3.95 with my wheel today. And I don't know about your GPS watch but I run a lot of certified road races and my watch is 99% accurate, sometimes long and sometimes short.
3.95 with my wheel today. And I don't know about your GPS watch but I run a lot of certified road races and my watch is 99% accurate, sometimes long and sometimes short.
Bottomline - all the kids/parents/coaches that didn't want to come to this meet picked a different meet are mad at themselves for not choosing this race! regardless of the distance, 3.09-3.15, none of that matters, what matters is the City of Huntsville invested in our sport and RunningLane and the City delivered an excellent venue for these young men and women to put on a show!
For the fans and runners that were at this event I know it will be something they NEVER forget. It truly was EPIC!
Saladbar who wrote:
DougC wrote:
I checked Strava and noticed that the GPS measurement for most of those who completed the race ranged between 3.11-3.14. That appears to be a legit 5000 meters to me.
You are exactly right DougC. There are literally of 100s if not 1000s of logs of people running this course and uploading to Strava. They almost always range from 3.11-3.15.....seems like a 5k to me!
This shows that you don't understand GPS watches. The watch has to read longer than that to confirm a course measurement. You would want consistent readings of much closer to 3.2 miles for a true 5k. If there are many watches that are reading 3.11 then it is definitely short. That doesn't mean that these runners are no good or that they didn't run great today. I would also say that most kids best times are already run on short courses, so any comparisons to previous times just prove that this course has to be short as well.
My bad. 3.095. That is about 10 meters short which is nothing. The course is accurate. It was professionally designed and graded and measured. It was the best event I have attended.
[/quote]
This shows that you don't understand GPS watches. The watch has to read longer than that to confirm a course measurement. You would want consistent readings of much closer to 3.2 miles for a true 5k. If there are many watches that are reading 3.11 then it is definitely short. That doesn't mean that these runners are no good or that they didn't run great today. I would also say that most kids best times are already run on short courses, so any comparisons to previous times just prove that this course has to be short as well.[/quote]
Actually you are wrong, GPS is taking reads every (period of time, second, half second, etc whatever the watch is programmed to do) Kids running really fast on courses with turns are likely to have tiny portions of their run get cut by tangents. If you walk a course with a GPS you should have a more accurate reading. BTW I have walked this course, run this course, and wheeled this course. Until you come to Huntsville and step foot on the course, don't make claims to what you know and don't know about it.
I have a Garmin Fenix6x which is very accurate and I always wear it when I certify road races. ( I'm also a trained USATF course certifier) Every certified 5k i've ever raced with my watch I've never had a reading shorter than 3.09 and nothing longer than 3.13.
Splash page? Maybe it is a reflection of how this record is viewed. Some records are more impressive than others. Running a pedestrian, frankly overly generous 166 on a blazingly fast course where 32 runners ran sub 15 and where runners were averaging a minute better than previous best times should get an asterisk to be honest. A splash page is reserved for running something historic, like say a 176SR on an established, not especially fast course where the time is so good it would have been 2nd in the boys race and not 150th.
So what would a 176SR translate to on this course? 15:20?
Race to top wrote:
My bad. 3.095. That is about 10 meters short which is nothing. The course is accurate. It was professionally designed and graded and measured. It was the best event I have attended.
Just as a frame of reference what other large meets or events have you attended? As someone who was at the event today as a spectator, I can truly say the environment was electric and it was no surprise that the kids ran incredibly well!
Guys come on! What made Katelyn Tuohy epic was that she was running at a level no girl has ever consistently run before week after week in Cross Country
Over two years she had more than 10 speed ratings above 170 and probably averaged around 172 in races that she ran hard
Thorvaldsen Brown and Hutchins are really good runners but they're not running at a level that hasn't been achieved before
In fact they're clearly not running cross-country as good as Katelyn Tuohy did in her prime
I hope they stay healthy and have a chance to break some records on the track but as of now they don't have any records
All three of these girls are improving and I'm not looking to take anything away from them I hope they continue to have success and get better. But I'm just saying all the debate about whether the course was short or not is pointless it was obviously a super-fast course it's not really comparable to the courses that the majority of 5K races are run on
Jenna mentions in her post-race interview article linked above that she is considering running another race in a couple weeks.
So, we might see her against Thorvaldson, Brown & Vanderkoi after all.
I guess some die hard Touhy fans will always be that way and elevate her to semi-God status even though that are clearly faster and more talented runners out there in the running world. Any time someone else equals or runs a potentially superior performance it is always qualified that somehow Touhy would have done better etc. As great as her accomplishments are, it puts unrealistic expectations and pressure on her to always be breaking records or becoming an Olympic medalist. Just accept her amazing contributions to the sport and leave it at that. These girls this season : Thordvalsen, Brown, and Hutchins are incredible because they do not have a luxury of a regular reason to race or a national championship to look forward to as previous athletes had.
astro wrote:
Welcome to high school xc. Whatever the reason the course is farcical. 32 boys ran sub 15, something that has only been done twice in the entire history of nxn. The 2nd place girl's runner ran 16:56 after a previous, recent best of 18:07, and 11 girls ran in the 17:30s or above.
Do I think it is bogus? Yes. Does my opinion matter? No. Arguing for the integrity of high school xc records is unwinnable. It goes in the books. It gets the headline and the interview. Etc.
Lol I looked at the results and was shocked to see that many "Sub 15" boys. I looked at some of these kids track times and many of them have never gone under 4:25 or 9:30. Tell me, how does one go sub 15 without doing either of those things. This is why XC times mean absolutely nothing and why college coaches dont care about them.
No you won't because none of them want to be second fiddle to the others....they are all in a perfect spot right now to enjoy their "fame", they never had to square off at nxn or footlocker this year...its a unique time that they can maximize their greatness without having to go up against the others...touhy loses at nxn last year, she is viewed as a very different runner heading the wrong direction then covid hits and she is saved by having to perform in track and never raced at NC state...for now her legacy is kind of protected
expect some surprises coming out of covid, not touhy specifically but there will be some winners and losers you never expected
Footlocker twice. NXN once. Ncaa XC championship about 15 times. USATF XC championships 3 times.
Kev2 wrote:
I guess some die hard Touhy fans will always be that way and elevate her to semi-God status even though that are clearly faster and more talented runners out there in the running world. Any time someone else equals or runs a potentially superior performance it is always qualified that somehow Touhy would have done better etc. As great as her accomplishments are, it puts unrealistic expectations and pressure on her to always be breaking records or becoming an Olympic medalist. Just accept her amazing contributions to the sport and leave it at that. These girls this season : Thordvalsen, Brown, and Hutchins are incredible because they do not have a luxury of a regular reason to race or a national championship to look forward to as previous athletes had.
No you won't because none of them want to be second fiddle to the others....they are all in a perfect spot right now to enjoy their "fame", they never had to square off at nxn or footlocker this year...its a unique time that they can maximize their greatness without having to go up against the others...touhy loses at nxn last year, she is viewed as a very different runner heading the wrong direction then covid hits and she is saved by having to perform in track and never raced at NC state...for now her legacy is kind of protected
expect some surprises coming out of covid, not touhy specifically but there will be some winners and losers you never expected
All 3 are competing in Texas. They welcome the challenge. I don't know what is wrong with people on this site. We saw huge records go down the last 2 weeks and yet dozens of you look for reasons not to celebrate them. These 3 girls are 3 of the best of all time. I predict that all 3 break 9:40 in track but then some of you will say conditions were perfect.
Race to top wrote:
All 3 are competing in Texas. They welcome the challenge. I don't know what is wrong with people on this site. We saw huge records go down the last 2 weeks and yet dozens of you look for reasons not to celebrate them. These 3 girls are 3 of the best of all time. I predict that all 3 break 9:40 in track but then some of you will say conditions were perfect.
If Jenna Hutchins is consistent in what she says she wont be in Texas because she already said she chose Huntsville and not one of the other meets(Terre Haute) because of Covid concerns....texas is much farther away than terre haute per google maps
Standard Setter wrote:
The biggest "criticism" I can provide is that she is a shuffler. We've seen this before with the likes of Claudia Lane. She is not elastic in stride, fluidity, and gait. Obviously, she is the fastest ever over cross country and could potentially make a phenomenal transition to the roads, but her form is compromised in this pattern and lack of hip extension. She is basically running from her knees down, which is super efficient, but will break down over time and limit her performances due to a simple factor - stride length. Her cadence cannot improve, she will need to cover more distance per stride and to do that she needs to work on her mechanics. Right now she appears to be a highly "over"-trained distance runner who has forsaken proper form for taking this fitness to the next level.
Congratulations to the young woman. Phenomenal performance. I truly wish we had a national championship as it would be interesting to see her, Brown and Sydney T. race. My money would be on Sydney on a tough course.
post of the day so far, its early....once the shuffler gets out beyond 5k it turns into a real struggle...she is only a junior, lets see where she is at in 2 years...the clock doesn't lie, she is damn fast at this point in time regardless of wether the course is 50 meters short or whatever....note to jenna and others: use your athletic greatness to leverage yourself into one of the best academic institutions you can get into that has at least a "decent" running program...I'm sure rhonda would love to have you if you can get in...a high-quality education takes you much farther than saying I was on a national championship contender
The course is accurate. It was wheeled about 15 meters short the night before by the race officials.
astro wrote:
Splash page? Maybe it is a reflection of how this record is viewed. Some records are more impressive than others. Running a pedestrian, frankly overly generous 166 on a blazingly fast course where 32 runners ran sub 15 and where runners were averaging a minute better than previous best times should get an asterisk to be honest. A splash page is reserved for running something historic, like say a 176SR on an established, not especially fast course where the time is so good it would have been 2nd in the boys race and not 150th.
So what would a 176SR translate to on this course? 15:20?
a 176 would be around 15;30. But, as Bill nicely explains in his post
"Remember that fast, easy courses give less time for the very best runners to separate themselves from the field and other good runners of known ability, and that typically lowers the rating somewhat for the winner"
which seems to be a clear message that Tuohy would not have achieved a 176 on this course.
She, and other elite HS athletes achieve the high speed rating because they can handle tough courses better than the average runners, and thus separate themselves more. This was not such a course. In my simple mind, lack of real hills rewards the average runner more than the elite runner.
Recall the 2018 NXN race where Tuohy ran 6-7 seconds faster than 2017 yet got a lower speed rating, because the course ran faster for the field, not being as wet or chewed up.
http://www.tullyrunners.com/XC2020/RunningLane2020.htm#GirlsWhere is Astro getting this 1 minute average improvement? I haven't found 1 guys yet in going through the results who improved by 1 minute. Did he look past the top 30 to realize that 288 guys finished the Gold Race with 100 running over 16:15 and 90% of those not running a PR?