It doesn't add up that she ran the fastest 5k track time in history but her fastest time in history in XC is behind dozens of others. I don't think the track was short.
It doesn't add up that she ran the fastest 5k track time in history but her fastest time in history in XC is behind dozens of others. I don't think the track was short.
Hutchins > Tuohy wrote:
It doesn't add up that she ran the fastest 5k track time in history but her fastest time in history in XC is behind dozens of others. I don't think the track was short.
The 15:34 was probably a true test of her fitness as it was perfectly paced, first by a pacer for a mile, and then by pacing lights for the remainder. For all we know, she may have been capable of 15:45 at Runninglane. You also seem to dismiss the hat Tuohy had no pacing assistance whatsoever in 15:37, and did not pace it perfectly by herself, going out too fast for the first 800. Hutchins 15;34 was a great run, but if she was indeed faster than Tuohy, it was not by much. Also, for the umteenth time, Hutchins speed rating at Runninglane was the result of girls well back of her running very fast times for them, since the course was so easy. Put some hills in and the lesser fit athletes get slowed much more than the fastest.
not a duck wrote:
Someone should go through all the athletes who ran at both meets and compare their times. Then average out the difference in time from each race. That would give us a ballpark range for whoever has ran on the modern balboa course of what they could have run at runninglane
Balboa Park is the premier X-C course in the country to compare times with varying terrain and challenging course. The results go back approximately 40 years. I believe Balboa's first National Championship race on the current course was in 1982. The list of participants and champions is virtually the who's who of American distance running. Safe to say if you break 15:00 as a male and 17:00 as a female you have a bright future at the D-1 level.
If any course can put together a true National Championship with 40 years of results...You win. Otherwise, all other courses can take a backseat.
HENGELO-PR wrote:
not a duck wrote:
Someone should go through all the athletes who ran at both meets and compare their times. Then average out the difference in time from each race. That would give us a ballpark range for whoever has ran on the modern balboa course of what they could have run at runninglane
Balboa Park is the premier X-C course in the country to compare times with varying terrain and challenging course. The results go back approximately 40 years. I believe Balboa's first National Championship race on the current course was in 1982. The list of participants and champions is virtually the who's who of American distance running. Safe to say if you break 15:00 as a male and 17:00 as a female you have a bright future at the D-1 level.
If any course can put together a true National Championship with 40 years of results...You win. Otherwise, all other courses can take a backseat.
I believe someone did that and had Running Lane 65/66 seconds faster than the Balboa course.
HENGELO-PR wrote:
not a duck wrote:
Someone should go through all the athletes who ran at both meets and compare their times. Then average out the difference in time from each race. That would give us a ballpark range for whoever has ran on the modern balboa course of what they could have run at runninglane
Balboa Park is the premier X-C course in the country to compare times with varying terrain and challenging course. The results go back approximately 40 years. I believe Balboa's first National Championship race on the current course was in 1982. The list of participants and champions is virtually the who's who of American distance running. Safe to say if you break 15:00 as a male and 17:00 as a female you have a bright future at the D-1 level.
If any course can put together a true National Championship with 40 years of results...You win. Otherwise, all other courses can take a backseat.
Amen Brother!
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
HENGELO-PR wrote:
Balboa Park is the premier X-C course in the country to compare times with varying terrain and challenging course. The results go back approximately 40 years. I believe Balboa's first National Championship race on the current course was in 1982. The list of participants and champions is virtually the who's who of American distance running. Safe to say if you break 15:00 as a male and 17:00 as a female you have a bright future at the D-1 level.
If any course can put together a true National Championship with 40 years of results...You win. Otherwise, all other courses can take a backseat.
I believe someone did that and had Running Lane 65/66 seconds faster than the Balboa course.
I checked as well and yes in both races the average was about 65 seconds, and I think the lowest difference was 51 seconds.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
HENGELO-PR wrote:
Balboa Park is the premier X-C course in the country to compare times with varying terrain and challenging course. The results go back approximately 40 years. I believe Balboa's first National Championship race on the current course was in 1982. The list of participants and champions is virtually the who's who of American distance running. Safe to say if you break 15:00 as a male and 17:00 as a female you have a bright future at the D-1 level.
If any course can put together a true National Championship with 40 years of results...You win. Otherwise, all other courses can take a backseat.
I believe someone did that and had Running Lane 65/66 seconds faster than the Balboa course.
I realize that.
The issue is that you can't truly compare athletes and courses via a formula with time averages. Yes, if you want to play the "Would've-Should've" game then ok, but for an accurate and true comparison, you need to have head-to-head competition on the actual course. Translating times from course to course and drawing conclusions is inaccurate. Run the course and put up a time, and then you can compare.
Also, cross country racing is not a "Track Meet", it's cross country, hence the name. You see a lot of posts with regard to "How fast" a course is. Cross is meant to challenge runners with various obstacles (hills, terrain, hay bails, etc...), in addition to overall speed. Time is not the primary factor. The bottom line with cross-country is who gets from point A to point B first while surviving the course and its varying challenges.
Let's keep track and cross country separate.