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

Well that is not how it is described nor how it appears in the video nor how it runs based on the splits. If you think a short, gentle hill negates hundreds of meters of downhill on both sides, OK.

But in any event, I agree it is lightening fast.

Have a race at John Hunt the opposite way: start at the finish and finish at the start.

This will answer the question about the advantages of the course design outside of the longer straightaways, less hills, better grass and better footing.

So you've never seen it in real life? And have no background experience in anything?

The hill at just over two miles in isn't easy when you're already fatigued from the prior two miles. I was talking with a coach who's team has won several State Championships and sent kids to Foot-Locker and his response was, "wow, I didn't think this course had any hills, that looks tough."

And the funny thing is, the finish line elevation is higher than the elevation at the start of the hill, 2.25 miles into the race. You lose about 25 feet the last kilometer, but you gain about 30 ft. going up the hill.

Sounds like you are deeply invested. Sorry, but the course is easy as hell. You are free to think otherwise. And the funnier thing is that after the designer meticulously described the course and the race video clear shows it we still have special pleading about how challenging the course was. Just did not run that way but what are you going to believe, your eyes and the race times or this special advocacy? Yes, so challenging.

SouthernFriedRealist wrote:

So you've never seen it in real life? And have no background experience in anything?

The hill at just over two miles in isn't easy when you're already fatigued from the prior two miles. I was talking with a coach who's team has won several State Championships and sent kids to Foot-Locker and his response was, "wow, I didn't think this course had any hills, that looks tough."

And the funny thing is, the finish line elevation is higher than the elevation at the start of the hill, 2.25 miles into the race. You lose about 25 feet the last kilometer, but you gain about 30 ft. going up the hill.

I appreciate your insight on the course. As for the Tuohy fanboys they will always have an excuse. They will argue that up is down if they have to. It is best to ignore them.

You sound like you can't understand basic logic. You have been arguing for 10 days that a mile that starts and ends at the same elevation is faster by having a short steep uphill followed by a long gradual downhill somehow makes a course faster than having the mile be flat. We know that is false. So you have no credibility. I made my own speed ratings that say Hutchins scored 100 on my scale which is the max for a female. Tuohy's fastest rating was 98. Thorvaldsen and Brown have score 99. Hutchins is the record holder. Tuohy is graduated and is not the record holder. These three will also write her out of the record books. You should be happy about that as a fan because records are made to be broken.

I think the sad thing is how many guys are so overly invested in trying to tear apart her record. I really hope Jenna doesn’t read these threads.

When you find a steep uphill on that course, let everyone know. People can try to plug in any elevation comparisons they want, but that course was primarily downhill. Long downhill sections of courses tend to be very fast. We have a race video that shows it in detail yet we are getting strava info and elevation charts and what someone's friend told a friend of another friend. All very fascinating.

I’m not deeply invested, I just like to call out morons.

The course is really fast and is a great time-trial championship course. I never said it wasn’t challenging, you just like to find any argument to go against its validity.

But judging by your prior posts, you have an unhealthy obsession with Tuohy and girls running in general. Maybe that’s why you don’t want to state your background?

Could have fooled me. As to morons, I will defer to your clear expertise on the subject.

Ok, so the course is very fast and not challenging. Your sole point of exception seems to be whether the last mile was downhill, and you are convinced that the slight hill offsets the remaining, far longer sections that are downhill and you even cite elevation. I think you are wrong. Sorry.

I have no interest in knowing your background. It is really not that important. I post about a ton of things in a lot of places and about many sports. As to unhealthy obsessions, cannot say I have any but I am always on the lookout so who knows? :)

I never said the course as a whole was challenging*

I walked the course with a coach who wheeled it. I raced the open race. I ran around during the other 3 races. I mapped the course. So I am about 100 times more familiar than you are. with it. The climb is 35 feet and then there is 35 feet of drop over the last 3/4 mile. If you don't believe that there is a hill, then your ridiculous argument that the last 3/4 mile is downhill falls apart. You can't have it both ways. The larger the hill, the larger the downhill unless the course has an escalator.

I'm sure you surveyed it too.

But accepting everything, you just admitted there is downhill for the final 3/4ths of a mile. As you describe it, the course drops 35 feet over the last three quarters.

So we are back to exactly what I have been saying all along, that there is a long downhill leading to a gentle hill which then leads to a longer downhill. LOLL. No one disputes this.

Well THIS could be interesting, if THIS is where Jenna will be doing her track 5k! (As no one seems to know for sure!

The gentle hill as you call it and long downhill must add up to zero you know. You don't seem to understand basic math. You ascend a hill and then you descend the same hill. That is how hills work. Flat courses are faster. You keep insinuating that creating a course with hills makes it faster than having it be flat. When the start and finish are at the same elevation, the gain and loss must be equal.

15:29 is she runs. Astro will claim that the track is downhill even though it starts and finishes in the same spot.

So a long flat is faster than a long downhill? Ok. Loving the attempts at mathematical arguments though.

Hunt the big game wrote:

The gentle hill as you call it and long downhill must add up to zero you know. You don't seem to understand basic math. You ascend a hill and then you descend the same hill. That is how hills work. Flat courses are faster. You keep insinuating that creating a course with hills makes it faster than having it be flat. When the start and finish are at the same elevation, the gain and loss must be equal.

Run the course from the finish to the start as fast as you can and compare that time with your all out effort from the start to the finish.

Your theory that the net elevation change determines the speed of a course ignores the length of time going up versus the amount of time going down, and that can be critical. In a town full of engineers, as has been repeatedly claimed, can't any of these engineers model this?

Exactly. Does not seem that complex.