CLAUDIA MF LANE

douglas burke wrote:

What does it convert to a flat 5000 on the Track? is lane in sub 15 for 5000 shape now?

15:53

douglas burke wrote:

What does it convert to a flat 5000 on the Track? is lane in sub 15 for 5000 shape now?

History seems to show that a 2.93mi race at Mt. SAC is comparable to a flat track 5000, though at, Mt. SAC is even slower..

*though at times,

Omniscient Black Hole wrote:

douglas burke wrote:

What does it convert to a flat 5000 on the Track? is lane in sub 15 for 5000 shape now?

15:53

Considering that Tamagno went on to run 4:01.04 (full mile), I would think him capable of very close to 14:00 on the track. His Mt SAC record is 14:23. Lane is a strength runner, not a miler, so her actual track time would likely be just under 16:00.

WTFBBQ wrote:

douglas burke wrote:

What does it convert to a flat 5000 on the Track? is lane in sub 15 for 5000 shape now?

History seems to show that a 2.93mi race at Mt. SAC is comparable to a flat track 5000, though at, Mt. SAC is even slower..

I did not know, it was 2.93 miles, I thought it was either a 3 mile or 5k course.

Letsrun sleuths are best in the biz. That's said great performances by all.

Facts be facts wrote:

Letsrun sleuths are best in the biz. That's said great performances by all.

The start locations are different.

Facts be facts? You want facts? Go down there and take your tape measure or whatever and measure the distance from gauntlet turn off to old finish area as opposed to new area! Then come back to this forum with a video of yourself with said measurements. Then you can post "Facts be Facts"! Otherwise, shut your trap.

Except he screwed up wrote:

Facts be facts wrote:

Letsrun sleuths are best in the biz. That's said great performances by all.

The start locations are different.

From Tim O’Rourke, “All runners will follow the exact same Mt SAC XC Course we have always run with the sole exception of the final 140 meters of the course. This year instead of turning into the gauntlet at the end of the course, runners will continue up the air strip 140 meters. The overall distance for the course will be EXACTLY the same.”

Suck it.

In total agreement B. Smith. The previous post insinuated a 7 second advantage this year, which translates to maybe 35 meters or so. I am sure the organizers took it to heart to make the appropriate measurements. (A 35 meter screw-up would be enormous and quite honestly, obvious). It's just basically jealousy among those who want to dismiss the newer outstanding performances from the past. The new records of this 70th Mt. Sac. 2017 will stand! (asterisk or no asterisk).

Except he screwed up wrote:

The start locations are different.

video analysis complete wrote:

From Tim O’Rourke, “All runners will follow the exact same Mt SAC XC Course we have always run with the sole exception of the final 140 meters of the course. This year instead of turning into the gauntlet at the end of the course, runners will continue up the air strip 140 meters. The overall distance for the course will be EXACTLY the same.”

The start locations are different on the videos you posted, which is easy to see.

Except he screwed up wrote:

Except he screwed up wrote:

The start locations are different.

video analysis complete wrote:

From Tim O’Rourke, “All runners will follow the exact same Mt SAC XC Course we have always run with the sole exception of the final 140 meters of the course. This year instead of turning into the gauntlet at the end of the course, runners will continue up the air strip 140 meters. The overall distance for the course will be EXACTLY the same.”

The start locations are different on the videos you posted, which is easy to see.

So you’re suggesting they added a longer asphalt section to the start AND eliminated the grass, dirt and small rise, replacing it with more asphalt, but the course is no faster?

video analysis complete wrote:

So you’re suggesting they added a longer asphalt section to the start AND eliminated the grass, dirt and small rise, replacing it with more asphalt, but the course is no faster?

He's suggesting that the course is the same distance.

And he's right.

The course is probably 2-4 seconds faster. Lane took down Baxter’s Lake Casitas record this year as well in her first race of the season. Anyone can argue if Lane on the exactly the same course and conditions that Baxter ran her course record would beat her time, but odds are likely yes and her performances to date suggest we are watching someone who is poised to have one of the best female xc hs seasons ever.

XCFan02 wrote:

The course is probably 2-4 seconds faster. Lane took down Baxter’s Lake Casitas record this year as well in her first race of the season. Anyone can argue if Lane on the exactly the same course and conditions that Baxter ran her course record would beat her time, but odds are likely yes and her performances to date suggest we are watching someone who is poised to have one of the best female xc hs seasons ever.

The course only differs in the last 140m and is the same distance. 3 seconds over 140 is about 9 seconds for a lap, and 36 seconds for a mile. It might be 5 seconds faster for a mile, but that amounts to half a second. Silly comments about 7 seconds difference (implies 1:20 faster per mile) should embarrass the poster).

Your analysis on the surface seems to make sense; however, applying more simple logic says it cant possibly be correct. Besides the surface, all other things being equal, there is almost no way can say there is a difference of 10 seconds in the time it takes someone to cover 140 meters. Unless Lane walked the last 140 meters, Usain Bolt on a track could not create a difference of 10 seconds in a 140 meters. If Lane finished strong, the difference is probably no more than a second or 2. (Occam's razor)

Another way of looking at this is, there about 35 increments of 140m in 3 miles, to say there can be a difference of 10 seconds in 140m because of the surface, would be the same as saying there can be a difference of over 5 minutes between a slow and a fast course. The difference between slow and a fast course is usually about a minute with is a little over second per 140 meters, which again points to the difference between old and new course is probably no more than a second or 2. Last, but not least, I put the result's of 2016 D1/D2 Individual Sweepstakes and 2017 into a spreadsheet. I eliminated what appears to be the outliers and did an average and the difference between the races was only 1.44 seconds, which again points to the fact that the difference is probably no more than a second or 2.

When it's 75 and sunny at 9:30 am, as it has been during the Invitational sweeps races and CIF Finals, that has an effect on finishing times. When it's about 60-66 and sunny for the sweeps races, as it was yesterday, that has less of an effect on finishing times (more obviously for the later sweeps races). When it's about 57 and overcast, as it was when Sarah Baxter ran 16:00, that's about as ideal as Mt Sac conditions can be.

Fahrenheit 454, Supercharged wrote:

nomas wrote:

Everyone is talking about the course differences but the much cooler than normal weather was a bigger factor. There are many years when fast times are just not possible.

That would be a factor for the races held on Friday or Saturday afternoon, but the Saturday sweepstakes races are in the morning when heat is not a factor.

Sub-15 for 5000m for a HS girl? Seriously? That's sub 14:30 for 3 miles. Get real.

Times at Mt. Sac if you are a good hill runner are equivalent to what you would run in a track 5000m.

My point exactly Mommabear. As someone below has posted, I am trying to defend Claudia. I second your opinion of being proud of both ladies. And yes you are correct in stating why we hide behind our phones and message boards. When one does something jaw-dropping as Claudia has done, why can't others be proud of her accomplishment, rather than downplaying and making excuses why she is this or that. As far as challenging Claudia, that is exactly what Brie Oakley did last year. They both met twice, and Claudia could have called it quits after the state championships in June, (and she beat Brie at Arcadia earlier), but decided to meet Brie again at the Brooks 3200 two weeks later, where she lost by 10 seconds. I give the nod in the overall year to Brie based on that last competition. Katelyn and her coaches have to decide if it is more important for her to win NXN, or to beat Claudia. Unless Claudia really suffers at FL and Katelyn drops the hammer down severely at NXN, I will give the nod to Claudia, at least for 2017. If they don't meet, and they both are healthy and at their peak for track season, I do hope they meet. It will be fun to watch.