Official RunningLane National Championships thread

The issue is that there’s 4 kids that all broke Dathans record, and a fifth who basically tied it.

Are people forgetting who Dathan is and what he has accomplished? Not only one of the greatest high school runners, but American runners period.

It’s just mindboggling to think that there’s now 4 kids who are “faster” than Dathan, three of which are from the same school. In fact it’s so mindboggling it’s not true.

Look, the course is fake. Everyone wants a new shiny pr, but it’s just not a real course

Watchin' with interest wrote:

chiichvlvh wrote:

I also assume that the top 10 HS list was re written today on the girl side. Correct?

This will set some people off:

Tuohy's H.S. PR was 16:06.87 for 5K XC.

So now she's 3rd on the list..............

The interesting fact that will be forgotten is that the day Touhy ran 16:06 she would have placed second in the boys varsity race. The times from Running Lane look good on paper, but they do not translate like that. Not even Hutchin's record. What's sad is that no one will remember that, or that Touhy's time was on a more difficult course.

I never thought cross country could get shallow, but it is actually happening. It used to be about grit. I ran courses in high school where we had to jump small creeks, and we also ran in snow storms. Now it is pristine courses for fast times.

First off, it's hard to compare xc times. But leo 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

Since no one has actually bothered to check the data, here is a list of a bunch of course measurements via Strava from today. I just randomly sampled people's runs and wrote the distances down.

boys

3.15, 3.14, 3.13, 3.16, 3.16, 3.13, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.14, 3.14, 3.13, 3.13, 3.13, 3.12, 3.11, 3.13, 3.10, 3.16, 3.15, ...

girls

3.13, 3.12, 3.23, 3.09, 3.08, 3.12, 3.12, 3.10, 3.19, 3.17, 3.11, ...

Girls I assume had a more strung out field so could run straighter lines. Some of the high readings for girls were because they wore Apple Watches (notoriously inaccurate).

The course is insanely fast, people are coming down from altitude, they're peaked, the competition is so good that they have pacing better than kipchoge's, those factors are worth 20 seconds. People are capable of PRs you know

ligma wrote:

Watchin' with interest wrote:

This will set some people off:

Tuohy's H.S. PR was 16:06.87 for 5K XC.

So now she's 3rd on the list..............

For the millionth time, you cannot compare times across different XC courses. There is nothing wrong with runninglane. Compare the track 5k times if you want to be accurate. It's not that hard to understand.

Except when records are broken with pacers and pacing lights that the previous record holder did not have, and in races where the runner is assured not to have any real competition from other runners. All one has to do is zone out and put one foot in front of the other. It is definitely an advantage when you don't have to expend energy managing your pace or competing.

How many 5ks are attempted each year?

The 5k is a rarely run race. 9 people having done it is not indicative of how many could have done it.

~10 people have the potential to break 14 this year yes. But they will end up trying to run sub 8:40 or sub 4.

it sounds like a tall order but I honestly think it's very plausible 9 guys scare a sub 14 minute 5k next spring. All of them are clearly good xc runners and more than half of them have run sub 4:05 so they clearly have solid 2mile strength to probably break 8:40 at this point. sub 14 is not out of the question

polkmni wrote:

Since no one has actually bothered to check the data, here is a list of a bunch of course measurements via Strava from today. I just randomly sampled people's runs and wrote the distances down.

boys

3.15, 3.14, 3.13, 3.16, 3.16, 3.13, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.14, 3.14, 3.13, 3.13, 3.13, 3.12, 3.11, 3.13, 3.10, 3.16, 3.15, ...

girls

3.13, 3.12, 3.23, 3.09, 3.08, 3.12, 3.12, 3.10, 3.19, 3.17, 3.11, ...

Girls I assume had a more strung out field so could run straighter lines. Some of the high readings for girls were because they wore Apple Watches (notoriously inaccurate).

I was going to comment on this too. I know 2 guys that ran today and their Strava said 3.14 and 3.12.

This is literally the first meet Newbury park has had anyone withing 200 meters of them. If you're not a runner you don't understand how much that helps

SD2TN wrote:

polkmni wrote:

Since no one has actually bothered to check the data, here is a list of a bunch of course measurements via Strava from today. I just randomly sampled people's runs and wrote the distances down.

boys

3.15, 3.14, 3.13, 3.16, 3.16, 3.13, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.14, 3.14, 3.13, 3.13, 3.13, 3.12, 3.11, 3.13, 3.10, 3.16, 3.15, ...

girls

3.13, 3.12, 3.23, 3.09, 3.08, 3.12, 3.12, 3.10, 3.19, 3.17, 3.11, ...

Girls I assume had a more strung out field so could run straighter lines. Some of the high readings for girls were because they wore Apple Watches (notoriously inaccurate).

I was going to comment on this too. I know 2 guys that ran today and their Strava said 3.14 and 3.12.

Watches always run long. A proper 5k course is usually in the 3.2-3.25 range, everyone knows this

As great as Ritz was (and I saw him in person several times), let's face it: He was (to take one example) an 8:41 3200 and 8:44 2M runner. 2-3 of the NP kids have already run sub-8:45, right? It should not surprise that 2-3 of them break 8:40 (for 3200, if not 2M) and the next two run at least sub-8:50. And we already know how good Nico Young was ... besides XC, he ran some crazy times on the track, especially that indoor 3k. Ritz's greatness was not just the marks, so to speak, but the victories, the World XC medal run, and the domination over some other great runners of his time. It was also the number of fast times he ran. Some may not consider this as significant, but the fact that he won the adidas/Foot Locker Outdoor Nationals 2M three years in a row was something that also impressed me. I doubt any other male will ever do that. But I don't have a problem with the notion that a number of current/recent runners, including the Youngs and Sahlmans, may be as good or better -- especially on the watch.

Wise Old Man wrote:

$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.

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.

fatboy slim wrote:

How many 5ks are attempted each year?

The 5k is a rarely run race. 9 people having done it is not indicative of how many could have done it.

~10 people have the potential to break 14 this year yes. But they will end up trying to run sub 8:40 or sub 4.

It would be great if one (or more) of the top 15 kids tried a 5000m later this month. It would certainly give an indication

SD2TN wrote:

polkmni wrote:

Since no one has actually bothered to check the data, here is a list of a bunch of course measurements via Strava from today. I just randomly sampled people's runs and wrote the distances down.

boys

3.15, 3.14, 3.13, 3.16, 3.16, 3.13, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.14, 3.14, 3.13, 3.13, 3.13, 3.12, 3.11, 3.13, 3.10, 3.16, 3.15, ...

girls

3.13, 3.12, 3.23, 3.09, 3.08, 3.12, 3.12, 3.10, 3.19, 3.17, 3.11, ...

Girls I assume had a more strung out field so could run straighter lines. Some of the high readings for girls were because they wore Apple Watches (notoriously inaccurate).

I was going to comment on this too. I know 2 guys that ran today and their Strava said 3.14 and 3.12.

So... based on this the course is how much short?

I don't know if all of the four fastest NP kids will run 13:50 or faster for 5k on the track, but does anyone doubt that all four can run between 8:35-8:45 for 3200 on the track (or possibly for the full 2M)?

I'm actually coming around to the idea that the course is indeed accurate, it's just nearly as fast as a track. I mean, come on, if you have a nearly flat course with long straights, hard surface, good weather, etc., then people can run near-track-PRs on it. All you really need is the Hutchins comparison ... 15:58 here, 15:34 on the track. Do you really need anything else?

$0.02 wrote:

chips ahoy timing company wrote:

Anyone who claims the course is short needs to look at the other major championships GPS data. All of them are short including d1 and virtually all of them are short by the same percentages. So claiming the fast times result from the course measurements is foolish.

It’s a fast course with really fast runners.

Howdy there 'bama tabacca. Us here in the north dont measure courses with GPS because them there commercial devices have large margins of error. Maybe if you went to college and had more than six teeth youd know better.

FYI - I am from the south and your comment really sucks. Would you openly ridicule someone who was black or Jewish or French or Iranian? No, because that would be horribly disrespectful. Well, it is no different just because it's a culture you apparently don't like. I am not ignorant or uneducated, and I have traveled to nearly every state in the country and have found that the people are not that different. There are educated people and idiots in every state.

What I think seems really stupid is to demean and belittle people just because they live in a southern state, and then lament the fact that they don't vote for the ideology that says bullying people from the south is perfectly okay. When you comment like this it just makes you seem like a total jerk.

Here's another thing to think about ... Gerry Lindgren, Craig Virgin and Jeff Nelson were running between 8:36-40 for 2M MORE THAN FORTY YEARS AGO. It should not be too shocking that a really good coach, with talented kids and resources, could not coach up 4-5 kids to run that fast all these decades later.

fatboy slim wrote:

chiichvlvh wrote:

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?

How many 5ks are attempted each year?

The 5k is a rarely run race. 9 people having done it is not indicative of how many could have done it.

~10 people have the potential to break 14 this year yes. But they will end up trying to run sub 8:40 or sub 4.

Yes, the h.s. 5k lists are very soft. Same with the 10k. With sub-4 one mile and sub-9 two mile not being as prestigious as they used to be and with kids needing to be instant studs at NCAA level, expect more kids to focus on 5k times. 13:37 is a very strong mark, but it's on borrowed time. Sub-14 should've been commonplace a long time ago.

not a duck wrote:

SD2TN wrote:

I was going to comment on this too. I know 2 guys that ran today and their Strava said 3.14 and 3.12.

Watches always run long. A proper 5k course is usually in the 3.2-3.25 range, everyone knows this

Maybe if you have a bad watch