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

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

coachy wrote:

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?

I don't have a hard time understanding that at all. I am the one that has shot down several methodologies of measurement in this very thread. What I am saying is how are your methods better than what has already been done? What makes someone else the authority to tell them how to measure their course after the fact?

What procedure are you referring to that they could screw up? What inaccuracy in a measuring device are you referring to? They could take 5000 paces and determine it 5k.

coachy wrote:

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?

I don't have a hard time understanding that at all. I am the one that has shot down several methodologies of measurement in this very thread. What I am saying is how are your methods better than what has already been done? What makes someone else the authority to tell them how to measure their course after the fact?[/quote]

We DO NOT KNOW how or who has measured the course.

Didn't you say you were a USATF Certified Course Measurer for road courses? Anyone who has read that manual and applied those principals is more of an authority than some who jogs the center of the course with their Garmin and calls that reading perfect, right?

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

hunt the big game wrote:

I agree. The huge Tuohy fans will not accept it as a record if it is short. Heck, they won't accept it if accurate because courses are all different so why again do some people want it certified? It is only for the chance that it is short, not to prove that it is accurate.

I think everyone would love to see that course check out at 5000m but if it ends up as 4981, or 4925, or 4800 it will not change the course records that were set on that course.

I can only speak for myself, but I am a Katelyn Tuohy fan ... and I never accepted her 16:06.87 time at Goddard Park as a "National 5K XC Record " ... Because the concept of a National Record makes no sense me ... Distances are imperfectly known in XC, courses get altered at times and other reasons.

I never heard the declaration of a "National 5K XC Record " until 2018 ... I knew about Ritz's fast times, but those were just course records and marked as fastest times.

The notion of an overall National XC “record” was not an issue until Katelyn Tuohy ran 16:06.87 at Ocean State Invitational course (Sept 2018). MileSplit informed her coach that was the fastest 5K XC race in their database … and her coach relayed that information to the Westchester Journal News … and on Sept 22, reporter Nancy Haggerty posted an article entitled “Tuohy Runs National-Record Race…”. Info in the article was picked up by other downstate newspapers, internet websites, magazines, etc … So the notion of a National High School XC “Record” was born to promote Katelyn Tuohy … I looked but could not find any declaration of a “National Record” prior to that time for any other girl or even Dathan Ritzenhein (times were referred as fastest marks). Caveats in many articles about XC courses being different apparently did not matter ... I disregarded the declaration as publicity.

Great information in this thread from many people including D.Katz, DiscoGary and others ... I really enjoyed the DiscoGary thread years back when he described the mega-effort in measuring the Detweiller Course in Illinois (very informative).

Believe it or not, I do not care if the RunningLane course is a full 5K measured as precisely as possible ... Current information indicates to me that it is close enough to 5K to be considered a 5K American High School XC course ... I think it runs exceptionally fast due to its design and construction and I accept the times of Jenna Hutchins, the Newbury Park runners and all five guys faster than Dathan Ritzenhein as 5K (I'm counting Riley Hough's 14:10.56 as FAT vs. Ritz's 14:10.4 as hand-timed) even if a precise measurement comes up a bit short.

As I see it, the argument is how those times are being interpreted in relation to other 5K times from the past ... Based on many emails sent to me, the Hutchins and Newbury Park fans believe faster means better ... others do not agree ... and measuring RunningLane will make no difference.

National Records require standards and that can never be retro-fitted to older performances adequately.

A couple of California coaches asked me about the Woodbridge California course (3.0 miles) and its speed relative to RunningLane if extended to 5K ... a quick approximation suggests it MAY be roughly 9 seconds faster than RunningLane.

My GPS is calibrated to military specs and within 1m of distance +/-... will keep using it.

blue man wrote:

What procedure are you referring to that they could screw up?

Measuring the center of the course, measuring 10 feet from inside turns, measuring 5 feet from inside turns, not taking good tangents, not applying adequate pressure on a wheel and allowing for wobble and slippage, not properly calibrating the wheel, are all things that could cause a "screw up".

What inaccuracy in a measuring device are you referring to?

errors with gps, errors with an inaccurate wheel

They could take 5000 paces and determine it 5k.

No that would determine the course is 5000paces. It could be close, could be way off. That is why proper measurement is needed.

replies in bold

There are no rules governing a device so 5000 paces of 1 meter each does suffice. There are no rules about how to use a wheel so so wobble and slippage are fine. The shortest possible route is not defined so it is left up to the race director to determine what that means. If he measures it 10 feet from the turns and says that is the shortest possible route, then that is the shortest possible route. GPS that says 3.107 is also absolutely fine because it said 3.107. If you don't like the rules of the sport, fins another sport but don't add a bunch of things that don't violate the rules and then claim that they do.

Good One!

I wish I could say I was the owner of Meterman, Komelon, or Rolatape but that could get me in trouble...

JYwl wrote:

My GPS is calibrated to military specs and within 1m of distance +/-... will keep using it.

I have been using my GPS for many years and I have used it in conjunction with measuring road courses with a Jones Counter. I have used it along side a wheel. I have used it with turns, I have used it with trees, etc. I am confident with mine as well.

JYwl wrote:

My GPS is calibrated to military specs and within 1m of distance +/-... will keep using it.

Even if the location precision of your GPS was absolutely perfect, you wouldn't get necessarily get an accurate course length.

You are forgetting about sampling rate versus speed. The faster you go on a straight, the better the measurement gets. There is an ideal speed around turns based on the sampling rate that would give you the best measurement, but I have never calculated it. For my Garmin 305 it looks like it would have been about 6mph. The inherent precision of the device (1m for you) gets superimposed an all these calculations.

The GPS stuff gets very complicated when you are trying to get the best accuracy.

monguse wrote:

There are no rules governing a device so 5000 paces of 1 meter each does suffice. There are no rules about how to use a wheel so so wobble and slippage are fine. The shortest possible route is not defined so it is left up to the race director to determine what that means. If he measures it 10 feet from the turns and says that is the shortest possible route, then that is the shortest possible route. GPS that says 3.107 is also absolutely fine because it said 3.107. If you don't like the rules of the sport, fins another sport but don't add a bunch of things that don't violate the rules and then claim that they do.

How can you possibly defend running 10' from turns as the shortest possible route?

How about we clarify the rules of the sport and all get on, at least within the same chapter, if not willing to be on the same page? What have I added?

I had never heard that. My GPS is spot on when I run a road race course near my house. It doesn't matter which mile of the course or which direction I go or if I am jogging a mile a 8 minutes or racing one at 4:30.

JYwl wrote:

My GPS is calibrated to military specs and within 1m of distance +/-... will keep using it.

Great! That's super impressive! What make and model is that?

BMeylan wrote:

...

National Records require standards and that can never be retro-fitted to older performances adequately.

...

True. And that tragedy was caused by our collective failure to accurately measure courses in the past.

But we can fix that moving forward. We just witnessed the fastest XC in US history and shame on us if we don't record the course length as accurately as possible so when something like this happens in the future there will be good data to make comparisons.

Soooooo , you manufacture GPS devices, right?

Just about everything that you stated were additions. You said that they could crew up procedures and then went on to say that could be how they use a wheel or GPS or pacing the course. All of those things comply with rules of measuring a course because there are no rules. You can say that you want rules; you can't state that people can screw up following nonexistent rules.

Several years ago the gentlemen who was building the Jones Counters decided to move on and wanted to sell the company but there were no buyers. Fearing that this would be the end of the most essential device needed for measuring road courses I negotiated a fair price and bought the business (without telling my wife!). I handed the operations over to another individual and have never asked for a dollar of my investment. My wife eventually found out but she wasn't upset considering that 90% of the stuff I now do for the sport is for free.

You guys just don't realize that if you get what you want, the sport would be ruined. College coaches look at cross country today more in terms of the competition. Their lives would be much easier if there was a certification process for courses. But then directors would set out to design the fastest course possible and coaches would try to attend those meets because those times would be official. Over time, slow courses would disappear and we would be holding 5k track type events. This is cross country. Take your track hats off and remember that every course is different so a course that is 4950 meters is is as good as a course that is 5050 meters. We are measuring courses merely so that runners know when the gun goes off, how far they are running. It is 2 miles or 4k or 3 miles or 5k. College runners know that they are running 6k or 8k or 10k. Those things are important only for pacing.

monguse wrote:

Just about everything that you stated were additions. You said that they could crew up procedures and then went on to say that could be how they use a wheel or GPS or pacing the course. All of those things comply with rules of measuring a course because there are no rules. You can say that you want rules; you can't state that people can screw up following nonexistent rules.

Look back and you will see I was responding to someone asking for examples of how they could screw up the measuring process and issues with measuring devices. NFHS has the SPR listed for their procedure so there is a rule.

Oh yeah? How do you know each course is a different length? Who can say if one course is 4950 and the next is 5050 meters? Based on what? Maybe they're ALL exactly perfect and its been our crappy measuring that makes them look different.

Checkmate.