The race director told you so. It is pretty rude to not trust the race director of a national championship.
The race director told you so. It is pretty rude to not trust the race director of a national championship.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
coachy wrote:
and after inventing new measuring rules you would like to retroactively punish courses such as RunningLane's and take away their results if they are short although they followed whatever guidelines were out there.
No punishing of anyone...whatever the distance they will still have their course records.
How do we know that Running Lane "followed whatever guidelines were out there"?
How do we know you would?
blue man wrote:
Is it true that it used to specify down the middle? I assumed that it was merely silent until specifying SPR. And most of our courses have one line which hugs the corners so the language doesn't really change the measurement.
Yes. Sadly until around 2010 the NFHS rule book said that XC courses were to be measured down the center of the path, and to make matters worse, they didn't specify the required path width. Many courses like Detweiller were diligently built on this standard which created a "short" course. There was a path that runners could take which would be shorter than the advertised course length, which should never be allowed to happen. That's what happens when someone with the "good enough for cross country" attitude ends up writing the rule book. Rule books should be left to the Stat Geeks.
Yes. You could walk right next to the rail but would be further away due to leaning.
Of course it's short. Do we really think 5 guys broke a legendary record all on the same day?
Does it matter? No, it doesn't.
Newkirk wrote:
Yes. You could walk right next to the rail but would be further away due to leaning.
Okay, how about tracks without a rail? Or, those competing outside of lane one?
Newkirk wrote:
The race director told you so. It is pretty rude to not trust the race director of a national championship.
I have never meet the meet director and don't even know his name. I believe DiscoGary is trying to reach him.
You certainly don't believe everything you hear or read, do you?
There is nothing sad about a rule book specifying that xc courses should be measured down the center. It just supports the obvious -- that exact measurement was not necessary, and that courses are not meant to be compared to other courses. Head to head competition. Course records might be held, although many courses probably change year-to-year. Bushes grow, lines shift.
proven wrote:
This shows the course is short. The GPS measurement should be 3.13 or so if it were an accurate 5k. GPS always measures short compared to measured courses.
5000/1609.344 = 3.1068 =~ 3.11 to two decimals.
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
No punishing of anyone...whatever the distance they will still have their course records.
How do we know that Running Lane "followed whatever guidelines were out there"?
How do we know you would?
That's why you have a crew and repeat the process following set guidelines that could be repeatable by another crew to check our work.
lucy the unbanned wrote:
There is nothing sad about a rule book specifying that xc courses should be measured down the center. It just supports the obvious -- that exact measurement was not necessary, and that courses are not meant to be compared to other courses. Head to head competition. Course records might be held, although many courses probably change year-to-year. Bushes grow, lines shift.
Call it what you like, but with that methodology course difference vary much more than under the current methodology, even without having the distance to inside boundaries established in the rules.
This math is not even close to correct. 9:41 at 2.1 is around 9:12 for 2 miles, or a 4:26 last mile which is reasonable considering the downhill finish. .1 does not equal 100 meters, its 161 m.
runne wrote:
proven wrote:
This shows the course is short. The GPS measurement should be 3.13 or so if it were an accurate 5k. GPS always measures short compared to measured courses.
5000/1609.344 = 3.1068 =~ 3.11 to two decimals.
The issue is the common errors occurring with gps on courses with turns and trees.
There is a great deal of incorrect information in regards to measuring on this thread. But I do like the fact that it has lasted beyond 800 posts.
fyi-1 - In all my years of comparative measuring (using a GPS along with accepted other methods- tape or Jones Counter) I never had the gps device read shorter then the other device....never!
fyi-2. Tracks are measured 30 cm from a curb (kerb for my friends on the other side of the "Pond") and 20 cm when the track is designed not to have a curb & 20 cm from the left line for all tracks lanes 2+. Therefore a talented athlete could conceivably run less then the distance by running adjacent to the line.
fyi-3. I could say with all confidence that I know more about Jones Counters then anyone else in the world....I own the company that produces them. Are we having fun yet?
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
coachy wrote:
How do we know you would?
That's why you have a crew and repeat the process following set guidelines that could be repeatable by another crew to check our work.
It goes on and on. Someone could say they are all working together to conspire to make the course wrong just like a few on this thread are. They race director and course designers have both measured it many times and the few here don't believe them.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
lucy the unbanned wrote:
There is nothing sad about a rule book specifying that xc courses should be measured down the center. It just supports the obvious -- that exact measurement was not necessary, and that courses are not meant to be compared to other courses. Head to head competition. Course records might be held, although many courses probably change year-to-year. Bushes grow, lines shift.
Call it what you like, but with that methodology course difference vary much more than under the current methodology, even without having the distance to inside boundaries established in the rules.
Again, courses do not need to be measured precisely or accurately, because we should not try to compare results between courses. This is not track. J Gault's article about a national 5000m xc record, was nonsensical overreach.
proven wrote:
... GPS always measures short compared to measured courses.
I measured Detweiller with a GPS both walking and riding a bike. Same GPS unit. The walking measurement was longer than the steel tape standard, and the riding measurement was shorter. I gave a reasonable explanation for how this could happen several hundred posts ago.
This is the problem with this kind of discussion. We have people stating things as fact with an air of authority and finality, when they haven't done the work and can't back it up. Many times they an easily be proven wrong. We are trying to separate the reality from the mythology surrounding course measurement.
...nonsensical overreach that paved the way for this thread. Lots of clicks and engagement. Mission accomplished.
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
That's why you have a crew and repeat the process following set guidelines that could be repeatable by another crew to check our work.
It goes on and on. Someone could say they are all working together to conspire to make the course wrong just like a few on this thread are. They race director and course designers have both measured it many times and the few here don't believe them.
Coachy!
Why is it so hard to understand that it does not matter how many times someone measures a CC Course - if they are using the wrong procedure or have an inaccurate measuring device what good are all those measurements?
xcrunner22765 wrote:
This math is not even close to correct. 9:41 at 2.1 is around 9:12 for 2 miles, or a 4:26 last mile which is reasonable considering the downhill finish. .1 does not equal 100 meters, its 161 m.
For the hundredth time, it's not a downhill finish. It's uphill first, then downhill. That makes it slower than a flat final mile, and much slower than an all downhill final mile.