Is The RunningLane Course 5K? Or Is It Short?

Track and cross country are very different. It's sometimes almost impossible for the best runners to find competition in track, but by December in cross country, most guys have been pushed to their max a couple times.

In track, it happens when it happens. Sometimes it is at early season meets when everybody knows the competition will be present.

You’re contradicting yourself again. You don’t know of any xc course certification, yet running lane is certified? Just because the organizers say so? Which is it?

not a duck wrote:

You’re contradicting yourself again. You don’t know of any xc course certification, yet running lane is certified? Just because the organizers say so? Which is it?

I never said it was certified. I was saying it's just as "certified" as the mystery course that someone was citing. You named all these supposed people that "certified" it, I am sure RunningLane had various people out there measuring it as well. "Certified" in your mind is just someone smart that measures it?

Why would a wheel not produce an accurate result on a steam-rolled manicured-grass course?

And on the flip side, how does being just 50m short in any way discredit a (insert double digit number here) PR? 50m at sub-5 pace is less than 10 seconds. If a kid ran a nearly 30 second PR on this course, that's still a 20 second PR even if the course is short by a full 50m (and assuming the other PR course was accurate, a massive IF).

Not a duck is right and yes, running lane and milesplit combined are not reliable sources.

Let me say it again. Road race courses are NOT measured with steel tapes. Do you think someone is breaking out a steel tape to measure Marathon courses? How long do you think that would take?

We will tell you this again. The results are official. The record was broken. It is in the history books. Nobody cares about proving anything to a few anonymous Letsrun posters. It may keep you awake at night which makes most of us happy. But again. Colin Sahlman is the new record holder. Every discussion in future years speculating about how fast kids can run will question if they can beat the Sahlman record. Ritz is now just a guy on the top 10 list that people will soon forget.

Nice work!

The only thing that I would suggest is based on USATF rules you should measure 30cm or 12" from the inside boundaries. I'm not a fan of that process, especially in a cross country meet with lines as boundaries because many fans will stand on the lines and lean out on to the course to see the race. This takes away that "shortest possible route". Yet, that is the only detailed language I'm aware of for course certification, since NFHS has none.

Even though many are claiming there was a large crowd at this event, which appears to be the case, I noticed during much of the race, the crowd was not that thick in stretches, and not standing on the lines, and some/many of the runners were able to run on the lines, or even inside the lines. This is something that should not be possible in a championship event. I also did not notice any directional flags on the course - but that is a meet management issue and has nothing to do with your course measuring.

The crowd was actually on the line in many cases. I saw - at least once - where one of the Young brothers almost plowed over a girl that was too close. The RD’s were on the lead cart yelling for people to move back as they were coming through.

Directional flags for what?

Google Earth has an error of up to 20 feet with elevation, and who knows with lateral measurements. I compare those numbers to survey maps all the time for work. Measuring with Google Earth no more reliable than the gps measurements on strava.

Beckham wrote:

The crowd was actually on the line in many cases. I saw - at least once - where one of the Young brothers almost plowed over a girl that was too close. The RD’s were on the lead cart yelling for people to move back as they were coming through.

Directional flags for what?

Yep! I saw a lot of fans standing on the lines, but more on the straightaways than the turns which was favorable for the runners.

Even when a course is double line the course should have directional flags to help guide the runners and legally mark the turns. It's much easier to see and run a tangent if you have something clearly visible to aim at.

Nike is knocking wrote:

We will tell you this again. The results are official. The record was broken. It is in the history books. Nobody cares about proving anything to a few anonymous Letsrun posters. It may keep you awake at night which makes most of us happy. But again. Colin Sahlman is the new record holder. Every discussion in future years speculating about how fast kids can run will question if they can beat the Sahlman record. Ritz is now just a guy on the top 10 list that people will soon forget.

Why would you and Running Lane not want everyone to feel confident that the course was accurate?

I'll agree that you have a new course record on the guys side, but beyond that I'm not concerned with comparing times from different courses (even those that are accurate), they still are different courses.

Why would anyone feel the need to prove it to you?

Yes and the same with road courses. Some have turns and some don't, some have hills while others done. We can't compare them. Tracks are different too. Some are worn down and some are brand new. Some have longer turns and shorter straights then others. Some track are made of mondo and some are other materials. We can't compare those times either, even if they are the same distance.

"Accurate" is all relative. A wheel COULD produce a very "accurate" result but much attention to detail is needed just like when using a Jones counter to measure/certify road courses. And, with both methods, the short course calculation factor must be added. This is something that never is brought up with gps and from my experience with my garmin watches, they ALWAYS overstate the distance when I'm on a course with multiple turns. But people like "fast courses"!

wetpits wrote:

Why would anyone feel the need to prove it to you?

They don't need to prove anything to just me...it's the greater running world that is suspect of this course.

Short or not short, I don't know the last time I've seen someone run 8:5x over the first two miles of a cross country course. And this wasn't simply one runner, a contingent of runners ran sub-9. Unless you intend on stating that the mile markers were also incorrect.

To be fair, many coaches that had teams at the event feel that it is a true 5k course. Appeasing the LR arm chair QB community has no effect on RunningLane or the event.

coachy wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

Why would you and Running Lane not want everyone to feel confident that the course was accurate?

I'll agree that you have a new course record on the guys side, but beyond that I'm not concerned with comparing times from different courses (even those that are accurate), they still are different courses.

Yes and the same with road courses. Some have turns and some don't, some have hills while others done. We can't compare them. Tracks are different too. Some are worn down and some are brand new. Some have longer turns and shorter straights then others. Some track are made of mondo and some are other materials. We can't compare those times either, even if they are the same distance.

I don't think too many people are concerned about their Turkey Trot 5k course measurement and very few road races are claiming they have the fastest course in the nation.

Obviously in track there are such differences that even the NCAA has factors in place. But, most people are okay with comparing track times as long as the races were contested over the correct, full distance. Someone posted the mistake in a 200m race where the contestant started at the wrong place and raced 185m for a huge World Record. Should that time have counted? It was only off by 15m? Are we bad fans of the sport if we question a sub :19 200 in to a head wind?