Well said. I agree.
Claudia Lane has the better record in cross country.
However, Tuohy is faster at 1500m and might have the edge at 2 miles, depending on how much Lane has improved.
Well said. I agree.
Claudia Lane has the better record in cross country.
However, Tuohy is faster at 1500m and might have the edge at 2 miles, depending on how much Lane has improved.
Well the Mt. Sac Invite has never used grass, so that doesn't figure in anyway.
But to be fair, there has been incorrect measuring in high profile meets. The Footlocker Mt. Sac course routinely places the Mile marker in the wrong spot, because they've failed to acknowledge that the grass start there is 100 feet longer than the traditional tarmac start line.
And at the 2015 Brooks PR Meet, they had they cones for the 2-mile start only 12 meters behind the start line instead of 18 meters, before I corrected their mistake.
douglas burke wrote:
What does it convert to a flat 5000 on the Track? is lane in sub 15 for 5000 shape now?
Are you an idiot?
yesstiles wrote:
Well the Mt. Sac Invite has never used grass, so that doesn't figure in anyway.
But to be fair, there has been incorrect measuring in high profile meets. The Footlocker Mt. Sac course routinely places the Mile marker in the wrong spot, because they've failed to acknowledge that the grass start there is 100 feet longer than the traditional tarmac start line.
And at the 2015 Brooks PR Meet, they had they cones for the 2-mile start only 12 meters behind the start line instead of 18 meters, before I corrected their mistake.
can't watch the video without the flotrack membership, but i am curious about the time differential--perhaps the grass being discussed is the grass along the airstrip that they run before turning down the gauntlet? even though i was there watching this race, i couldn't tell you when the athletes were allowed on the airstrip for the finish--was it earlier than where they would have turned? just past the start? i do remember the grass before the turn not being too smooth.
some of my athletes noted that the course was extremely well-groomed and graded--that may have been a factor as well.
maybe this was mentioned, but people are fixating on the distance and surfaces--which do make a difference, though not 10 seconds worth--but that little hill at the finish is a pain in the ass, and the turn does affect momentum. i would unscientifically say that assuming the distance was indeed identical, the faster surface(s) + the straighter finish + the lack of a hill could easily equate to 5 seconds...
i'm assuming people better get used to this course--i can't imagine they're going to reconstruct the gauntlet and the hill/upper grass field, but who knows...
socal cush wrote:
yesstiles wrote:
Well the Mt. Sac Invite has never used grass, so that doesn't figure in anyway.
But to be fair, there has been incorrect measuring in high profile meets. The Footlocker Mt. Sac course routinely places the Mile marker in the wrong spot, because they've failed to acknowledge that the grass start there is 100 feet longer than the traditional tarmac start line.
And at the 2015 Brooks PR Meet, they had they cones for the 2-mile start only 12 meters behind the start line instead of 18 meters, before I corrected their mistake.
can't watch the video without the flotrack membership, but i am curious about the time differential--perhaps the grass being discussed is the grass along the airstrip that they run before turning down the gauntlet? even though i was there watching this race, i couldn't tell you when the athletes were allowed on the airstrip for the finish--was it earlier than where they would have turned? just past the start? i do remember the grass before the turn not being too smooth.
some of my athletes noted that the course was extremely well-groomed and graded--that may have been a factor as well.
maybe this was mentioned, but people are fixating on the distance and surfaces--which do make a difference, though not 10 seconds worth--but that little hill at the finish is a pain in the ass, and the turn does affect momentum. i would unscientifically say that assuming the distance was indeed identical, the faster surface(s) + the straighter finish + the lack of a hill could easily equate to 5 seconds...
i'm assuming people better get used to this course--i can't imagine they're going to reconstruct the gauntlet and the hill/upper grass field, but who knows...
I've compared a few races videos from this year to those of the past and along with Google Earth feel confident the final sections are not the same length. Before you scoff at Google Earth, keep in mind the 100 meters on Mt. Sac's track (it's still on Google Earth) measured out to 100.26 meters. Google Earth gets 149 meters for the 2017 course measuring from the point where they veer off the grass that parallels the airstrip, which is the same grass as it's always been and can be seen in the video in this post from the 2014 version of the invitational. This measurement accounts for the 2017 course finishing on the right side of the road, going in the same direction traffic would.The video below should cut straight to this section of the 2014 race.
The pre-2017 course measures out to 176 meters on Google Earth. Both finish at the same elevation. Both also started at the exact same place, by the way, unlike a previous poster suggested, which can be verified by the fact it takes the sweepstakes races in both the 2014 version and 2017 version 21-22 seconds to get to the first part of the dirt section where the valley loops begin.
Of the 149 meters to the 2017 finish all 149 are on asphalt.
Of the 176 meters to the pre-2017 finish the first 22 are on asphalt, taking the runners over to the dirt path of the gauntlet. The dirt path is 148 meters long, with a rhythm breaking wall at the end of it. The last 6 meters is grass.
Now imagine the airstrip was dirt and you added an extra 27 meters to it plus a little wall and you couldn't see the finish line until the final 20 meters. The fact it took both Moises Medrano (14:55) and Anthony Benitez (15:05) 25 and 26 seconds respectively to finish after exiting the final grass section, versus 32-35 seconds for Tamagno (14:23 - 32), Rocha (14:31 - 32), Webb (14:34 - 32) and Brandt (14:39 - 35) in 2014. It's simply not logical to think Tamagno, Rocha, Webb and Brandt are going to have 7+ seconds put into them by guys running times closer to 15-flat like Medrano and Benitez.
27 meters at 4:50 pace is about 5 seconds. The dirt versus asphalt is probably 1 second at most. The hill at the end is likely another 1-2 seconds; it's short but steep. Psychologically, not seeing the finish line until you're practically under it is not helpful for the pre-2017 course.
The 2017 course being faster by .8 - 1% seems fair. That still puts Claudia MF Lane under 16:00.
https://youtu.be/srFuukQ0bd8?t=676socal cush wrote:
yesstiles wrote:
Well the Mt. Sac Invite has never used grass, so that doesn't figure in anyway.
But to be fair, there has been incorrect measuring in high profile meets. The Footlocker Mt. Sac course routinely places the Mile marker in the wrong spot, because they've failed to acknowledge that the grass start there is 100 feet longer than the traditional tarmac start line.
And at the 2015 Brooks PR Meet, they had they cones for the 2-mile start only 12 meters behind the start line instead of 18 meters, before I corrected their mistake.
can't watch the video without the flotrack membership, but i am curious about the time differential--perhaps the grass being discussed is the grass along the airstrip that they run before turning down the gauntlet? even though i was there watching this race, i couldn't tell you when the athletes were allowed on the airstrip for the finish--was it earlier than where they would have turned? just past the start? i do remember the grass before the turn not being too smooth.
some of my athletes noted that the course was extremely well-groomed and graded--that may have been a factor as well.
maybe this was mentioned, but people are fixating on the distance and surfaces--which do make a difference, though not 10 seconds worth--but that little hill at the finish is a pain in the ass, and the turn does affect momentum. i would unscientifically say that assuming the distance was indeed identical, the faster surface(s) + the straighter finish + the lack of a hill could easily equate to 5 seconds...
i'm assuming people better get used to this course--i can't imagine they're going to reconstruct the gauntlet and the hill/upper grass field, but who knows...
Ah yes, I did forget about that side grass area along the tarmac. But that is so worn down I think it was still fast. I was thinking about the grass field used for the start of the Footlocker course which is less worn and softer.
I would consider though that the old gauntlet, despite it's uphill push at the last second, wasn't any slower than the new flat asphalt finish. Why? Because kids tend to finish faster racing by hordes of screaming fans, whereas this weekend's finish was a lonely affair. No one was allowed near the finish area making it quite a less thrilling finishing sprint scenario.
So the course is 2.9 miles? This is still an amazing run. I was curious as to where she would finish at the Mayor's Cup...
sorry to beat a dead horse here. i realize 99.9% of people don't care, but here's the google earth images.
video analysis complete wrote:
sorry to beat a dead horse here. i realize 99.9% of people don't care, but here's the google earth images.
You show the start lines as the same in your images.
However, the start lines are clearly different in the videos you posted.
The start lines were different wrote:
video analysis complete wrote:
sorry to beat a dead horse here. i realize 99.9% of people don't care, but here's the google earth images.
You show the start lines as the same in your images.
However, the start lines are clearly different in the videos you posted.
I heard you the first time and gave evidence as to why I believe you're wrong about that. Of course I could be wrong too, but the fact it takes both races the exact amount of time to get to the initial dirt section of the valley loops would seem to indicate they started in the exact same spot just as the meet director said they would.
Could you humor me and describe exactly why it's so obvious to you that they are not starting in the same place?
2014 start
http://i64.tinypic.com/ifooit.jpg2014 start reverse angle
http://i66.tinypic.com/o5p9ao.jpg2017 start
http://i65.tinypic.com/dc8qqo.jpghere is the 2014 race 21-22 seconds in entering the first dirt section
http://i68.tinypic.com/2v9u6n9.jpghere is the 2017 race 21-22 seconds in entering the first dirt section
As your video images show:
The 2014 race starts beside a 4 pole tower.
The 2017 race starts beside a light pole, with no 4 pole tower in view.
The start lines were different wrote:
As your video images show:
The 2014 race starts beside a 4 pole tower.
The 2017 race starts beside a light pole, with no 4 pole tower in view.
Inadvertent trolling or you’re just that good at it?
Obviously we wouldn’t use an impermanent structure such as that “4 pole tower” as a landmark.
Yeah but her sister goes to college up in the NW, at UW and she went up to Oregon last summer for Nike elite camp.
