Official RunningLane National Championships thread

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.

stage 1: denial

The course designer last year described the third mile as a long, gentle downhill. The course was designed to let the runners run a very fast first mile, lose a slight bit of time rhe second mile, but the make it all up the third mile, which allows the runners to run comparable to the fast first mile time despite fatigue. That is why the splits are like that. Runninglane is just a very fast course.

fatboy slim wrote:

Heartless wrote:

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

How many national XC titles did German win in high school?

Ritz was the better XC runner of the two, no question about it.

fatboy slim wrote:

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 think this is a good way of looking at it. Makes sense too when Lex and Colin both ran 8:43 last year, now they've had 6 months to develop that they'd run faster than 14:26.

When Jenna ran last year, I thought it was good, but not incredible, just a fast course. Then she ran 15:34 and I figured that her RL performance was actually probably really good.

I think if the NP kids break some records during track, we can go ahead and assume that these runs were up their with Ritz and GF

astro wrote:

God I love being right. Victory lap time. I knew a superfast course when I saw it, and the details the course designer provided last year clinched it. I think Angelina Perez, who was the top rated girl this year would have had a great shot at sub 16. Perez top speed rating was 163 and she ran Holmdel twice, getting in the low 17s. It would have been a good data point in comparing the times on this course.

Luckily we will get to see a match up with Perez and Cook (along with others) at Eastbay Nationals unlike past years where there was always a split with the top runners doing one of the other national meets.

Listen, the absolute best data points we have are from the runners who ran this race last year and that also ran a 5k on the track with that same fitness.

Last year:

On the women’s side, Jenna Hutchins ran 15:58 at RunningLane, and then 15:34 on the track 3-weeks later.

On the men’s side, Justin Wachtel ran 14:36 at Running Lane, and then 14:15 on the track 3-weeks later.

This course is fast but not as a track.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The solution is to run track next spring. All 4 years I was in HS, the guy that won the section 2-mile also won the XC title.

Sorry, I meant the solution to kids wanting fast xc times instead of racing hard courses. If a kid wants a 5k PR, they have to do it in XC, or they have to do it on their own in the off-season. I think this makes kids want to do fast XC courses so that they get a PR. If we added 5k/10k races to track meets and just had them on the road by the school, we might end up with fewer people wanting fast XC courses because they can just get a PR during track season.

You could even finish the 5k on the track if you wanted. Start the 5k, do 3-4 heats of the 800 on the track, then clear it off while the 5k finishes. Or you could just hold the road 5k on a Saturday morning, have a high school section that counts towards the track meet, and have an open section that the community can run in. Funds raised from the community 5k could go towards paying for the track meet, school supplies, charity, etc.

interesting. I think many on this thread are having a hard time believing/accepting that the NP top 3 are as good as Ritz. If we take that 20 second differential from RL to track (in the Justin Wachtel example) then Colin Sahlman is roughly in 13:45-13:50 shape on the track at this point.

Tralfaz wrote:

fatboy slim wrote:

German’s 14:24 > Ritz 14:10

German > Ritz

How many national XC titles did German win in high school?

Ritz was the better XC runner of the two, no question about it.

You ask that question as if it has any relevance. First of all, German only ran Footlocker 1 time. Secondly, he had a shoe issue mid-race (I think his shoe came off if I remember correctly). You kind of need your shoes to stay on in order to have a shot at winning when you are facing the top guys. But yes, Dathan was great.

Well said!

Tralfaz wrote:

fatboy slim wrote:

German’s 14:24 > Ritz 14:10

German > Ritz

How many national XC titles did German win in high school?

Ritz was the better XC runner of the two, no question about it.

German was by far the best runner in XC that year and he proved it in track the next spring. FL was on a muddy course that year and depending on stride, some runners are better than others in those conditions.

I think an even better data point are the times the runners ran on the course. Tullyrunners got a lot of flack for speed rating Hutchins race at 166, but time has proved that basically accurate, although 164-65 seems more precise. Part of any speed rating is the history of the course, and with a new course it is virtually impossible. A runner who never SRated above 160 just ran 16:03. Track times are nice, but who is to say a runner was running just as well one race to the next, or that other factors, such as pacers, track surface, super shoes, just running a better race, etc did not effect results? Plus some runners are better xc runners than track runners and vice versa. So far we have two consecutive years of super fast times on the course and two "records" exceeded.

First off, it's hard to compare xc times. But like ran 13:38 3 mile at the beginning of the season when he wasn't anywhere close to being peaked. That means that he would only need to close less than 200 meters in under 32 seconds to break 14:10, which he is more than capable of doing. If you look at that, then it easily makes sense what they just did. Records are made to be broken

Tralfaz wrote:

fatboy slim wrote:

German’s 14:24 > Ritz 14:10

German > Ritz

How many national XC titles did German win in high school?

Ritz was the better XC runner of the two, no question about it.

Yeah, look, I’m a massive GF fan as well. Most talented runner of all of them all in my opinion (he was very young for his grade, which makes it all that much more impressive). But Ritz’s 14:10 is better than that 14:24.

You’ve got to consider the performances in the context of their other XC performances as well. And that’s where Ritz was second to none on XC.

14:10 at MIS

14:29 at FLNC as a JUNIOR

14:35 at FLNC as a senior (destroying Webb and Hall)

14:35 at FLMW (Lukas ran 14:44 for ref)

3rd at WJXC (GF did finish 11th at WJXC at a freshman at OSU, so very good as well).

Iamspeed wrote:

First off, it's hard to compare xc times. But like ran 13:38 3 mile at the beginning of the season when he wasn't anywhere close to being peaked. That means that he would only need to close less than 200 meters in under 32 seconds to break 14:10, which he is more than capable of doing. If you look at that, then it easily makes sense what they just did. Records are made to be broken

When literally EVERYONE PRs by :20-:40 seconds… with outrageously-fast closing mikes… you may want to check the course.

Gazellie wrote:

Luckily we will get to see a match up with Perez and Cook (along with others) at Eastbay Nationals unlike past years where there was always a split with the top runners doing one of the other national meets.

The match up between Cook, Perez and Kate Peters will be something to watch. Perez and Peters have been largely untested this year even against elite competition and Cook is running out of her mind here lately. Although not sure why she has stayed under the radar considering she ran sub 16:40 twice in November. I assume shell stay red hot for Eastbay. Oklahoma State is licking their chops with the progress of their incoming freshmen. They had 3 kids under 17 in this race.

astro wrote:

Runninglane is just a very fast course.

If RL wanted to stop all the speculation of a short course, they should get it measured and certified by professionals.

astro wrote:

God I love being right. Victory lap time. I knew a superfast course when I saw it, and the details the course designer provided last year clinched it. I think Angelina Perez, who was the top rated girl this year would have had a great shot at sub 16. Perez top speed rating was 163 and she ran Holmdel twice, getting in the low 17s. It would have been a good data point in comparing the times on this course.

What is nice is that this year there will likely be a definitive girls national champion. Cook won Running Lane with a clear margin, and she is also running Eastbay nationals next weekend. She will either win again or get beaten, but either way there shouldn't be a lot to argue.

Maybe I am missing something, but what is the point of NXR California today? The competitive teams and individuals from CA are either at Running Lane or Eastbay west.

fatboy slim wrote:

Listen, the absolute best data points we have are from the runners who ran this race last year and that also ran a 5k on the track with that same fitness.

Last year:

On the women’s side, Jenna Hutchins ran 15:58 at RunningLane, and then 15:34 on the track 3-weeks later.

On the men’s side, Justin Wachtel ran 14:36 at Running Lane, and then 14:15 on the track 3-weeks later.

This course is fast but not as a track.

Except there has to be something wrong with this argument.

In the history of US HS track, only 9 guys have run sub 14 on the track.

If 14:03 on this course is worth 13:50 for example, it would mean that at least 6 guys would be running sub 14 in the next few weeks/months

Colin

Leo

Lex

Bergen (6s behind Colin)

Hough (7s behind Colin)

Aaron (11s behind Colin)

Then what about Sherry and Langon?

8 guys will be running sub 14 this year?

9 in the history and 8 this year?