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

Except in cross country course differences and conditions, weather and competition are all major factors that cannot be wished away no matter how much you may want to. It is laughable to argue that a faster time on an easier course is automatically better than a slower time on a more challenging course. This isn't track, and even conditions there can vary, such as using pacers vs. a solo effort. If you run 16:45 on a flat or downhill course with perfect footing and no challenging features, is that really a better performance than say 17 on a hilly course with sharp turns and difficult footing? Of course not. So yes you take conditions and course difficulty into account. Those names from the past never got to run the John Hunt course. But people can certainly compare performances and times from other courses, factor in the varying degrees of difficulty, and extrapolate. And they can evaluate it statistically using speed ratings as points of comparison.

That said, relax. It is a record. It is in the books. But there is certainly no reason to elevate this performance over better ones at much tougher courses. But even that may change. Perspective, which takes time. Who knows? Maybe this course records stands for 30 year and time proves that the course is not as super easy as it appears. Maybe Hutchins goes on to break the course records at Footlocker or Holmdel or Mt. Sac. Or sets the 5K track record without a fleet of pacers. Or goes on to Olympic glory. Maybe the NY Times will even write an article asking "when did we know?" and predicting doom.

76chine wrote:

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.

If the starting line and finish line are the same elevation, downhills will never make up time lost on uphills. That’s very basic knowledge.

Miles of downhill and very minor uphills. Heck even the "rolling section" seemed more downhill than uphill. The whole course is miles of downhill with a couple of barely discernible "rises". That race video does not lie.

astro wrote:

Miles of downhill and very minor uphills. Heck even the "rolling section" seemed more downhill than uphill. The whole course is miles of downhill with a couple of barely discernible "rises". That race video does not lie.

The Strava elevation profile posted above is also misleading in that the major hill is a 5 degree incline. Hardly a major, steep hill such as at Balboa Park, or in New York for example.

astro wrote:

That said, relax. It is a record. It is in the books. But there is certainly no reason to elevate this performance over better ones at much tougher courses.

I need to go find the Wikipedia for ‘butthurt’ and add a link to this post.

These are high school kids. Why do you care so much?

Oh but there is reason to elevate it above all others. And there are no better performances because the only official metric is the clock. It is by definition the best performance ever. The record books don't look at anything other than place and time. They don't consider the course. Like I said, if you ask 1000 fans today, 999 will tell you that it is the best performance of all time. You are the 1 in 1000 who will stand there and try to diminish it by saying that so-and-so could have run faster. You keep it saying that it is the record but then write a paragraph about why it is not the best. The official criteria for setting the record and being the best is by running the fastest time. You sound like the guy who when his football team loses, you point out that your team had more time of possession and had more yards gained. A better speed rating just means that somebody possibly could have run faster at another course. Well they can't if they aren't there. They can't if they are sick. They can't if they are injured. That is what speed ratings do. They give you a what if subjective comparison. It is unfair to Hutchins to say that somebody could have run faster than her at this course on this day.

My Speed Rating concept is derived from the original speed rating concept of Andrew Beyer for betting thoroughbred horse races … The utility of the concept was recognized as useful tool and was included in the Daily Racing Form Past Performances sold at race tracks … the numbers are currently referred to as the Beyer Speed figures which are a modification of the original speed ratings I find more useful for both horse racing and high school XC.

Simplified, the concept is basically “who beat who and by how much” … The rating numbers derived approximate the speed, on a relative basis, of “how many lengths” one horse is ahead or behind other horses … That is something I want to know when betting serious money!

Part of the concept is using large datasets to determine the relative speed of different classes of horses … then, using that data, determine the relative speed of individual horses … and once you have a series of speed ratings for individual horses, that data becomes the primary source of deriving future speed ratings … It is how horses rate relative to each other and NOT the race course.

For high school XC, I classify races by quality … I classify races individually that occur annually … I classify groups of runners … and I make “profiles” for these classifications for potential comparison to similar profiles.

My Speed Ratings are for “relative” comparison and NOT “absolute” comparison common for track & field.

Instead of horse lengths, I look at time differences between runners in XC … Thank goodness for fast computers, for some races, I use my data bases to calculate the time differences between “each and every runner in a race AND their previous races” to get a relative comparison (who closed time gaps, who widened time gaps, and by how much) … For those familiar with my speed ratings, that data can be extracted directly from individual speed ratings.

Margin of Error … I classify every race with a degree of accuracy (highly certain, certain, probably acceptable, uncertain (“ball-park”, future watch), unacceptable for now, unratable) … Highly certain and certain are common mid-season to post-season with races and runners for which I have sufficient data … Highly certain is 0 to 1 speed rating points, certain is 1 to 2 speed rating points … and I classify these as if I will be betting serious money!

XC speed ratings are like horse speed ratings in that:

(1) It is the handicapper’s responsibility to know if the race conditions were fast, slow, muddy, cold, windy, difficult, easy, tactical, all-out, etc … and evaluate that with respect to the speed ratings and how it may or may not affect the outcome or projection of an upcoming race … Sometimes, speed ratings are NOT the primary reason for predicting outcomes.

My speed ratings do not need corrections for the purposes intended … I’ve already talked about the 2.5-scaling and why most high school races (2.6 to 3.11 miles) do not need any corrections or micro-management … It would mostly be a waste of time in my opinion.

Trying to correct a “relative” a number to make it more “absolute” so people can make “absolute comparisons” is not for me or my speed ratings.

Amber Trotter … I know her 180 speed rating is accurate and I no longer give a damn if anybody else agrees … It was who she beat and by how much (THE Speed Rating Concept).

As I have said before, I wish I had never made my speed ratings public … I’m getting old … I spend too much time on high school XC … The complaints, demands and requests from parents and coaches have increased … Demands that I explain things to their satisfaction … It’s time to go back to horse racing full-time while I still can … Making large bets based on speed ratings, track bias, and trip-handicapping with the resulting “Thrill of Victory or Agony of Defeat”.

astro wrote:

Miles of downhill and very minor uphills. Heck even the "rolling section" seemed more downhill than uphill. The whole course is miles of downhill with a couple of barely discernible "rises". That race video does not lie.

You must be trolling at this point, are you reading what you type? How can a course be "miles of downhill" with "barely discernable rises". For every foot of elevation lost, there is equal gained on the course, it is not a point to point, infact the starting line and finish line are 250-300 meters apart on a big open field.

Jenna MF Hutchins 15:58!!!!!! Fastest HS Girls Cross Country runner in the Universe!

I mean I did not have any preconceptions. Then last week out of the blue people started discussing this race on here. And the predictions seemed wild. That an insane number of runners would break 15. That the girl's 5K mark was certain to fall. I think Hutchins is a top national runner. But there was nothing in her resume to make anyone predict the 5K xc record on a legitimate course. It is just that people knowledgeable about the course saw how it ran at the Southern Showcase and realized how fast it was.

Then the race happened. 32 sub 15s. Like a 140 sub 15:30s. The 5K girl's record. The 2nd place girls' runner PRing by 42 seconds. Etc. It was statistically out of whack. That prompted all manner of speculation about the course, including its length. Which prompted detailed information about the course design, and confirmed the existence of long downhill stretches, the user friendly turns and footing, and that the course was built to run fast.

Then I saw the race video. My Turkey Trot course is more challenging. Which is fine. No shame in building an ultrafast course. There is a place for everything. But forget the past. If both Brown or Sydney had run this course instead, chances are they have the 5K record.

I for one appreciate what you do.

astro wrote:

If both Brown or Sydney had run this course instead, chances are they have the 5K record.

Speculation and Conjecture!

Jenna MF Hutchins 15:58!!!!!! Fastest HS Girls Cross Country Runners in the Universe!

astro wrote:and confirmed the existence of long downhill stretches

....otherwise known as 'Weapons of Mass Destruction of HS Girls' 5k XC Records'!!!

Facts are facts. I don't care if they are "fair." You seriously arguing that course difficulty is not a factor? So the record would have been set at Holmdel or NXN no problem, course and conditions be damned? Ok.

No argument there. Fast courses produce fast times.

astro wrote:

Facts are facts. I don't care if they are "fair." You seriously arguing that course difficulty is not a factor? So the record would have been set at Holmdel or NXN no problem, course and conditions be damned? Ok.

I haven't seen many "facts" in this thread other than one FACT! Jenna MF Hutchins 15:58!!!!!! Fastest HS Girls Cross Country Runners in the Universe!

You are the only one who seems to care that life is not fair. The facts are that the course is fast and she is the fastest girl of all time. No the record would not have been set at Holmdel. No, the record would not have been set by a slower girl. No the record wouLd not have been set if had rained all night. No the record wouLd not have been set if if there had been 20 MPH winds. You can't seem to come to grips with the facts. Let's celebrate the all-time record being set just a few days ago. Let's celebrate the fastest girl in history!

How many runners from Ridgemont High posted fast times?

The most impressive thing about this record is that it was accomplished on 38 to 40 miles per week with two days off. She has a lot of room to get better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt4f7C1mmxk

Fastest high school runner ever but 2 or 3 guys are bothered that she knocked Tuohy off of the record. That seems to be the issue. I hope these few old men will be happy for the big three this year when all of them knock off a bunch of track records. I expect all 3 of them to break 9 in the 3k.