Is The RunningLane Course 5K? Or Is It Short?

Wrong about what? I merely told you what I am hoping for. I am hoping for many things. The course is accurate however.

There have been two runnings of this race on what is a new course. In those two races we have had the two fastest all-time 5K girl's times and the four fastest all-time 5k boy's times, along with a train load of PRs and crazy stats such as 79 sub-14 boy's times this year and 20 sub-17 girl's times. Short or on the nose, this course is an outlier.

The leaderboard of all-time 3200s is littered with Arcadia times. The same will be true of XC times from RunningLane. I don't think the percentage will be any different.

I just finished reading through the 26 pages of discussion....some accurate but unfortunately some inaccurate posts (as usual).The first mistake is for people to call anything but a xc course record a national record.

Without established rules & protocols for xc measurements added to the numerous variables in a course makes calling anything beyond a course record inaccurate. In addition, comparing xc times to track times is also wrong. It may give an indication of fitness but but it should end there.

Presently, I do not know of any athletics' governing body that certifies cross country courses. There may have been a time in the past when some of these courses may have slipped through the USATF Certification system but we have stopped that for obvious reasons.

My mentor Ted Corbitt taught me an important concept - "reasonable accuracy" which can and should be applied to any type of measuring regardless if it's the distance of a race or timing devices. The determination of the accuracy of a track, road, or cross country course within "reasonable accuracy" is a function of the surface as well as the accepted measuring devices needed to achieve the desired accuracy. Applying the methodology used to measure a track to a road is not necessary to achieve the "reasonable accuracy" required for certification....it's apples and oranges. Then too, the methodology used to measure tracks or roads is not needed for cross country courses. In this case it's not apples and oranges, it's more like carrots and oranges - their both plants but not fruits!

You might be able to someday have national cross country records only when you have a unified system of measurement rules and protocols which would be similar to road running but why bother....it's cross country and as previously mentioned there are way too many variables from course to course.

In my opinion there are only two ways to achieve "reasonable accuracy" with a cross country course:

1. Steel TapeOf course this is the most time consuming and would require several people to assist. Nails/stakes would be needed to measure the turns. It should be noted that this was a common practice in Japan and other Asian countries as the accepted method for measuring road events but they used a 50 meter chain and lots of help.

2. Calibrated measuring wheel.First you should start with a really good one. I use the "Calculated Industries #6575 DigiRoller Plus III". It has an electronic display and can read in different units. Then you need to calibrate it. Using a steel tape, find a stretch of the course as along as possible (hopefully at least 300m). Measure this segment at least twice with the steel tape. Then WALK the calibration course several times to calibrate the measuring wheel. Obviously the XC course may have several different types of surface but keep repeating to yourself "reasonable accuracy". Now using the calibration offset measure the full course at least twice....WALKING!

I served as the Technical Director for the 2019 World XC Championships in Aarhus, Denmark and I measured the course several times with both methods mentioned above with an agreement of approximately 2 m for the 2km loop.

3. (yes I know I said two methods). Calibrated bicycle method with a Jones Counter.I would only use this method with an electric bike that has a throttle. This would reduce the wobble. Note: I have never used this method but it might work out well.

I don't know if this course is short or not but I would not necessarily base it on the fast times. It could be as mentioned just a really good fast, finely tuned course with great athletes. Just think how many times people thought the Nike Sub2 course in Monza was short.

David Katz

You are mistaken to state your opinion as fact. It has been stated a few times what a record is. A record is merely a documented fact. The times have been documented. There is a record of them. So when someone asks what the fastest time is on record, it is the boy's time from this year and the girl's time from last year. It means nothing more nor nothing less. 15:58 is the fastest time on record. That is just a fact that can't be disputed. You can dispute that other times are more impressive due to course difficulty or variation in length. But you can go to the timing service to see the record of the event unless you are claiming that it did not happen. It is obvious that there are few lawyers or English teachers here.

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

blue man wrote:

Most GPS readings for the race were 3.13-3.14.

https://fl.milesplit.com/articles/52499

+1

Sorry, in order to establish a athletics record, you first need to create standards to ensure that the record is valid as well as to protect the performance of the individual who's record is being broken. The time may be accurate but there does not seem to be any protocol to ensure that the distance is accurate or any of the previous times.

This is why it was many years before the IAAF/World Athletics adopted road running world records.

hunt the big game wrote:

You are mistaken to state your opinion as fact. It has been stated a few times what a record is. A record is merely a documented fact. The times have been documented. There is a record of them. So when someone asks what the fastest time is on record, it is the boy's time from this year and the girl's time from last year. It means nothing more nor nothing less. 15:58 is the fastest time on record. That is just a fact that can't be disputed. You can dispute that other times are more impressive due to course difficulty or variation in length. But you can go to the timing service to see the record of the event unless you are claiming that it did not happen. It is obvious that there are few lawyers or English teachers here.

Nope, you are mistaken. since you are being ridiculous let us use your way of thinking.

When not clarifying a distance 15:58 is NOT the fastest time on record. Feeling silly yet?

Just your opinion. Nearly every high school runner in the country considers Sahlman to be the record holder just like nearly every adult considered Ritz to be the previous record holder. How else did everyone know about it for all of these years if the time was meaningless?

This will be my last comment on this subject.

There will never be real credibility for any xc record from course to course until the courses are measured the same way. You can disagree until the cows come home but this is fundamental for records. And that my friends is one of the reasons why there are no USATF or World Athletics Cross Country Records.

You are on the wrong website.

hunt the big game wrote:

You are mistaken to state your opinion as fact. It has been stated a few times what a record is. A record is merely a documented fact. The times have been documented. There is a record of them. So when someone asks what the fastest time is on record, it is the boy's time from this year and the girl's time from last year. It means nothing more nor nothing less. 15:58 is the fastest time on record. That is just a fact that can't be disputed. You can dispute that other times are more impressive due to course difficulty or variation in length. But you can go to the timing service to see the record of the event unless you are claiming that it did not happen. It is obvious that there are few lawyers or English teachers here.

Letsrun in a nutshell. One of the most respected T&F/road running officials in the WORLD takes the time to read this thread and provide a lengthy contribution, including why there has never been officially certified XC courses or "records" in XC, and this dipsh*t argues semantics.

D.Katz wrote:

This will be my last comment on this subject.

There will never be real credibility for any xc record from course to course until the courses are measured the same way. You can disagree until the cows come home but this is fundamental for records. And that my friends is one of the reasons why there are no USATF or World Athletics Cross Country Records.

Thanks, David!

Hoping the Bro Jos send a Limo your way and get you down to Alabama to look for and verify some "reasonable accuracy" with a that cross country course.

Any parting thoughts on GPS for the course measurement for the crowd that loves gadgets - they re getting better, but...

Anonymous posters can claim to be anyone they want. Even registered posters can claim to be anyone they want.

Heck, if the ghost of Ward Cleaver can post, anyone can post.

astro wrote:

There have been two runnings of this race on what is a new course. In those two races we have had the two fastest all-time 5K girl's times and the four fastest all-time 5k boy's times, along with a train load of PRs and crazy stats such as 79 sub-14 boy's times this year and 20 sub-17 girl's times. Short or on the nose, this course is an outlier.

Isn’t the Southern Showcase also run on the same course each year?

Thanks. I said within 1 meter, but that's just being conservative with my statement. To be efficient, I looked to see what 1 meter looked like at my screen working size and, subsequently was just eyeballing it at the same screen size while following the curves. Looking the dots I put down after your comment, I can say they were actually on average about 0.5 meters from the inside boundaries.

If it makes the full distance believers any happier, I really doubt any runner actually ran the shortest path that I plotted, so they ran longer than 4950 meters. The course is wide for a reason, to handle a lot of runners. To follow the shortest path, you'd have to hug the boundaries more than I saw in youtube clip of the leaders, and you'd be single file, not side-by-side in the pack.

5000 meters in miles (to the hundreth) is 3.11 miles. So 3.10-3.12 mile even using only 0.01 per mile would indicate a slightly short course based on what Katz wrote because GPS is never shorter, only matches it maybe 1 out of 10 times and 9 out of 10 times is longer. If you use 0.02 per mile, that's 3.07-3.09 miles, which is definitely short. If you use 0.015 per mile from 3.13-3.15, you get 3.08-3.10 miles. That is consistent with my Google Earth plot of the shortest path of 4,950 meters, which is 3.08 miles. That suggests the runner GPS data is more consistent with 4,950 meters than 5,000 meters.