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

Well you cannot just declare that a time is a 5k "record" if you cannot effectively demonstrate that the course is actually 5k. That is the entire point. This year for example a 165 SR on this course produced a 16:03. I'm inclined to think the course is superfast and supereasy, but unless it is effectively measured a short course cannot be ruled out.

GPS devices are great tools and could be the most accurate measuring device for a runner training other then the accepted measuring tools (Calibrated bike/Jones Counter, Steel Tape, Measuring wheel). But it's not accurate enough for USATF or World Athletics Certification.

I have a very good one - Garmin 62c ( old model ) that is mounted on my handlebars to assist in informing me when a mile/km mark is approaching when I'm measuring.

Here is a statement by the USATF Road Running Technical Council in regards to GPS devices:

"GPS devices work by receiving signals from satellites. The quality of different GPS units can vary, but all of them can be affected by conditions such as buildings in urban environments or heavy overhead tree cover that interfere with reception of the satellite signals and can cause them to be inaccurate.

Race courses Certified by USATF are measured by a proven method that incorporates the calibration of measuring devices against a steel tape and are verified by multiple measurements."

Race courses are measured along a well-defined path called the “SPR”—the Shortest Possible Route that a runner can possibly run. Most runners don’t actually run the SPR, so the distance recorded by their GPS device will usually be longer than the certified length of the course, even though the course was properly measured along the SPR according to USATF rules.

But my best tool is Google Earth Pro. For measurers it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I probably spend at least an hour or two each day configuring courses for upcoming events with it. And carefully used I can come up withing 10-20 meters compared to the calibrated bicycle method if the course is exposed. Often there may be trees or buildings in the way but at least with trees there is the option to use the "Historical Imagery" options to view the area in the fall when there may not be leaves on the trees. When used carefully, I can identify the approximate location of split points which helps in reducing major errors in the measurement process (calculation error or broken counter).

If someone wants to send me a detailed map of the cross country course or a kmz file I would do a basic measurement.

I already did it earlier in the thread and came up with 4,949 meters. The entire course is visible on Google Earth Pro in the 11/18/2020 image. Give it a go. I'd love to see how close our results are.

Here's the course on strava:

Screenshots of my Google Earth Pro plot are below in my earlier comment:

blue man wrote:

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?

Well, as an older person who watched Ritz. I never considered Ritz the record holder because I have never heard of cross country records.

I never heard of the HS women’s record of men’s record until last year when Hutchins “broke” it.

For example:

What’s the women’s 6k xc record for all of college?

What’s the men’s 8k xc record?

What’s the men’s 10k xc record?

There are no cross country records.

However, either way, record or not, I think NBP has 3 Ritz like runners.

These dudes have Ritz-like times as junior or sophomore on the track so it’s likely they are running the same thing as him as a senior in cross.

To me, both German and Nico were better cross country runners than Ritz.

All of the NBP boys will have faster high school PRs than Ritz on the track.

I guess if all of the media outlets that reported it as the national record should never be believed again. Should I stop believing them when they report Covid statistics too? How about Ritz? He is one of the best runners of all time and he has established himself as one of the best coaches. Is he a liar or is just ignorant? I would love to see some of you attack him on Twitter the way you have attacked some of us for recognizing it like he did.

https://twitter.com/djritzenhein/status/1467198405399269382?t=cs4pojHzCfPNihh5kTJS5A&s=19

blue man wrote:

I guess if all of the media outlets that reported it as the national record should never be believed again. Should I stop believing them when they report Covid statistics too? How about Ritz? He is one of the best runners of all time and he has established himself as one of the best coaches. Is he a liar or is just ignorant? I would love to see some of you attack him on Twitter the way you have attacked some of us for recognizing it like he did.

https://twitter.com/djritzenhein/status/1467198405399269382?t=cs4pojHzCfPNihh5kTJS5A&s=19

I think you need re-read what I wrote and comprehend. I’m on your side. I think NBP runners are as good as Ritz.

But I’m also telling that you that what you said about older runners “knowing Ritz” was the record holder “all these years” is factually incorrect. I am an older runner so I can say that.

Again — I think this is how it is with everything. Every generation has new talent. The lore of the old guys is bigger than the performances. To some people, MJ is cemented as the greatest basketball player ever — so no matter who comes along — they won’t be judged fairly. I’m not like this — I’ve seen German and Nico post Ritz — both of which I think would beat him in a head to head.

That Ritz Twitter post from this week. I 1000% guarantee you if you would’ve asked Ritz even in ~ 2015 who was the fastest high school xc runner ever he would not have known.

Again, if records are so common place. Please find the records that I asked you for related to cross country?

Re: the course length. I think it’s accurate. Never in my life have I seen people try so hard to invalidate performances.

We’ve seen two high schoolers go on to shatter their RL time on the track within a matter of weeks. So at the very least, you all should accepting that the runners can shatter their RL times on the track also.

Does anyone know their birthdays? I am starting to think these kids will run college level times before they graduate. The discussion will then be focused on shoes.

zzzz wrote:

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.

GPS can most certainly be shorter. My watch does it all the time by cutting corners, showing a nice arcing path when really I made a sharp 90 degree turn, or not showing me reaching the real turn around point when making a 180 degree turn (using street view with GPS plot overlaid). Friends whose watches don't cut the corners get longer distances for the same run when we're side by side the entire time. All of our watches will also yield longer distances at times, most often when running on an oval track where we'll reach the mile mark (autolap) 15-20 meters before the start line, so 24-29 meters shy of a mile.

Ironically perhaps, the last USATF-certified 5k course I ran came up at 3.11 miles exactly on my watch.

My watch tells me that a track is short while it is long in opposite direction. I have switched my watch to the opposite hand but the results are the same. A friend of mine tried it and got the same results. I don't know why and I can't find an answer. I assume it evens out on a XC.

What is more likely:

Every other prominent course is long and RL is accurate.

Or

Every other prominent course is accurate and RL is short.

How much faster should a runner be on a track than on a superfast XC course?

Course builders promote this as a fast course. Did they even roll it to make the footing extra firm?

This is not in the spirit of XC. XC courses are not supposed to be track. Whether or not the course is 5000m should not really be important. Hutchins' performance last year should be regarded as special because she came in 58 seconds ahead of next runner. Sub 16? Interesting, but that should be viewed in context that the course was designed and prepped to make very fast times possible. What next, a downhill course? Whatever happened to courses with big hills, maybe even mud? More exciting for the runners and spectators.

Now get off my lawn!

This course is nothing like Detweiller or NXR Heartland. Those courses are flat and completely compacted. This course has grass and hills.

I was at the meet and there was no lack of excitement that's for sure. Spectators running from one point to another for all of the races, not just the gold race. It was an electric atmosphere.

As for those saying it's not a "record" it's a bit late for that. Every running website has declared it a "National Record" multiple times over. I guess anonymous people on LR don't get to decide on that one.

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

DiscoGary-

Are you in the red or yellow shirt? Wish I could have been in on that process!! I did my own study right after the State Meet one year and and was very close to your findings, which made everyone mad.

https://il.milesplit.com/articles/247559/the-detweiller-report-a-look-back-in-course-measurement

I'm the fat guy in red. I'm proud to say I haven't gotten any fatter and still have all my hair. I was the only civilian there, although my stat geek credentials allowed me to get into the club. Jay in yellow certified the Chicago Marathon. There was a sixth who took the picture, but I can' remember who that was. I never ran at Detweiller. I just like the numbers to be clean and without question.

Running media people are in the business of sensationalism and excitement. They do what they do to get paid. You can declare whatever you want as a record, but that does not necessarily mean that it is official or sensible.

Thanks, David!

Your expertise is much appreciated.

Could you also share thoughts on the "Shortest Possible Route". I know on the track there is a different measurement if there is a rail or no rail, which I can understand, but feel the advantage is on a railed track.

With USATF the 30cm or 12" from the inside boundary seems too close when setting road courses at large events with spectators leaning over barricades to cheer and take photos. I feel the same about so many of these cross country course that are double lined for course boundaries. So many fans stand on the lines, and to me ,that really moves the "shortest possible route" out, often a couple of feet, or more. I understand this isn't much of an issue on straights, but can certainly add distance on the turns.

I thought I once saw in a NCAA Manual that college courses should be set up based on the "shortest possible route" measured one meter from boundaries on all inside turns. Now I believe the NCAA manual and the NFHS rules just state "shortest route", Without any distance specification on where to measure on inside turns, accuracy and consistency is impossible. Any idea why there has not been more emphasis in creating better language on how to properly measure cross country courses or properly setting up fair starting lines?

Joe Jackson wrote:

wetpits wrote:

Coach, does the steel tape get a temperature correction? I remember from surveying class there is a temperature correction that needs to be applied for steel tape measurements. Even that could be inaccurate over the course of 3 miles if a temperature correction isn't applied.

For every mile, every degree F of temperature change will add or subtract 0.4” based on common thermal expansion coefficients for steel. So for a 10 degree F difference from the calibrated temperature over 3.1 miles the steel tape would be off a little over a foot (12.76”).

Exactly. Coefficient of expansion can be ignored, especially when you consider the error for measuring a single 50 meter segment can be as much as an inch because its hard to hold the tape still under tension and placing the flags in the ground is a bit dodgy. Still we're talking inches and feet here, where all other methods are talking many meters.

steve unbanned wrote:

Course builders promote this as a fast course. Did they even roll it to make the footing extra firm?

This is not in the spirit of XC. XC courses are not supposed to be track. Whether or not the course is 5000m should not really be important. Hutchins' performance last year should be regarded as special because she came in 58 seconds ahead of next runner. Sub 16? Interesting, but that should be viewed in context that the course was designed and prepped to make very fast times possible.

So what you're trying to say here is that they made it extra fast just for Hutchins, and that none of the other runners benefited somehow? Makes sense on LR!