Papa John's US 10 Mile Predictions?

"J Kaiser" and Kentucky = James Kaiser, a great runner from the University of Kentucky. I remember when he lapped me in an indoor 5km at Iowa State.

Therefore, the course measurer was not some schmuck from Louisville on a bicycle....it was someone with integrity, and an excellent knowledge of running.

Just because people who you don't like set PR's, and Teddy ran his best race in 2 years does not mean that the course is short.

I do know Teddy quite well....I consider him to be a close personal friend.

What I *DO* know is that Teddy is a very talented athlete who seems to have gotten his focus back with the move to Albuquerque and working with other great athletes like Eddy Hellebuyck and Andrey K.

jason

Old Skool does not have a point and neither do you, Lyle. Have things fallen so far that runners think this race was "fast and deep" Does 47:08 for Graff seem out-of-line? Hardly. It was just another day in the salt mines, and it's good to see so many PRs. So many got PRs because their PRs were "works in progress".

Looks certified to me.

Mad Hatter wrote:

As DougC pointed out Eddy ran 45:43 at Gate River, which is entirely consistant with 48:20 for 10m

Actually this is not true, and not only because "consistant" isn't a word. 45:43 = 4:54.3, or maybe 4:56 for 10 miles, as opposed to 4:50 yesterday. So Eddy in effect improved his 10 mile time by a minute. This is not a comment on course accuracy BTW.

From 4;54 to 4;50 per mile after a race and training in High altitude does not surprise me at all.

The difference is about 2%, statistically insignificant.

All this over 4 seconds per mile improvement? I don't think that's at all convincing enough to suggest that the course was short. considering better weather, a faster road course (but not necessarily shorter), and any number of other factors coupled with the obvious, that eddy would be more fit after more time spent training at altitude could easily explain for that time improvement.

No one has said anything to make me think that there is any basis to accusations of the course being inaccurate. By all means, let us know when someone comes up with something that is actually foundation for alleging inaccuracy of the course.

In general, I think unsupported speculation about the illegitimacy of other people's race times just sucks.

The course is legit; like it wouldnt be as a national championship event. This is how the course is laid out.

runningart2004 wrote:

Course: Flat from start to 3.5 miles, then rolling/hilly from 3.5 to 6.5, then flat to 9, one decent up/down hill (overpass), then flat to finish. Not a blistering course at all.

Alan

To Eddy and Teddy and friends:

I apologise for casting doubt on your performance - weekend wind-ups at the computer keyboard - childish and uinfair - I apologise.

However in the cold light of Monday morning - I do still think the times were somewhat fast compared to the performances put up by all runners in recent weeks. Maybe it was just a good day and a good field made everyone more competitive.

To Jason - I offer no apology - keep running hard and serving as an inspiration to all those who aspire to get the best out of themselves - but until you learn to act like a civilized human being and not a 10 year old racist gutter snipe suffering from tourette's syndrone then you get all the "cyber-slagging" you deserve

Yes his race was 4 seconds per mile faster than Gate River. I would think that is "consistent" considering Gate River was about 3 weeks ago. It is not an "equivalent" performance, I'll grant you that. It would seem like a normal progression in fitness.

I ran this race last year. The starting line, finish line and all points in between were exactly the same. I ran 49:40 last year and 48:44 this year. The difference was the competition was about 30 times greater. The pack went after it from the gun and there were a lot of great performances.

Just like Stanford track meets, when conditions are right and the field is deep, great times are run. I love how people complain about a lack of competition in the U.S., then when a great race is run, it's obviously due to the fact the course isn't legit.

I have to also thank Teddy. When I caught up to him at mile seven he said something to the effect of, "No matter what you do, you're not going to beat me today." If it weren't for his words of encouragement, I wouldn't have run under 49:00.

Thanks Teddy.

Trying to compare a race in Florida (warm, humid) with a race on a brilliantly cool day in Louisville is plain pointless.

And I dare say not everyone ran PR's. Many of the Hanson's ran average races as did others.

The 10 miler course is easier than it appears from a car. The "hilly" 3 miles around Iroquois Park, although there are 3 good hills, are each immediately followed by an equivalent downhill so you just suck it up for the climb and then you can roll down to recover. And the course couldn't have been better laid out to minimize the effects of the moderate west wind - very few stretches where you were actually running into it. The first 2.5 miles and from 6 to 9 are more or less completely flat and in a straight line. A 10k on that stretch would be as fast as any road 10k I can think of.

The course has been recertified multiple times and is run on a contiguous course with another separately certified course that has about 7 miles in common with the 10 miler. Those marks are consistently distant from the 10 miler marks.

Does't Eddy's new American Masters record need to be ratified by USATF? And by doing so, don't they need to go to KY and measure the actual course run on Saturday as opposed to taking the Certification from last year into account? If so, then all the nay-sayers complaining of a short course will have their answer. If they don't re-measure the course, then we need to accept the performances as legit and offer congrats to all those who ran great times.

Yes, DH, an independent 'validator' would need to be sent in to remeasure the course for accuracy in the case of records like this. I've done some 'validating' and been on the other end of 'validations'. Both ways are kinda nerve-wracking experiences.

Maybe I'll volunteer to handle the Pappa John's validation. I like that part of KY.

DH, scotth. Why don't you two look up the certification procedures before you yap about it. The USATF does not measure courses. End of story.

That's right, because USATF doesn't do shit beyond defending drug cheats.

First off, congrats on some incredible performances. The times speak for themselves. Having said that, and I know I'm pissing in the kool-aid, why doesn't this pack of American elite head to the big boy races: Boilermaker, Crazy 8's, etc? Growing up, I was fortunate enough to see Billy Rodgers, Shorter, and other studs race locally. It sounds cheesy; but seeing those guys and seeing them win inspired me then and still inspires me. If a pack of Americans(or even a couple of Americans) could show the way at some of these premier road races, I firmly believe it would have a profound impact on the running world. Every person on this board would get jacked if they saw Graff, or any American, at Boilermaker dropping the hammer on about 20 Kenyans. I hope some of these guys will hit the road and do just that. Now having said all that, if the Kenyans had showed for this 10-miler, Graff may not have cracked the top-10.

Either you're pulling my chain or simply ignorant of the ways of the measuring world. Both?

School marm wrote:

DH, scotth. Why don't you two look up the certification procedures before you yap about it. The USATF does not measure courses. End of story.

While it's true anybody can measure a course, they have to send their cert apps to state reps who are agents of USATF. Guess what, I'm the USATF state rep for Michigan. Imagine that! And, I've measured a few courses since '82 also.

I recommend if you have further questions, write me directly and don't go posting 'end of story' messages that are NOT the end of anything. Thank you.

ouch!, wow, scotth, man. That was GOOD.

Fredo wrote:

How about Paul Aufdemberge in 48:37.

He's got to be at least 38. This is probably his best race in 5 years!

Indeed, Paul is 38. Just spoke w/him and he tells me this was his best race in 2 years. He was as high as 5th at 7 1/2 miles when a ham cramp forced him to stop momentarily and then resume while dealing w/it. He'll run Boston for the first time. Except for Eddy in the field, nobody else has run as well as long as the Hillsdale College alum!

And your point scotth? How does that answer the question? If the course is measured according to procedures it is certified.

Sure, you measured a few courses. You still haven't answered the question. End of story.