I got 3 miles on my watch, I was dead on one mile at their one mile marker. I was at 1.99 at there 2 mile marker. One of my teammates got 3.02 one got 2.97. I think it was three miles. Crazy fast though. The time I ran gave me a lot of confidence as I destroyed my three mile, and track 3200 prs. Amazing experience running after the sunset probably took off way more time then the people who ran during the day without the crowds and cool temperature.
3 miles dead-flat on concrete and short grass is a pretty darn fast course. 13:30 for 3 miles is about 14:00 for 5k, 15:20 for the girls is about 15:54. I expect that's about what these athletes would do on the track (Tostenson has run 4:03 for the mile and 8:39 for 3200, Powell has run 4:02 and 8:41). Given that a track also requires you to run slightly further than 5000m (400m is measured from the white line on the inside of lane 1, and you are not allowed to step on this line), plus you're spending less time turning and losing energy overall (with long straightaways), I wouldn't be shocked if this course is even slightly faster than a track.
Important to remember that speed ratings are a product of runner-to-runner comparisons within a single year, and if the entire body of runners gets faster over time, speed ratings will seemingly go down to compensate. Meylan will deny this to his deathbed but the truth is runners ARE running faster, not just on the track but in XC too, and it's harder than ever to get a high speed rating for that reason. A 195 in 2024 is not the same as a 195 in 2004, no question about it. That said, a 195 in 2024 would put you on the same level relative to the middle 50% of runners as it would in 2004, and it probably doesn't change too much on the national level either. If a runner like Ritz came through today, I have no doubt he would run speed ratings above 205 and likely above 210, but he would likely do so with much faster times, given the improvements in technology, training, and the increased focus on times in general.
Probably the BEST post on this thread.
Yes, times are just getting faster due to many factors. That being said, Woodbridge is not a true X-C course, it's just a track meet on grass. Not to take away from the runners who run fast, but let's see how these fast times translate to a true X-C course with adverse terrain. The elite runners will show out on any course, but a good amount will not do well having to navigate a true X-C course such as Woodward Park, Crystal Springs, Mt. Sac, NXN, or Balboa Park.
All in all, it's a fun mid-season time trial/race which the runners seem to enjoy.
Short course for sure..I happen to know a good number of the kids who raced ( girls 1, 3, 4, 7 I believe, and first in the Boys race )rather well.. They are easily among the best in the country.... but, as good as they are, they cannot run that fast for 3 miles....even down hill... but, times do not matter, and a race on Sept 21, is meaningless...the season begins in November.... short courses themselves are not the problem... advertising the race distance at 3 miles or 5k when they are not is the problem...it can give kids a false sense of who they are.
Glad someone finally mentioned the elevation change. It's a point to point race that drops ~50ft with surfaces so smooth that you could race it in platform shoes.
I refuse to believe it. 2 boys running 13:30 flat and a girl running 15:20??? It has to be a 2.95 Mile AT MOST there is no shot it is a full 3 Mile. The also just dropped and Powell and Tostensen were rated at 195. There is no full length 3 Mile course on earth where it is physically possible to run a 13:30 and score a 195. A 158 at 15:20 for Blade is also absurd. Before Nico ran 13:39 in 2019 you had to be ridiculously fast to even touch 14/16 and the speed ratings were way higher now you have 10 boys under 14 and 10 girls under 16 every year since they switched the course. You can’t convince me it’s not a little short and everyone needs to stop lying and saying it’s a full 3 mile
To be fair, if Arcadia was a flat 3 mile xc course nobody would be believe the times that were run on it. Arcadia is a full 3200 with almost 30 runners breaking 8:50. same applies to woodbridge
For YEARS I've been trying to relay that same message about local fast courses in my state. A big race is still going to bring out the best performances.
Glad someone finally mentioned the elevation change. It's a point to point race that drops ~50ft with surfaces so smooth that you could race it in platform shoes.
The highest point in the course is at 2.5 miles. So although there isn't much elevation change you actually have to "climb" to reach that point before coming down to the finish. The start is actually one of the lowest points on the course.
Glad someone finally mentioned the elevation change. It's a point to point race that drops ~50ft with surfaces so smooth that you could race it in platform shoes.
The highest point in the course is at 2.5 miles. So although there isn't much elevation change you actually have to "climb" to reach that point before coming down to the finish. The start is actually one of the lowest points on the course.
I stand corrected - I was looking at a Strava course profile that had the first and last quarters cut out. A full profile shows the highest point as .5mi in before you descend ~60ft, and end up with an overall ~15ft decent to the finish (in total). Not as drastic at all. But nice profile for fast running, clearly.
The only noteworthy changes on the course are the little quick ups and downs if you aren't expecting them. Nothing that really helps. It's a lighting fast course and measured down to the millimeter and had 13,000 kids on it for competition and that's what makes it fast.
Oh and yes times do matter or no one would be talking about it and they wouldn't have had 15,000+ registrations.
The issue is the measuring of the course. Is it measured by wheel (walking with a wheel is the most accurate) or tech? Is it measured on the tangents (how the leaders would run the course) and wheeling two feet from the inside on the curves. Returning to Woodbridge, the invite historically offers a speedway course and routinely claims to be 3 miles. This relatively new course will most likely (if not already) be wheeled by a curious coach and like every other Woodbridge course be found short of 3 miles because the measuring is done by taking the middle route through the course.
The issue is the measuring of the course. Is it measured by wheel (walking with a wheel is the most accurate) or tech? Is it measured on the tangents (how the leaders would run the course) and wheeling two feet from the inside on the curves. Returning to Woodbridge, the invite historically offers a speedway course and routinely claims to be 3 miles. This relatively new course will most likely (if not already) be wheeled by a curious coach and like every other Woodbridge course be found short of 3 miles because the measuring is done by taking the middle route through the course.
Wheeling from the middle makes the most sense because of how crowded it is.
Oh and yes times do matter or no one would be talking about it and they wouldn't have had 15,000+ registrations.
RE this: I don't think the fact that times matter to some people (even a majority) in any refutes the belief that times shouldn't matter.
The factors that affect finishing time include race distance, weather, elevation, running surface, competition, etc. The only one of those that is controlled for in any capacity really is race distance, and even that is far less consistent than it is on the track (where it's easier to argue that times should matter).
High school kids will care about what you emphasize as a coach, and what the media emphasizes. If coaches talk about PRs all the time, and the media glorifies fast times exclusively, then you will end up in the situation we are now, with a race to the bottom with courses like Woodbridge and RunningLane. But that doesn't change the fact that there are other perspectives you can take - I know personally, the cross country races I got the most satisfaction out of in high school were never PRs. The best race I ran in high school was a full minute off my 5k PR, and I would take that in a heartbeat over running a minute faster (but not placing where I placed, and beating who I beat).
"Given that a track also requires you to run slightly further than 5000m (400m is measured from the white line on the inside of lane 1, and you are not allowed to step on this line),"
This is not how a track is measured. "The measurement of a track should be at 20cm from the inside line for a track designed with no curb/kerb, or 30cm for a standard track".
I also moderately question the distance but as others point out, it's XC, sort of with lots of concrete.
I refuse to believe it. 2 boys running 13:30 flat and a girl running 15:20??? It has to be a 2.95 Mile AT MOST there is no shot it is a full 3 Mile. The also just dropped and Powell and Tostensen were rated at 195. There is no full length 3 Mile course on earth where it is physically possible to run a 13:30 and score a 195. A 158 at 15:20 for Blade is also absurd. Before Nico ran 13:39 in 2019 you had to be ridiculously fast to even touch 14/16 and the speed ratings were way higher now you have 10 boys under 14 and 10 girls under 16 every year since they switched the course. You can’t convince me it’s not a little short and everyone needs to stop lying and saying it’s a full 3 mile
Oh and yes times do matter or no one would be talking about it and they wouldn't have had 15,000+ registrations.
RE this: I don't think the fact that times matter to some people (even a majority) in any refutes the belief that times shouldn't matter.
The factors that affect finishing time include race distance, weather, elevation, running surface, competition, etc. The only one of those that is controlled for in any capacity really is race distance, and even that is far less consistent than it is on the track (where it's easier to argue that times should matter).
High school kids will care about what you emphasize as a coach, and what the media emphasizes. If coaches talk about PRs all the time, and the media glorifies fast times exclusively, then you will end up in the situation we are now, with a race to the bottom with courses like Woodbridge and RunningLane. But that doesn't change the fact that there are other perspectives you can take - I know personally, the cross country races I got the most satisfaction out of in high school were never PRs. The best race I ran in high school was a full minute off my 5k PR, and I would take that in a heartbeat over running a minute faster (but not placing where I placed, and beating who I beat).
Maybe you think they shouldn’t matter but if the majority think they should then they do. Old school XC runners get stuck on this point and it’s time to move on.
I refuse to believe it. 2 boys running 13:30 flat and a girl running 15:20??? It has to be a 2.95 Mile AT MOST there is no shot it is a full 3 Mile. The also just dropped and Powell and Tostensen were rated at 195. There is no full length 3 Mile course on earth where it is physically possible to run a 13:30 and score a 195. A 158 at 15:20 for Blade is also absurd. Before Nico ran 13:39 in 2019 you had to be ridiculously fast to even touch 14/16 and the speed ratings were way higher now you have 10 boys under 14 and 10 girls under 16 every year since they switched the course. You can’t convince me it’s not a little short and everyone needs to stop lying and saying it’s a full 3 mile
I ran our city mile race three years in a row and they always said "It's a full mile," at the beginning of the race. Then afterwards all the guys running the 3 mile would say, "the course in the mile race was short."
But it is very true that many course do wind up being short and a few are long. It is not easy to measure distance in road races or cross country meets.
It’s short. Everybody I know PRs in that race by about 45 seconds. It’s immediately disregarded around our area as a “Woodbridge time”. It’s like running a downhill mile.
It’s short. Everybody I know PRs in that race by about 45 seconds. It’s immediately disregarded around our area as a “Woodbridge time”. It’s like running a downhill mile.
It’s short. Everybody I know PRs in that race by about 45 seconds. It’s immediately disregarded around our area as a “Woodbridge time”. It’s like running a downhill mile.
I previously too had Woodbridge jealousy. Now I go to the meet and take my team and measure it. Now I know the facts and I don't have that jealousy anymore.