Disney Movie about Cross Country

lol Webb

Thanks, Geoff P. Well, I guess we just weren't good enough as a team to ever have this "pushing" scoring rule come up. Even the source I quoted said this happens "in SOME competitions" (emphasis mine). And yes, you are right that XC has few rules, but I'm sure there are many people who don't know the "pushing" rule. Now I'm sorry that I honestly admitted that I hadn't known this XC rule and then posted the rules for all to see. It's pretty bad when you can honestly admit ignorance about something, then direct people to the truth, and actually take abuse for it. But again, this is LRC, where envy, spite, and false bravado abound, so often under anonymous names. What I should have done, apparently, was just sit and wait to ridicule others as is so common here. I guess from now on I should follow the example of so many LRCers: Never admit my own ignorance on any issue, but rather find out something I actually didn't know and then pretend that I knew it all along. We have a lot of pretend experts on this forum and, amazingly every one of them can run sub-29 in the 10K and sub-15 in the 5K. No one is special on LRC because EVERYONE is. LOL. Later.

Chill bro

It actually didn't look that bad to me, as far as cheesy sports movies go. I know I won't be able to watch it because I'm a running nerd and just won't be able to handle anything that isn't realistic, but that's my problem.

The running scenes look pretty good, aside from the laughable moment where the fat kid shoves a couple runners and starts to sprint. The rich white team that serves as the villains in the movie gave me a good chuckle.

on a related note, it seems like there are a lot of running movies being made now. In addition to this one, we've got Unbroken coming up soon, and the one about Coe and Ovett.

Was there wrote:

As far as the concern about the speed during the race and the pushing too, it makes for better cinema. Watch that footage, then go on YouTube and find a high school XC race footage and you will clearly see which one is more entertaining.

I disagree though. Skip to ~5:45. Great drama, it's real, and would work fine from a cinematographic perspective.

Overall though, I'm excited to see the movie and am glad they made it. All to often they include moments like this in movies that ruin the moment. Doesn't ruin the movie, but is unfortunate.

Yes, and I saw "Four Minute Mile" (should be italicized, but I don't know how to do that on LRC). It pretty much sucked, but it was good publicity for running. I'm like you--I hate it when even my "suspension of disbelief" isn't enough to let me enjoy a fake movie. I like series like "24," "The Blacklist," etc., but knowing what I do about real government agencies, I really have to go out of my way to enjoy them despite the amazing inaccuracies and exaggerations. I mean, really, every one of those popular series has some computer expert who can tap into any computer or video camera system in the world in ten seconds!

"Unbroken" is the movie I'm most looking forward to seeing.

I saw Million Dollar Arm (which has a similar structure to this) and it was OK. I think this unwell be OK. To the first page posters, of course the rich kids are white, that's how most people non-white see whites and they have to be rich because the rich are always the villains. Take a film class boys.

in my estimation Costner has played the same character in every one of his movies. Dif lines same voice.

My friend I ran in college with is an extra. So it's legit.

agip wrote:

DIVISION III

Boys Team 1. McFarland 99

2. Robert Louis Stevenson 145

3. Yreka 153

4. Salesian 163

5. Bear River 166

Boys Individual 1. 15:29 Reggie Williams (River City)

2. 15:44 Scott Cole (Yosemite)

3. 15:57 Brian Ochs (Million College)

4. 16:00 Hector Ortiz (Orestimba)

5. 16:06 Bob Baca (Bear River)

6. 16:07 Ricky DeLeon (Moorpark)

7. 16:13 Thomas Yalles (McFarland)

8. 16:26 Dave Wester (Maranatha)

9. 16:29 John Heiber (Serrano)

10. 16:30 Ryan Coady (Village Christian)

there's the top 10 from 1987 - again, no idea what the course was, but one guy sub 16:13. And it could be 3 miles not 5k fro all I know - CA used to run 3 miles I think.

Woodward Park in Fresno. 5K. Note that in subsequent years McFarland produced teams that would have placed high up in any division. In 1996 they were the second fastest team out of everyone and I believe were ranked nationally.

Ok, at the risk of looking even more foolish regarding the "pushing" rule in XC, I will make an admission. I MISREAD the rules quote. It reads:

In some competitions a team's sixth and seventh runner are scored in the overall field and are known as "pushers" or "displacers" as their place can count ahead of other runners. In the above match, if there are two non-scoring runners and they came 6th and 7th overall, the opponent's score would be 50 (8+9+10+11+12). Accordingly, the official score of a forfeited dual meet is 15-50.

Of COURSE I knew that if a winning team in a dual XC meet totally sweeps the top seven places that it increases the score of the other team, even though only the top 5 runners are scored. What threw me off--and I admit it was careless reading--were the words "In SOME competitions a team's sixth and seventh runner are SCORED in the overall field and are known as 'pushers' . . . " I saw those two words, "some" and "scored" as meaning on rare occasions (in non-standard XC meets only) the 6th and 7th runners' places count directly for their team's score. My mistake. There was a meet I remember where this happened. It was my first cross country race against Intermountain Indian School. I won the race over their top runner, the previous year's 2A state champion (we were 3A, but we ran against Intermountain as a friendly, out-of-conference city rivalry), and six of the next seven runners were all from Intermountain. I think our second-place guy was sixth. So their sixth and seventh guys did indeed "push" up the score for our team without actually scoring for theirs. I admit, sometimes I am careless, read something too quickly, and end up looking stupid. I'm sure that has never happened to anyone else on LRC. Sorry, guys, I guess older guys like me who can't currently run a sub-15 5K just don't fit in here. LOL. Later.

ShawnH, you are back on my xmas card list.

Billy Chapel wrote:

Woodward Park in Fresno. 5K. Note that in subsequent years McFarland produced teams that would have placed high up in any division. In 1996 they were the second fastest team out of everyone and I believe were ranked nationally.

True. Per the LA Times about the 1997 team (http://articles.latimes.com/1997/dec/01/news/mn-59446), they had a guy running sub-15 and were top-20 in the nation.

older than dirt wrote:

ShawnH, you are back on my xmas card list.

So, what name will I see on the return envelope? LOL.

I dont understand what the big deal of your misunderstanding is. What books have you wrote? I'd like to read them if you don't mind.

I dont understand what the big deal of your misunderstanding is. What books have you wrote? I'd like to read them if you don't mind.

just throwing this out there, a bunch of people seem to be getting upset that the kid is pushing and sprinting in the middle of the race and that is unrealistic.

but did you stop and consider the context? i have a good suspicion that it will probably wind up with the "evil" team runner making some sort of comment which angers the runner who immediately reacts only to slow down later, i have seen it happen in races only in less dramatic fashion

just my thoughts on that particular scene, overall i am excited about the prospect of a movie about a high school xc team always thought that the potential was there for a good storyline about a running movie

Positive Contribution wrote:

lol at not knowing the 6th and 7th displacers.

Granted the Brojos didn't know it either. Nor were they privy to the fact the 6th or 7th runner can have a good day be the 4th or 5th runner and therefore lower the team score.

How many times have you heard NFL players stating they didn't know games could end in a tie?

Two or three times over the last couple years that I can think of. The brojo's lack of knowledge regarding running history is astounding. They've made some comments that just befuddled me.

Air Bud wrote:

There has never been a strictly realistic running movie and and I doubt there ever will be because it wouldn't be especially interesting. For that matter, it would be hard to name any sports movie that is entirely accurate. You just have to accept this and enjoy sports movies for what they are.

Transcend was strictly realistic, and I believe very interesting. I'm surprised nobody has brought it up as being a running movie that was actually good, one that novices and veterans alike can enjoy.

Shawn H. I still love you... wrote:

I dont understand what the big deal of your misunderstanding is. What books have you wrote? I'd like to read them if you don't mind.

Last week I had a free promotion. Approximately 1,000 people got the book for free, many of them here on LRC. It isn't currently eligible for another free book giveaway, but it's not expensive. I didn't write it expecting to make a lot of money, and I self-published it without even bothering to look for a regular publisher. It's not a brag book, as the title should tell you: Running: A Long Distance Love Affair. It's really a book about some wonderful and not so wonderful experiences I've had in my lifelong love affair with running. I'm not famous by any means, although I did have success in high school and earned a four-year college scholarship for track and XC. I turned 52 last year, and I still love running. Here's the link on Amazon. Use the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon, and you can see the table of contents and many of the book's first pages. Thanks for asking.