She ran 15:34 in a real track meet last year right after her 15:58. TT are meaningless. We saw what Brynn Brown did in her 5xmile. But 15:35 more than substantiated the course though.
She ran 15:34 in a real track meet last year right after her 15:58. TT are meaningless. We saw what Brynn Brown did in her 5xmile. But 15:35 more than substantiated the course though.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
coachy wrote:
Hiring a USATF course measurer would do nothing because there is not a USATF procedure for measuring XC courses. The road measurement guide would not help with this. I have measured plenty of road courses and it would not apply in the least.
How did your NFHS and NCAA officials help with the course measurement? You seem to be talking in circles!
Why wouldn't the USATF certification process work on the Running Lane CC course?
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about at this point. I don't have any NFHS or NCAA officials.
I have detailed how USATF ROAD measuring won't work on a XC course several times. The tires and bike are literly calibrated that day for the conditions and the flat surface. Something as small as tire pressure affects the measurement then what do you think grass and an uneven surface would do?
True 5k wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
Wow ! This thread is rolling!
Since few on here want to listen to factual information. I found this gem from someone who gets paid real money to measure courses -
David Katz wrote:
As already mentioned, this topic has been discussed many times. But let me outline some basic
concepts
(for the late party arrivals):
1. I love gadets...I have tons of them
2. Consumer GPS devices are great fun and have many purposes for training and timing (fyi- so is a $10
digital
watch)
3. I am a professional road course measurer.
4. The only accepted method of measurement for a road race is using a calibrated Jones/Reigel (JR)Counter or a steel tape.
5. I have a been using gps unit
on my handlebars to assist with my measurement for several years. The JR Counter is mounted on the front axle of the bike. The gps helps me to know when I am approaching a mile/km point to slow down and look at the counter for the accurate measurement.
4. When a course is measured for Certification, the SPR is measured. VERY few runners ever run the SPR
5. I have measured MANY course comparing the GPS to the JR Counter and can report the following:
- maybe 1 out of 10 times does the gps match the JR Counter
- most of the time, the gps will give me a longer reading. usually 1.01-1.02 per mile. Never have I observed a reading less then 1.00 per mile.
6. 99.99% percent of the Certified Course would hold up against a validation measurement (checked by a top level measurer).
7. If there is a problem with the accuracy of a certified course, it is usually due to an improper course set up.
8. If you use a gps at a race - have fun. If it displays a distance other then the advertised certified distance, keep it to yourself. If you start talking about it, most other runners will realize that you are the new kid on the block and you need to do your homework.
David Katz
IAAF Road Course Measurer
2012 London Olympic Games
Perfect so then if you take .01 per mile from the standard GPS reading of 3.13-3.15 for John Hunt, it comes out to 3.10-3.12. Perfect so based on Katz’ experience, the course should be a perfect 5000m. Awesome thanks for that info
what happens if you use the .02 per mile?
These are the facts:
NOONE that was at RL is questioning the legitimacy of the course.
There is NO standard to certify or measure a high school cross country course.
NOONE has any data or proof that the course Ritz ran 20 years ago was 5000 meters.
The Newbury Park boys averaged 14:14 for an advertised distance of 5000 meters.
coachy wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
How did your NFHS and NCAA officials help with the course measurement? You seem to be talking in circles!
Why wouldn't the USATF certification process work on the Running Lane CC course?
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about at this point. I don't have any NFHS or NCAA officials.
I have detailed how USATF ROAD measuring won't work on a XC course several times. The tires and bike are literly calibrated that day for the conditions and the flat surface. Something as small as tire pressure affects the measurement then what do you think grass and an uneven surface would do?
I apologize if I got you and some other poster confused that stated that the NFHS and NCAA had officials involved in the course so it had to right.
Everyone states that Running Lane was super smooth with a steam roller surface that was almost like a track or road.
Now tell me why you can not calibrate your jones counter on that course and get a very accurate course measurement.
It really shouldn't be hard at all if you have actually certified several road courses, right?
It's not THAT smooth LOL. There is actually a section of mud just after 1 mile. It's not the fast road like surface that some made have made it out to be. Watch the video and you can see some swing around a couple of loose spots and not take the tangent.
There would be a lot of variances in the measurement on a bumpy grass course.
Saladbar who? wrote:
These are the facts:
NOONE that was at RL is questioning the legitimacy of the course.
How many people have you spoken with that raced at Running Lane? Did you personally interview EVERYONE?
There is NO standard to certify or measure a high school cross country course.
Actually there is a very vague process, and that is the problem!
NOONE has any data or proof that the course Ritz ran 20 years ago was 5000 meters.
Have you ever spoken with with those that set up the State Meet Course in Michigan? Don't they use the same course each year? Don't they keep State Records on that course?
The Newbury Park boys averaged 14:14 for an advertised distance of 5000 meters.
Correct! Super impressive even if on a 2.97mile course like the Illinois State Meet!
replies in bold
coachy wrote:
It's not THAT smooth LOL. There is actually a section of mud just after 1 mile. It's not the fast road like surface that some made have made it out to be. Watch the video and you can see some swing around a couple of loose spots and not take the tangent.
There would be a lot of variances in the measurement on a bumpy grass course.
But it still is the fastest course in the country and a full 5000m? I appreciate your honesty but it isn't helping your cause.
coachy wrote:
It's not THAT smooth LOL. There is actually a section of mud just after 1 mile. It's not the fast road like surface that some made have made it out to be. Watch the video and you can see some swing around a couple of loose spots and not take the tangent.
There would be a lot of variances in the measurement on a bumpy grass course.
How long was the mud stretch? Would there not be a time you could measure when it is dry and void of mud?
DiskoGary and Steel tapeless bring up good info and it's interesting to see that Detweiler was finally measured as short. It would be great to get that Virginia crew to Running Lane and see how this course really shakes out.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
coachy wrote:
It's not THAT smooth LOL. There is actually a section of mud just after 1 mile. It's not the fast road like surface that some made have made it out to be. Watch the video and you can see some swing around a couple of loose spots and not take the tangent.
There would be a lot of variances in the measurement on a bumpy grass course.
But it still is the fastest course in the country and a full 5000m? I appreciate your honesty but it isn't helping your cause.
I don't have a "cause" really. I went there, I ran it twice, measured it with GPS and got over the distance, brought 7 girls who measured it twice with GPS, they got over 3.1, end of story for me. That's all I need. If it were under on ANYONEs watch that was with me then maybe I would be fighting the other side trying to get the thing measured.
Cause? That is a strange word to choose.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
coachy wrote:
I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about at this point. I don't have any NFHS or NCAA officials.
I have detailed how USATF ROAD measuring won't work on a XC course several times. The tires and bike are literly calibrated that day for the conditions and the flat surface. Something as small as tire pressure affects the measurement then what do you think grass and an uneven surface would do?
I apologize if I got you and some other poster confused that stated that the NFHS and NCAA had officials involved in the course so it had to right.
Everyone states that Running Lane was super smooth with a steam roller surface that was almost like a track or road.
Now tell me why you can not calibrate your jones counter on that course and get a very accurate course measurement.
It really shouldn't be hard at all if you have actually certified several road courses, right?
It surprises me that a steam roller could go through mud? Does anyone have photos/video of them steam rolling the course? How large of a steam roller? Seems like a great idea if it doesn't over compact the ground and cause the running surface to be lower the the surrounding ground. I wonder how much of a hill a steam roller can climb?
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
coachy wrote:
It's not THAT smooth LOL. There is actually a section of mud just after 1 mile. It's not the fast road like surface that some made have made it out to be. Watch the video and you can see some swing around a couple of loose spots and not take the tangent.
There would be a lot of variances in the measurement on a bumpy grass course.
How long was the mud stretch? Would there not be a time you could measure when it is dry and void of mud?
DiskoGary and Steel tapeless bring up good info and it's interesting to see that Detweiler was finally measured as short. It would be great to get that Virginia crew to Running Lane and see how this course really shakes out.
Someone was arguing grass length earlier so if we are getting that specific wouldn't you want it measured at the exact same time and conditions as the race in question? I'm not saying use the road measuring tools, I think that's a bad idea. I am not a nut that's going to go out there and measure it with a steel tape either, that would take forever. Heck rolling it with a wheel would take forever, I am glad I am not the one worried about the length, I got what I need.
Check RunningLane's instagram they have a picture of the steamroller. It was MUCH warmer and dry the day before the meet when they did it.
Nike is knocking wrote:
Cause? That is a strange word to choose.
Maybe he thinks I work for them?
Nike is knocking wrote:
Cause? That is a strange word to choose.
Maybe, but it seems like we have those that swear it's on and some that question if it is.
If that was my course, I would want to make a video of how runner and spectator friendly it is and fast! Then show all the effort that went into it to make it an accurate 5k, and not just the fastest course in the nation.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
The Newbury Park boys averaged 14:14 for an advertised distance of 5000 meters.
Correct! Super impressive even if on a 2.97mile course like the Illinois State Meet!
Agreed! Even if that course measured 2.97 miles, then the 14:14 average would be 17 seconds faster than the best team to ever run at Detweiller, the 1999 York team featuring Don Sage that scored 24 points in the State meet with an average of 14:31. This Newbury team must be the GOAT by a wide margin. Does anyone dispute that?
coachy wrote:
Check RunningLane's instagram they have a picture of the steamroller. It was MUCH warmer and dry the day before the meet when they did it.
No Instagram account...waste too much time hear already!
DiscoGary wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
The Newbury Park boys averaged 14:14 for an advertised distance of 5000 meters.
Correct! Super impressive even if on a 2.97mile course like the Illinois State Meet!
Agreed! Even if that course measured 2.97 miles, then the 14:14 average would be 17 seconds faster than the best team to ever run at Detweiller, the 1999 York team featuring Don Sage that scored 24 points in the State meet with an average of 14:31. This Newbury team must be the GOAT by a wide margin. Does anyone dispute that?
Definitely not...amazing group of young men!!
But the organizers already created a wonderful event attended by thousands. You haven't. So what you would do is probably not what they want to listen to.