So todays races gave me all the info I need to make my top 10 Prediction for Nationals. A few changes from before today...Valby moved up 2 spots...Cook fell 2 spots. Jepkirui moved in, Van Camp fell out.
1) Tuohy
2) McCabe
3) Roe
4) Chmiel
5) Valby
6) Mercy
7) Jipkirui
8) Olemomoi
9) Cook
10) Markezich
Valby is impressive, but this will be a hilly course...Mercy let her get away in the middle of the race today, but finished at the same pace. I know Mercy can run a hilly course...have no idea about Valby. Tuohy, Roe, McCabe and Chmiel all have tremendous experience and results on hilly courses.
Cooks early results were good, but in my mind were nothing to get overly excited about. Roe and Jipkirui seem to have pulled away from her. In my opinion, low mileage training means runners will normally start the season in strong form, but not improve as much through the year. This seems to be holding true on her own team.
Of the top 6, in my mind Tuohy is still the clear favorite. If Valby can run hills, then it will be interesting, and I would never count Mercy out of a NCAA final. She can run hills, and has tremendous experience.
If Valby runs smart she could finish higher or win. Have to be fast enough to tire Tuohy, but not so fast she has problems on the last hill.
A disconnect exists between the Nats results I want and the order of finish I believe is most likely. This slate blends both.
Podium contenders (in alphabetical order) Chelangat McCabe Tuohy Valby
Chelangat, McCabe and Tuohy have always been a class above the rest and are now joined by Valby. The challenging (equalizing?) OKSt course may keep the foursome together through 5 km or we could quickly see two chasing two--or three chasing one. Chelangat can hurt anyone close on the hills. McCabe is the keenest racer. T & V are the fittest and the fastest.
Vying for 5th (iao) Chmiel Olemomoi Roe
For Roe, anything less than 5th in her own house would be a massive disappointment. Chmiel is consistently rock-solid in big-time meets. Olemomoi’s results this season make future titles look inevitable. All three are gunning for a team championship.
Bottom three (iao) Cook Jepkirui Markezich Stearns Tyynismaa?
If Valby runs smart she could finish higher or win. Have to be fast enough to tire Tuohy, but not so fast she has problems on the last hill.
A disconnect exists between the Nats results I want and the order of finish I believe is most likely. This slate blends both.
Podium contenders (in alphabetical order) Chelangat McCabe Tuohy Valby
Chelangat, McCabe and Tuohy have always been a class above the rest and are now joined by Valby. The challenging (equalizing?) OKSt course may keep the foursome together through 5 km or we could quickly see two chasing two--or three chasing one. Chelangat can hurt anyone close on the hills. McCabe is the keenest racer. T & V are the fittest and the fastest.
Vying for 5th (iao) Chmiel Olemomoi Roe
For Roe, anything less than 5th in her own house would be a massive disappointment. Chmiel is consistently rock-solid in big-time meets. Olemomoi’s results this season make future titles look inevitable. All three are gunning for a team championship.
Bottom three (iao) Cook o Markezich Stearns Tyynismaa?
This is a good list but I think you have to move Roe into the top group on her home course
I think it’s likely someone will have to break 20min in Stillwater to best Chelangat.
I am now thinking 19:30, maybe 35 to win. 20 minutes will not do it this year. I think Tuohy, Valby and Chelangat have shown they could do that.
19:45 with Touhy keeping the pace honest through 5k. She has the tools to grind the uphill in the last k and have a gap when they turn for the downhill finish.
If Valby runs smart she could finish higher or win. Have to be fast enough to tire Tuohy, but not so fast she has problems on the last hill.
A disconnect exists between the Nats results I want and the order of finish I believe is most likely. This slate blends both.
Podium contenders (in alphabetical order) Chelangat McCabe Tuohy Valby
Chelangat, McCabe and Tuohy have always been a class above the rest and are now joined by Valby. The challenging (equalizing?) OKSt course may keep the foursome together through 5 km or we could quickly see two chasing two--or three chasing one. Chelangat can hurt anyone close on the hills. McCabe is the keenest racer. T & V are the fittest and the fastest.
Vying for 5th (iao) Chmiel Olemomoi Roe
For Roe, anything less than 5th in her own house would be a massive disappointment. Chmiel is consistently rock-solid in big-time meets. Olemomoi’s results this season make future titles look inevitable. All three are gunning for a team championship.
Bottom three (iao) Cook Jepkirui Markezich Stearns Tyynismaa?
I really like how you broke this down into groups!
I am now thinking 19:30, maybe 35 to win. 20 minutes will not do it this year. I think Tuohy, Valby and Chelangat have shown they could do that.
19:45 with Touhy keeping the pace honest through 5k. She has the tools to grind the uphill in the last k and have a gap when they turn for the downhill finish.
I just can't imagine that Valby will not try to set the pace. I may be wrong, but that has been her style. It may or may not work for her but.....
Imagine running 19:05.5 on a collegiate cross country course 6k. On of the fastest, if not THE fastest time ever recorded for an official course. BUT, you didn’t WIN! In fact, you didn’t even podium! You took 4th!!!
This was the scenario Arkansas’ Isabel Van Camp found herself in. An accomplished runner in her own right with track PR’s of 9:01.34 3,000m, and 15:35.64 5,000m.
19:05.5 for 4th. Totally legit course, absolutely. *raising eyebrow*
Imagine running 19:05.5 on a collegiate cross country course 6k. On of the fastest, if not THE fastest time ever recorded for an official course. BUT, you didn’t WIN! In fact, you didn’t even podium! You took 4th!!!
This was the scenario Arkansas’ Isabel Van Camp found herself in. An accomplished runner in her own right with track PR’s of 9:01.34 3,000m, and 15:35.64 5,000m.
19:05.5 for 4th. Totally legit course, absolutely. *raising eyebrow*
Van Camp was one of the top 10 where her conversion from yesterday did not match or beat her track PB.
Imagine running 19:05.5 on a collegiate cross country course 6k. On of the fastest, if not THE fastest time ever recorded for an official course. BUT, you didn’t WIN! In fact, you didn’t even podium! You took 4th!!!
This was the scenario Arkansas’ Isabel Van Camp found herself in. An accomplished runner in her own right with track PR’s of 9:01.34 3,000m, and 15:35.64 5,000m.
19:05.5 for 4th. Totally legit course, absolutely. *raising eyebrow*
Van Camp was one of the top 10 where her conversion from yesterday did not match or beat her track PB.
So, like she had an “off” day and STILL ran 19:05.5. I’m surprised someone involved in that race hasn’t come out and said, “Oops, sorry about that. yeah, we were about 200-400 meters short.” But, they never will.
. I’m surprised someone involved in that race hasn’t come out and said, “Oops, sorry about that. yeah, we were about 200-400 meters short.” But, they never will.
At least from the athlete perspective, maybe GPS watches are not allowed?
I know it's not XC season, but I've been wondering about this recently. We're not allowed to use GPS watches during XC races. We can wear regular watches, but those are more bulky and uncomfortable, so I just don't wear one....
Van Camp was one of the top 10 where her conversion from yesterday did not match or beat her track PB.
So, like she had an “off” day and STILL ran 19:05.5. I’m surprised someone involved in that race hasn’t come out and said, “Oops, sorry about that. yeah, we were about 200-400 meters short.” But, they never will.
This has my data, now for top 22 showing 400 m pace by K from the official results. Everyone ran fast 3rd K and last K. Everyone slowed a lot in 4th and 5th K from the 4rd K pace.
SEC W 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19 1,03:09.8,03:10.2,03:10.9,03:10.8,03:10.5,03:10.9,03:12.6,03:11.0,03:10.5,03:11.2,03:11.9,03:12.3,03:12.7,03:12.4,03:11.3,03:11.2,03:14.2,03:11.3,03:13.8 03:09.8,03:10.2,0...
I haven’t looked at your data, but if there was a consistent period of slowing, after a consistent period of speeding up, is the apparent discrepancy due to something simple like the split locations were off?
I haven’t looked at your data, but if there was a consistent period of slowing, after a consistent period of speeding up, is the apparent discrepancy due to something simple like the split locations were off?
Since I adjusted took the reported times and calculate 400 pace from the reported distance, so no.
I haven’t looked at your data, but if there was a consistent period of slowing, after a consistent period of speeding up, is the apparent discrepancy due to something simple like the split locations were off?
Since I adjusted took the reported times and calculate 400 pace from the reported distance, so no.
Since one of the splits was labelled "2.12 K" I assume they really thought that was the distance. And pace to that point looked believable. The pace to the 3K point looked off.
Since one of the splits was labelled "2.12 K" I assume they really thought that was the distance. And pace to that point looked believable. The pace to the 3K point looked off.
The fact they have a crazy split distance indicates they evidently made an effort to accurately measure the distance; but maybe they made an error.
Since I adjusted took the reported times and calculate 400 pace from the reported distance, so no.
Since one of the splits was labelled "2.12 K" I assume they really thought that was the distance. And pace to that point looked believable. The pace to the 3K point looked off.
They may have just looped around some spot at an odd distance and were measured a second time.
Here is another one: perri bockrath, ran 5k xc twice this season, times of 16:23, 16:24 on two different courses. That indicates a 19:53 6k at same pace.
She split 16:09 for 5k and ran 19:19 on this course.
