blue man wrote:
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.
Interesting! Which watch do you use?
not a name wrote:
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.
Thoughts on why kids can't run 3 mile pace for 3200m on the Track months later when they should be older, stronger, more fit?
Forerunner 45
Many guys seem to be more focused during XC. Many if the guys who ran 24:xx at D3 XC nationals would run no faster in a road race.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
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.
Until somebody with knowledge comes forward with actual measurements, we do not know the length of the Michigan State Meet course ... some coaches have noted it is 5K.
What is known about the course are the the top times at the Michigan LP State Meet ... Here are the top times for the Division 1 Boys race (typically the fastest of the D1, D2, D3, D4 races):
2021 - 14:56.5 - Riley Hough
2020 - 14:49.6 - Riley Hough
2019 - 15:01.2 - Carter Solomon
2018 - 15:13.0 - Nick Foster
2017 - 15:16.1 - Nick Foster
2016 - 15:24.8 - Riad Rababeh
2015 - 15:10.4 - Isaac Harding
2014 - 14:52.5 - Grant Fisher
2013 - 15:13.7 - Grant Fisher
2012 - 15:07.3 - Brian Kettle
2011 - 15:21.2 - Garret Zuk
2010 - 15:13.9 - Scott Albaugh
2009 - 15:28.5 - Mike Atchoo
2008 - 15:18.6 - Stephen Walker
2007 - 15:26.9 - Brian Hankins
2006 - 15:34.8 - David Emery
2005 - 15:34.3 - Ryan Grau
2004 - 15:22.2 - Justin Switzer
2003 - 14:54.4 - Dustin Voss
2002 - 15:18.8 - Chris Catton
2001 - 15:11.3 - Tim Moore
2000 - 14:10.4 - Dathan Ritzenhein
1999 - 15:05.0 - Dathan Ritzenhein
In 2020, Riley Hough & Hobbs Kessler ran the 2nd and 3rd fastest times ever (14:49, 14:51) behind Ritzenhein ... Not sure, but Grant Fisher may be next at 14:52.
Good runners have raced at Michigan State State Meet ... Foot Locker (Eastbay) winners include Riley Hough (2021), Grant Fisher (2013, 2014), Tim Moore (2001) and Dathan Ritzenhein (1999, 2000).
Grant Fisher caught a lousy weather day in 2013 ... Ritz had a fast course in 2000 (the next 3 fastest times that day were 15:02, 15:05 and 15:06 (Tim Moore - 8th at Foot Locker, 2nd at Foot Locker Midwest)).
Even when fast, this Michigan course is much slower than the RunningLane course.
Any hope of setting a "National XC Record" will always be limited to a very few exceptionally fast courses.
"Any hope of setting a "National XC Record" will always be limited to a very few exceptionally fast courses."
Will other XC meets want to capture the (imo misguided) press coverage of 'national record'?
Will there be a trend of people making faster, flatter, firmer courses?
So a pretty fast Michigan State Meet Course was 46 slower than Running Lane and UW Parkside in probably the best conditions ever was 39 slower than Running Lane at the East Bay Midwest Regional. Those numbers really make me wonder.
I could see Parkside and John Hunt about 45 seconds different.
And the talking point says the opposite of why people are mentioning it. In that example Runninglane ran only 24 seconds slower than the same runner on a mondo surface track with a pacer and a pacing light. That is really just further proof of how fast the course runs.
Anyway when you have the high number of PR times, over 70 boys running below 15, 20 girls running below 17, and the times related to speed ratings, and now a direct comparison with Balboa Park, of course it raises serious questions, especially on such a newly designed course. Maybe the idea of a XC national record is silly, but enough people and sites take it seriously that it took on a life of its own.
What are the serious questions?
blue man wrote:
Forerunner 45
Unless someone talks me out of it, will pick up a Garmin 245 this week. Looking forward to running some tests with it against my calibration courses (if the snow melts) and to compare it with some of my older gps units.
I read some review and it appears there are three satellite options? Are you using it right out of the box, or have you switched the satellite selection option?
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
So a pretty fast Michigan State Meet Course was 46 slower than Running Lane and UW Parkside in probably the best conditions ever was 39 slower than Running Lane at the East Bay Midwest Regional. Those numbers really make me wonder.
The method I use to determine difference in race speeds requires comparison of groups of runners adjusted by runner-to-runner comparison of runners of known ability.
With respect to the Ritz 2000 race at the Michigan State Meet versus RunningLane for the Boys in either 2020 or 2021 ... the difference is RunningLane was 30 seconds faster when applying all relevant data ... Just looking at the fastest finishers is often misleading.
BMeylan wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
So a pretty fast Michigan State Meet Course was 46 slower than Running Lane and UW Parkside in probably the best conditions ever was 39 slower than Running Lane at the East Bay Midwest Regional. Those numbers really make me wonder.
The method I use to determine difference in race speeds requires comparison of groups of runners adjusted by runner-to-runner comparison of runners of known ability.
With respect to the Ritz 2000 race at the Michigan State Meet versus RunningLane for the Boys in either 2020 or 2021 ... the difference is RunningLane was 30 seconds faster when applying all relevant data ... Just looking at the fastest finishers is often misleading.
Agreed!
Have you ever seen a State Meet, or Regional Meet, or National Meet where the majority have PRs, big PRs, larger than 30 seconds? Quality kids have been putting up quality times at these championship races then almost all have another performance peak two to four weeks after their prior lifetime bests? Seems sketchy.
Did you watch the BU 5k a few weeks ago? Professionals and college runners all were setting PRs and multiple national records were set. Yes several of the best times in the history of multiple countries were set in the same race. Impossible. Many guys ran faster than anyone was running in the entire NCAA 10 years ago somehow all doing it in the same race. Imagine if I was describing a XC race. And these weren't high schoolers. These are guys at the top of their game without room to improve. I was really disgusted watching it. It was sketchy. Why can't you guys enjoy the sport and go around proclaiming this as the best meet in history? No other meet comes close. But all you can do is complain about it.
blue man wrote:
Did you watch the BU 5k a few weeks ago? Professionals and college runners all were setting PRs and multiple national records were set. Yes several of the best times in the history of multiple countries were set in the same race. Impossible. Many guys ran faster than anyone was running in the entire NCAA 10 years ago somehow all doing it in the same race. Imagine if I was describing a XC race. And these weren't high schoolers. These are guys at the top of their game without room to improve. I was really disgusted watching it. It was sketchy. Why can't you guys enjoy the sport and go around proclaiming this as the best meet in history? No other meet comes close. But all you can do is complain about it.
You are missing the point.
How many of the professionals who have been racing at a high level all season, then at the Olympic trials almost everyone drops 30 seconds or MORE off their lifetime best 5000m times? How often does that happen?
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
blue man wrote:
Did you watch the BU 5k a few weeks ago? Professionals and college runners all were setting PRs and multiple national records were set. Yes several of the best times in the history of multiple countries were set in the same race. Impossible. Many guys ran faster than anyone was running in the entire NCAA 10 years ago somehow all doing it in the same race. Imagine if I was describing a XC race. And these weren't high schoolers. These are guys at the top of their game without room to improve. I was really disgusted watching it. It was sketchy. Why can't you guys enjoy the sport and go around proclaiming this as the best meet in history? No other meet comes close. But all you can do is complain about it.
You are missing the point.
How many of the professionals who have been racing at a high level all season, then at the Olympic trials almost everyone drops 30 seconds or MORE off their lifetime best 5000m times? How often does that happen?
Pros and HS are the same thing? Of course pros aren’t hitting 30 sec PRs in the 5K they have been racing the distance for many years and on the track. They aren’t going to the fastest course they have ever been on while still on the big upswing of their career in the first 1-4 years of the sport. HS and pros don’t improve at the same speed.
I saw the results of several hundred folks running a "10k" in Portland recently. The distances on their fancy watches ranged from 6.1 to 7.5 miles.
Who is one of the people or name of event so that we can check what happened? This meet had thousands of runners and everyone that I checked ranged from 3.11-3.15. Most were 3.12.
I didn't verify, but weren't 3 world records set and didn't 5 guys run faster than any runner in the entire NCAA did for the whole season 10 years ago? And almost everyone ran a PR. But Ward still thinks some American high schoolers running faster than the fastest American high schooler is more impressive on a what is clearly a faster XC course? A track is a track but those track results, oh well. Five guys who have never visited this course want really badly for it to be short rather than telling their kids or athletes or friends that the future of American running looks bright.
I predict that this is the new national championship so we will have a baseline. And I predict that the NP times will dominate that top 10 list 10 years from now.