Official RunningLane National Championships thread

Yep. People do not appreciate just how insane Tuohy's junior year was before she started dealing with injuries. Ocean State, a well tested course, where she broke Chmiel's course record by 90 seconds. Holmdel, where she ran 16:21 when no other runner, including Perez who had two cracks at it this year, ran below 17. Sunken Meadow, a notoriously slow course that runs even slower after Sandy, where she beat Cuffe's record by 50 seconds. She averaged a speed rating of 175. But running sites have a good clickbait headline. Last year Tuohy's record was "broken." This year Ritz's record was "broken." It is what it is.

This time obsession is a bit much. What I see is three runners from the same high school finishing 1-2-3 against a very good field. Not a perfect field but quite good. They didn't just beat a bunch of fun runners. And for good measure their 4th runner finished 6th. And beyond that their 6th and 7th runners ran well. This is what I'll take away from 2021 RL.

michimanx wrote:

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?

Yes, get a certified course measurement. Not a wheel, not a GPS watch.

The HS depth in the US is unreal and NP, in particular, is deserving of all the accolades. I imagine those kids will run very fast on the track, indicating the ability to run a very fast 5k on grass, maybe low 14s. The progressive nature of our sport indicates that someone will run faster than Ritz at some point (maybe today?). It doesn't even mean they were relatively better, but generational times improve.

That said, for a course that is not pancake flat, there are reasons for us to be skeptical of the course length. There are plenty of kids with very fast XC 5k times, run with good competition, that just smashed those PRs today.

blue 7 wrote:

This time obsession is a bit much. What I see is three runners from the same high school finishing 1-2-3 against a very good field. Not a perfect field but quite good. They didn't just beat a bunch of fun runners. And for good measure their 4th runner finished 6th. And beyond that their 6th and 7th runners ran well. This is what I'll take away from 2021 RL.

This x100.

Steel Tapeless 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.

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

Exactly. Man’s apple watches are notoriously accurate. Polk guy must think they have it set to measure distance as a pedometer. But I’m also surprised to many people use strava. For a race. Aren’t there clocks on the course? Just use a stopwatch.

Iamspeed wrote:

not a duck wrote:

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

Good one. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Ok so let’s set the scenario. a BRAND NEW course gets built and the draw of it is that they’re going to hold a meet that’s a “national championship” when NXN is cancelled. How do they draw athletes? They make the course as fast as possible. Lots of flats and downhill and a bit short.

If this was a BRAND NEW meet in some random state (like Alabama) that was a mid season meet, and you have a bunch of 16:20 kids suddenly running 15:40-50, this wouldn’t even be a discussion. Everyone would accept it’s short. Only reason people don’t is because this is a “national championship” so that somehow makes it legit.

This course and the organizers have no more credibility than any other. Stop just taking things at face value and ask some questions. When you look at the data you’ll realize it’s short

Ritz ran his 8:41.1 as a junior, by himself (next guy was like 9:10). He was certainly capable of faster as a senior (he ran 13:44 for 5K ffs). He focused on WJXC his senior winter/early spring, and then Lindgren’s 5K in the spring. His results were apparently worth it: 3rd at WJXC in very muddy conditions, and a 13:51 at Penn Relays (leading most of it over pro Famiglietti) and 13:44 at USATF senior nats. Definitely could’ve challenged Nelson’s 8:36 2M as a senior.

These times are insane. Good for everyone there especially NP. I don’t know how it’s possible to run that fast, I’m shocked

Let's say the course is 80m short. does it take anything away from the amazing team and individual performances we all just witnessed today? if all you're going by is that 14:10 time, please get past it. We all pretty much agree that times on XC courses are apples and oranges. The course today was very fast mainly because of the downhills on top of how already flat it is.

You do realize that they roll these courses, right? Even at my much smaller xc courses they roll the course. Consider this stat: earlier in the season leo broke Nico's 3 mile record. Imagine what they do when they're peaked. a national record? Records are broken, that's just how it is

Someone with more time than me please list today’s results, along with how much of a PR todays race was for each runner.

I feel like people need to see it to realize how stupid it is.

As always, it’ll be fun to see what happens next week to extrapolate the theoretical NP times at Balboa Park (where they truly should’ve gone- would’ve been LEGENDARY).

You're telling me the reason it's short is because 14:10 was broken? Do any time someone goes sub 14:10 the course is short? These guys are most likely gonna break the national record for 3200. They're that good

Slo-Jo 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..............

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.

I remember!!! Ditto all that stuff you said!

ragingclue wrote:

Let's say the course is 80m short. does it take anything away from the amazing team and individual performances we all just witnessed today? if all you're going by is that 14:10 time, please get past it. We all pretty much agree that times on XC courses are apples and oranges. The course today was very fast mainly because of the downhills on top of how already flat it is.

I can appreciate that NP went 123 and won this meet. I can’t appreciate the time

Heartless wrote:

Someone with more time than me please list today’s results, along with how much of a PR todays race was for each runner.

I feel like people need to see it to realize how stupid it is.

As always, it’ll be fun to see what happens next week to extrapolate the theoretical NP times at Balboa Park (where they truly should’ve gone- would’ve been LEGENDARY).

It's a really fast course, so I'm sure most people had a pr, but definitely not all. But it makes sense people pr, it's a national championship, perfect conditions, people are coming down from altitude, and the competition is like no other

ragingclue wrote:

Let's say the course is 80m short. does it take anything away from the amazing team and individual performances we all just witnessed today? if all you're going by is that 14:10 time, please get past it. We all pretty much agree that times on XC courses are apples and oranges. The course today was very fast mainly because of the downhills on top of how already flat it is.

Yes, amazing performance

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

Wouldn't you mean that watches always measure SHORT?

Steel Tapeless wrote:

coachy wrote:

I ran it today. It’s not short.

What did you get for the distance?

3.17 yesterday and 3.15 today

Ok first it’s a fixed course and not just for HS. They also have a 6K, 8K and 10K out there with fixed permanent signage. Do we think they just randomly placed everything and didn’t measure it? I measured it twice with GPS and both were slightly over 5K. They know everyone is going to come out and measure their permanent course do you really think it’s going to be short? Not all watches measure things long or short, depends on the type of watch, how you wear it and your ability to run tangents are all factors.