Of course, but every other NC St runners, and every ND runner who ran both ran faster at ACC. Some by 42 seconds (Markezich) or 35 seconds (Tuohy). Explain how Seymour did not. Maybe just a bad day?
Of course, but every other NC St runners, and every ND runner who ran both ran faster at ACC. Some by 42 seconds (Markezich) or 35 seconds (Tuohy). Explain how Seymour did not. Maybe just a bad day?
“You did get my curiosity up. I looked at Elmers the winner of the Preview in the Preview. her pace by K at that meet was 81/83/78/85/84/80 - same pattern.”
Helmers…
She was nearer the front, was she not?
vmg wrote:
A claim of ‘short course’ has work across the entire field; it doesn’t.
I can't say what I am saying applies top the whole field. Just every one of the 42 runners I checked, plus the one on the Preview. The times tell me the course was short (unless you believe on a flat course with no wind the whole field varied their pace in such a wild fashion). And once again, just adjusting the length at the 2.12 or 3 K point would not fix it - just change the wild pace to another portion of the course.
vmg wrote:
“You did get my curiosity up. I looked at Elmers the winner of the Preview in the Preview. her pace by K at that meet was 81/83/78/85/84/80 - same pattern.”
Helmers…
She was nearer the front, was she not?
of course, and she decided to fartlek that. Just like the 42 runners I checked in the SEC meet.
vmg wrote:
“You did get my curiosity up. I looked at Elmers the winner of the Preview in the Preview. her pace by K at that meet was 81/83/78/85/84/80 - same pattern.”
Helmers…
She was nearer the front, was she not?
Helmers was nearer the front of SEC (8th at finish). Her split paces there were supposedly 76/78/73/83/83/77. Maybe she could have finished 7th if she did not do that acceleration in the middle.
Ignoring for a moment the long-recognized problems of XC time comparisons, the ‘ran faster/slower at ACC’ isn’t relevant to the question of ‘short course’ on some entirely different piece of geography several hundred miles away.
“Helmers was nearer the front of SEC (8th at finish). Her split paces there were supposedly 76/78/73/83/83/77. Maybe she could have finished 7th if she did not do that acceleration in the middle.”
You’re ignoring the data that doesn’t support your case — Long and Iefield, ~20 and ~40 seconds slower than they ran it in the Preview.
So splits and huge prs are not data? Interesting. Your argument is fallacious.
vmg wrote:
“Helmers was nearer the front of SEC (8th at finish). Her split paces there were supposedly 76/78/73/83/83/77. Maybe she could have finished 7th if she did not do that acceleration in the middle.”
You’re ignoring the data that doesn’t support your case — Long and Iefield, ~20 and ~40 seconds slower than they ran it in the Preview.
Just for little ole you I will look at their splits. But I have not and m not comparing finishing times between the 2 meets. Long's splits at preview show the pace of 81/83/78/86/87/82. Ielfield shows 81/84/77/87/87/84. The 2.12 to 3K split is short. For all 45 runners I have looked at between the 2 meets. For the runners (every one of them) to be running a reasonable paced race the reported splits are actually be at 1K, 2.12K, 2.9K, 3.75K, 4.85K and 5.8K. Ergo, the course is about 200 m short, or the 40 seconds plus or minus for the ladies. You might argue the 5.8 could be 5.85 and assume they all kicked a little faster. But I think that is pushing the limits of what the runners could do.
We have to buy the idea that the course was changed between the Preview and the Championship; until there is an official statement on that idea, I’m not buying any message board drama, particularly given that not everyone ran a ‘huge PR’.
“For the runners (every one of them) to be running a reasonable paced race the reported splits are actually be at 1K, 2.12K, 2.9K, 3.75K, 4.85K and 5.8K. Ergo, the course is about 200 m short, or the 40 seconds plus or minus for the ladies. You might argue the 5.8 could be 5.85 and assume they all kicked a little faster. But I think that is pushing the limits of what the runners could do.”
I buy that.
vmg wrote:
We have to buy the idea that the course was changed between the Preview and the Championship; until there is an official statement on that idea, I’m not buying any message board drama, particularly given that not everyone ran a ‘huge PR’.
Why? The runners showed the same trends on the paces in both. It looks to me like it was the same course. Helmers ran a minute faster, while Long and Ielfield ran somewhat slower. It happens. I gave the Seymour example.
Which still leaves the unexplained matter of a 50 second PR between the Pre and the Championship for Helmers.
vmg wrote:
Which still leaves the unexplained matter of a 50 second PR between the Pre and the Championship for Helmers.
It does, but that's a great job by her, and of course she won the preview (or tied with a teammate) so maybe she left some on the table there.
“Why?“
Message/post time sequence. I was typing/posting before I read the latter msg
Wrt Helmers one might argue they tempo’d the pre, but then we have long and Iefield running considerably slower at the Champ’shp.
The numbers don't lie. Sorry.
“I can't say what I am saying applies to the whole field.“
Then run a test case with the numbers on 10 finishers worse than 100th place.
“The numbers don't lie. Sorry.“
You must be young.
vmg wrote:
“I can't say what I am saying applies to the whole field.“
Then run a test case with the numbers on 10 finishers worse than 100th place.
1st three...should I go on? 400 m pace by K
Bowman - 101
82.0
88.6
84.1
93.8
91.7
86.8
Blair - 102
79.2
86.8
84.1
96.1
95.6
86.8
Hardy - 103
80.0
88.9
82.7
93.8
93.1
88.8