not a name wrote:
Do you know what that word means?
What word are you speaking of?
Letsrun declared that records were set so obviously they can.
If I host a meet next year at Detweiller Park in Illinois that runs 30 seconds faster on average than Running Lane, can I claim to have the fastest 5k CC Course in the nation?
Yes. Watch Elf this year and see the claim for world's best cup of coffee.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
not a name wrote:
Do you know what that word means?
What word are you speaking of?
Letsrun declared that records were set so obviously they can.
If I host a meet next year at Detweiller Park in Illinois that runs 30 seconds faster on average than Running Lane, can I claim to have the fastest 5k CC Course in the nation?
Now that we have established that RunningLane is short, runs 65 seconds fast, and has a 80% PR rate what will come next? “XC” races on the road that are all downhill? “XC” races that are run on the track but measured from lane 4?
As far as selecting shortest route for measuring, spectators should be ignored. It should be based on the closest route someone could run without anyone on the course. Including spectators. Ideally with any fencing or any cones that will be present on race day.
Hutchins ran 15:34 on the track. Are you saying the track was short too?
blue man wrote:
Hutchins ran 15:34 on the track. Are you saying the track was short too?
The track needs to be measured using a steal tape immediately
That talking point is getting strained. The general numbers on the course are hard to ignore.
blue man wrote:
Hutchins ran 15:34 on the track. Are you saying the track was short too?
Shouldn't a track be much faster than a Cross Country course on grass, and with hills?
coachy wrote:
blue man wrote:
Hutchins ran 15:34 on the track. Are you saying the track was short too?
The track needs to be measured using a steal tape immediately
Did it have a rail?
Or we can just acknowledge that XC 'national records' are nonsensical, and that running media articles that proclaim these records are just bullcarp.
astro wrote:
That talking point is getting strained. The general numbers on the course are hard to ignore.
Agreed!
I really do hope that course is legit, but I'm skeptical.
I estimate 30 seconds from a fast course and 1 minute for a slower course. I have run many XC races and road races and that has been my experience.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
blue man wrote:
Hutchins ran 15:34 on the track. Are you saying the track was short too?
Shouldn't a track be much faster than a Cross Country course on grass, and with hills?
especially with a pacer and pacing lights vs a race with no competition
lifetime brand wrote:
Or we can just acknowledge that XC 'national records' are nonsensical, and that running media articles that proclaim these records are just bullcarp.
Yeah, the reality is if the Ritz course was measured by the rule in place at the time it should have been way short of 5000 based on how courses are supposed to measured today. So... there really should be two records based on measuring rules that were on the books at the time.
blue man wrote:
I estimate 30 seconds from a fast course and 1 minute for a slower course. I have run many XC races and road races and that has been my experience.
so your experience is a slower course is 30 seconds slower than a fast course. How do you explain the 65 seconds noted vs Balboa Park? Never ran a course as tough as that (and there are many tougher)?
blue man wrote:
I estimate 30 seconds from a fast course and 1 minute for a slower course. I have run many XC races and road races and that has been my experience.
For the courses you ran on, in your area, that may be absolutely correct, for someone at your pace. However, without knowing the course lengths of your CC Meets and your Road races, your guesstimates are just that.
But most people would agree that a track surface should be quicker that dirt, sand, grass, mud, and all of those are rarely as smooth and level as a track surface.
I have been running at a high level my entire life and have run on every notable course in the country. I have run the John Hunt course twice and ran about 30 seconds slower than my track workouts indicated I would for a track 5k. At my age, I have become very consistent in training and racing. I could tell you within 5 seconds what I would run in a track 5k tomorrow.
blue man wrote:
I have been running at a high level my entire life and have run on every notable course in the country. I have run the John Hunt course twice and ran about 30 seconds slower than my track workouts indicated I would for a track 5k. At my age, I have become very consistent in training and racing. I could tell you within 5 seconds what I would run in a track 5k tomorrow.
Nice!
So, what distance do you think the Hunt Course is?
We know that Detweiller is very close to 3 miles yet many guys run 14:15 there who wouldn't break
14:45 for 5k on a track. Some of those guys barely run a faster pace for 3200 on the track than they do for 3 miles XC.
5k. My watch had it just over 5k and my watch registers within 1 meter on certified road courses in my area. I walked some of it with a coach last year who wheeled it a few meters short and he was walking the SPR and wheeling on the line around corners. I thing it would measure 5k with a tape 12" from the line.