a quarter or half a point

tracking wrote:

Joe Jackson wrote:

Can you expand on the above a bit for the sake of the ‘speed ratings are everything’ crowd? It sounds like a stacked field and good conditions could easily create a situation where an exceptional time results in just a ‘good’ speed rating. But I also get that there are several adjustments you (can) apply when creating speed ratings

He addressed this issue in his comments on this race, The rating is lower and there is no adjustment made.

"Jenna Hutchin's rating today was 167, and I'm sure some people were expecting a higher speed rating ... Remember that fast, easy courses give less time for the very best runners to separate themselves from the field and other good runners of known ability, and that typically lowers the rating somewhat for the winner."

http://tullyrunners.com/XC2020/RunningLane2020.htm

I think Bill is being over generous, but he says he isn't. Still the "separation" argument applies to distance, most famously Tuohy's 4K record at Van Cortlandt. But over a 5K course the analogy falls apart. Really what people are arguing even if they do not realize it is that the SR is lower precisely because the course is faster and the relative times of the other runners in the race are faster. That is the whole point of why a time on a faster course will result in a lower SR than a comparable time on a slower course as it reflects different degrees of difficulty.

The course offers much more time on downhills than uphills, so that the finish line is near the starting line is not as relevant.

I've run long, sloping downhills, only to face a short, steep uphill that returns me to the elevation. There is not enough "time lost" on the hill to overcome all the "time gained" on the downhills.

Slow courses have lots of "time lost" on uphills (or poor terrain), and most runners have experienced that as well.

It seems the speed rating is a fair system to adjust performances. Not perfect, but fair.

She is a fast runner for 3200m, and that shows on fast courses.

Amber Trotter would have run a 15:20 on this course, Touhy 1530 according to speed ratings. Touhy at her absolute best was maybe capable of a 15:30 5K. So will be interesting to see what Jenna Hutchins runs on the track. If she runs a fast time anything below 1545 then something's not right with these relative comparisons. If she runs around 16 minutes then the number is hold up. I think she's probably getting rated a little bit low and those other girls a little high. Like someone else suggested bill should think about giving some sort of margin of error or confidence rating because there's obviously a lot of difference between how much data you have different races.

Yea. Between the information from the detailed course design descriptions and then the race video this may be the easiest, most speed friendly course I have ever seen. You cannot appreciate how much the course contantly ramping downhill until you watch the race. Miles of it. And like you said there is virtually nothing offsetting this on the course.

astro wrote:

Yea. Between the information from the detailed course design descriptions and then the race video this may be the easiest, most speed friendly course I have ever seen. You cannot appreciate how much the course contantly ramping downhill until you watch the race. Miles of it. And like you said there is virtually nothing offsetting this on the course.

Jenna seems like the nicest kid, and in fact almost all the young Runners I've seen, come across as really nice kids. But especially these three top young ladies

So with that said you still have to have some ability to compare results and be realistic

It's weird there's like two crowds this one crowd which is just trying to out scream everybody else that this is the greatest thing ever and then there seems like a lot of people who are saying good job but it was a fast course

But anyway having watched some of the race it was definitely I mostly gently down hill run, which on a Surface like that is incredibly fast

The toughest thing running wise would be steep up hills and steep down Hills because you certainly don't maximize energy

Reminds me of the Fifth Avenue mile which is a steady decline straight down Fifth Avenue in New York City and people run ridiculously Fast Times somewhere around 3:30

It's certainly not her fault and she comes across really well and interviews and is very humble but I just can't stand this group of people that just wants to overhype everything and also seems like course designers just wanted a super fast course that wasn't realistic of or comparable to normal High School courses

Okay I'm wrong about the Fifth Avenue mile. It's only maybe a few seconds faster. I guess what you gained with the downhill gradient and the straight away is lost with the harder surface and the lack of spikes.

Sorry Fifth Avenue mile has an uphill part. is overall net downhill

Anyway someone from this cross-country race actually I'm sure several people will run a 5k on the track so I'm sure we'll get a lot of comparison

ContextisKing wrote:

Sorry Fifth Avenue mile has an uphill part. is overall net downhill

Anyway someone from this cross-country race actually I'm sure several people will run a 5k on the track so I'm sure we'll get a lot of comparison

I think the Fifth Avenue Mile was a good comparison...I have run the race.

Fifth Avenue Mile has strong downhill at first, so the 440y splits are very fast. Still net downhill the 2nd quarter, and half splits can be fast. 3rd quarter has an upward slope, but not steep, and because of the half mile splits the 3/4 time is fast. Into the last quarter, the downhill gets very steep and so the sprint is very fast.

I ran 6-10 seconds faster than I was would have on a track at that time.

After the next race, which was the feature race, I heard Jeff Atkinson say he ran several seconds faster (4 - 6 seconds) that he was in shape to run (Atkinson won '88 olympic trials 1500m)