Provide 3. The Hunt course info has been posted and is readily available. 90% of state courses and every other national course move every year. They are not dedicated courses which means that the line and cones at Balboa can never be set at the same spots. But I will wait for the detailed course info describing the course, how laid out, surface description, detailed map, elevation. Etc.
Are you David45? You sound just like him.
Yes people in the back run faster in competitive races. Check results of BU. Check results of Arcadia. Runners who are 30 seconds back are running PRs. This data is readily available.
The ground was soft but it was like running on a golf green after rain. It is absolutely perfect just a bit softer than usual. So instead of being like a polyurethane track, it ran like a rubber track.
We ran races this year at 85 degrees. We ran at 35 degrees. We ran in rain. We rain in snow. We ran in wind. We ran in high humidity. You don't know what good conditions are? Check the fast track meets. They try to run fast 5ks at 65 with no wind.
Sweeping turns are faster for everyone. Imagine a bunch of 90 degree turns for a mid pack runner.
Hills are slower than a track. That is why runners have been 30 seconds slower on this course than on a track. You thought hills made a course faster? But a slight net downhill helps.
blue man wrote:
The only ones who have to prove anything are the ones questioning the meet directors and course designers.
No. Anyone saying that a “national record” was run on Hunt is the one who has to justify that claim by providing an accurate course length. The meet directors provided two wheeled measurements that came up short and long with 31 meters between the two. This casts enough doubt about the course length to make claims of a record dubious. I do not think the meet directors have claimed a national record though. Others are doing that.
No. Nobody has to prove it to you. You have been unsuccessful in getting any of the sources to retract their articles or claims for 13 months now so you are obviously the one who has to do something if you want the records not to count. That ship has sailed. Letsrun declared it a National Record. Yet you are arguing on their website against random posters instead of taking it up with the Website.
The meet directors are well aware of the controversy and may look into measuring the course with more accuracy, either using a Jones counter or by tape. I made the case that hiring the people at YourTimePlus to measure the course with a tape was the best way to go. That might happen and it might not. While we wait the course is there and others are free to measure it and report what they find.
So far we have an unregistered user with a troll name (bald loser) claiming a tape measurement of 5003 meters with no supporting information. Mr. loser also thinks that hundreds of measurements using inferior equipment showing course lengths differing by nearly 100 meters somehow mean we already have a definitive answer. We have to do better than this.
blue man wrote:
Are you David45? You sound just like him.
When have you heard me sing? Not David45, maybe that was D.Katz in a prior handle?
Yes people in the back run faster in competitive races. Check results of BU. Check results of Arcadia. Runners who are 30 seconds back are running PRs. This data is readily available.
I was speaking about the Hunt Course. Where are the biggest PRs coming from? With all that data do you not see trends that indicate the possibility for a short course?
The ground was soft but it was like running on a golf green after rain. It is absolutely perfect just a bit softer than usual. So instead of being like a polyurethane track, it ran like a rubber track.
Isn't polyurethane a rubber track? Did you mean Mondo for a faster surface? Did the moisture not make the surface slightly slower than a firm, dry course? Was the ground wet enough to cause shoes to gain moisture?
We ran races this year at 85 degrees. We ran at 35 degrees. We ran in rain. We rain in snow. We ran in wind. We ran in high humidity. You don't know what good conditions are? Check the fast track meets. They try to run fast 5ks at 65 with no wind. Okay. So what was perfect about the day of the Garmin Meet? I personally think 65 is too warm, but that's just me.
Sweeping turns are faster for everyone.
Sure, but less turns would be better for everyone, right?
Imagine a bunch of 90 degree turns for a mid pack runner.
Yep, that would definitely be slower.
Hills are slower than a track.
Thanks for acknowledging that...many won't!
That is why runners have been 30 seconds slower on this course than on a track.
How many data points do you have to back that up?
You thought hills made a course faster?
Nope, unless all down hill.
But a slight net downhill helps.
Certainly it can.
Replies in bold
Gault already wrote a follow-up article on LRC that cast doubt on 'national record'. So by your logic, Letsrun has retracted the earlier declaration.
DiscoGary wrote:
The meet directors are well aware of the controversy and may look into measuring the course with more accuracy, either using a Jones counter or by tape. I made the case that hiring the people at YourTimePlus to measure the course with a tape was the best way to go. That might happen and it might not. While we wait the course is there and others are free to measure it and report what they find.
So far we have an unregistered user with a troll name (bald loser) claiming a tape measurement of 5003 meters with no supporting information. Mr. loser also thinks that hundreds of measurements using inferior equipment showing course lengths differing by nearly 100 meters somehow mean we already have a definitive answer. We have to do better than this.
If you hear that your recommended crew will measure that course let us know. I would like to go down when they are there and do some comparisons of various measuring apparatus I have. I have spoken with numerous coaches and the majority want two or three feet as the inside dimension on SPR. Most of them have attended meets with fencing like at Terre Haute and feel 30cm is impossible to run when fencing or fans crowd the boundaries. Most meets it would not be an issue and we feel even if the language changes, few will adjust their courses.
monguse wrote:
No. Nobody has to prove it to you. You have been unsuccessful in getting any of the sources to retract their articles or claims for 13 months now so you are obviously the one who has to do something if you want the records not to count. That ship has sailed. Letsrun declared it a National Record. Yet you are arguing on their website against random posters instead of taking it up with the Website.
I've been here for about 13 days. I have not tried to get any sources to retract anything, but Letsrun already ran an article casting doubt on the course length. I want the records to count, but know that they won't if we don't have an accurate measurement. I have done more than argue with posters on this forum.
The only thing you might have gotten right is that they might not think they have to prove it to me. My ultimate goal is to know for myself what really happened, so if I am not satisfied that the course has been measured accurately, then at some point I will go down there and do it. And if I come back here and report the course measures 4935 meters with a tape, well, that would put a big anvil on one side of the scale and force a lot of people into action. So yes, I believe they do have to prove it to me.
blue man wrote:
Provide 3. The Hunt course info has been posted and is readily available. 90% of state courses and every other national course move every year. They are not dedicated courses which means that the line and cones at Balboa can never be set at the same spots. But I will wait for the detailed course info describing the course, how laid out, surface description, detailed map, elevation. Etc.
You bring up some great points and why even course records in CC are rarely reliable. You also validate why a post race measurement MUST be done in a proper way with proper equipment anytime a record is claimed, right?
If the Newbury Park guys would have went to the Eastbay National Meet and three of their guys broke 14:00, I would have wanted to know what changes were done to the Balboa Course and ask who measured it and all that goes with that...just like I think the same should be done in Huntsville.
I read the articles several times. They posted an article that declared it a national record. They wrote another article never saying anything about the record. It asked if the course was accurate. They stated that the meet director used tow wheels which averaged out to 5k and they mentioned that the course designer had wheeled the course 100 times. It also talked about 1 other person wheeling the course and coming up with a measurement that would be 6 seconds short. I ended my reading with the article as confirming it accurate for a cross country course. So if you think it cast doubt on their declared record, you are in the minority. Everyone that I have talked to who is not anonymous has recognized it as the record, especially after reading the Gault article. That is what the people who were not at the meet were looking for in order to give them a bit of reassurance.
The GPS measurements were amazingly accurate and consistent. They differed in length based on where the runners ran on the course primarily due to where they were in the pack. You can view measurements from the day prior also for runners when they were able to run closer to the line.
J Gault gave final word in his article, to noted expert measurer Katz.
“There will never be real credibility for any XC record from course to course until the courses are measured the same way,” Katz writes. “You can disagree until the cows come home but this is fundamental for records. And that my friends is one of the reasons why there are no USATF or World Athletics cross country records.”
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
The meet directors are well aware of the controversy and may look into measuring the course with more accuracy, either using a Jones counter or by tape. I made the case that hiring the people at YourTimePlus to measure the course with a tape was the best way to go. That might happen and it might not. While we wait the course is there and others are free to measure it and report what they find.
So far we have an unregistered user with a troll name (bald loser) claiming a tape measurement of 5003 meters with no supporting information. Mr. loser also thinks that hundreds of measurements using inferior equipment showing course lengths differing by nearly 100 meters somehow mean we already have a definitive answer. We have to do better than this.
If you hear that your recommended crew will measure that course let us know. I would like to go down when they are there and do some comparisons of various measuring apparatus I have. I have spoken with numerous coaches and the majority want two or three feet as the inside dimension on SPR. Most of them have attended meets with fencing like at Terre Haute and feel 30cm is impossible to run when fencing or fans crowd the boundaries. Most meets it would not be an issue and we feel even if the language changes, few will adjust their courses.
If YourTimePlus is going to measure the course then I will probably hear about it before hand. If so, then I will ask them if they want people to witness the effort, and I hope they say yes, because watching them measure Detweiller is what converted me. Ideally it would turn into a measure-fest like Detweiller which would create another group of tape measuring believers.
As far as the turn clearance distance, I think we should stick with the USATF rule of 12"/30cm for a couple of reasons. One, its already in the USATF rule book. Two, we can not create a rule for where the runners DO run, we create a rule for the shortest possible route they COULD run. In general the only way to run the SPR on a course with a tight turn is to slow way down so you don't swing wide. Runners don't do that, but we don't change the rules because of it. Again, as long as the radius clearance is consistent, then it doesn't matter much what someone uses. We can adjust the numbers after the fact to match whatever radius becomes the standard.
hunt the big game wrote:
The GPS measurements were amazingly accurate and consistent. They differed in length based on where the runners ran on the course primarily due to where they were in the pack. You can view measurements from the day prior also for runners when they were able to run closer to the line.
How do you know they were accurate? You are making the case that they were precise.
Sort of. The next sentence on that site says "Discuss this story on the LetsRun.com messageboard: MB Is the RunningLane Course 5K? Or Is It Short?" And look what it has done. Their article declaring it as the record still exists and is being referenced everywhere. The article discussing the course length has been forgotten by everyone except the handful of you who want the course length to be questioned. If you want to latch onto a statement that there are no national records, then you should not care if the course was short. The handful of guys questioning the length are the same ones claiming that national records are not valid regardless of course length. So I remain confused about what the investment in certifying it would accomplish.
hunt the big game wrote:
I read the articles several times.
Why? Did anythiung change from the first time you read it?
They posted an article that declared it a national record. They wrote another article never saying anything about the record. It asked if the course was accurate. They stated that the meet director used tow wheels which averaged out to 5k and they mentioned that the course designer had wheeled the course 100 times.
Did anyone consider how those two measurements could be off that much? Did they say how close to the inside boundaries they wheeled? Why would anyone wheel a permeant course 100 times? Did they get a drastically different distance each time? That alone, to me, casts doubt on their credibility.
It also talked about 1 other person wheeling the course and coming up with a measurement that would be 6 seconds short. No, that was based on a conversion for a recalibration on another stretch of short grass in a different state which is no way to verify the accuracy of his wheel to the degree presented.
I ended my reading with the article as confirming it accurate for a cross country course.
Definitely accurate enough for a cross country course, but what is the actual course distance?
So if you think it cast doubt on their declared record, you are in the minority.
That's funny, everyone I talk to is highly skeptical. That many PRs and so many big PRs is a huge red flag, but it could be on, or even long, but until properly measured we will never know for sure.
Everyone that I have talked to who is not anonymous has recognized it as the record, especially after reading the Gault article. That is what the people who were not at the meet were looking for in order to give them a bit of reassurance.
You know way more trusting souls than I do!
Replies in bold
lifetime brand wrote:
J Gault gave final word in his article, to noted expert measurer Katz.
“There will never be real credibility for any XC record from course to course until the courses are measured the same way,” Katz writes. “You can disagree until the cows come home but this is fundamental for records. And that my friends is one of the reasons why there are no USATF or World Athletics cross country records.”
Exactly, and the most accurate way to measure a turf course is by tape. That's why I hope the tape measuring guys go to Hunt, and that Dr. Katz brings his best Jones counter gear so we get to see which of those two methods works best. As far as I know, neither has been done yet.
The only reason we have a certified record for the marathon is that the length is certified. Everyone knows that courses differ in difficulty, but we don't give up on the idea of a record. We make some rules about finishing very near the start, and then everyone knows that if they want to set a record they have to prepare for one of the fast courses.
Now we have many saying that a record has been set without a course measuring standard. It can be done and I'm making the case that the standard should be the tape.
DiscoGary wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
If you hear that your recommended crew will measure that course let us know. I would like to go down when they are there and do some comparisons of various measuring apparatus I have. I have spoken with numerous coaches and the majority want two or three feet as the inside dimension on SPR. Most of them have attended meets with fencing like at Terre Haute and feel 30cm is impossible to run when fencing or fans crowd the boundaries. Most meets it would not be an issue and we feel even if the language changes, few will adjust their courses.
If YourTimePlus is going to measure the course then I will probably hear about it before hand. If so, then I will ask them if they want people to witness the effort, and I hope they say yes, because watching them measure Detweiller is what converted me. Ideally it would turn into a measure-fest like Detweiller which would create another group of tape measuring believers.
As far as the turn clearance distance, I think we should stick with the USATF rule of 12"/30cm for a couple of reasons. One, its already in the USATF rule book. Two, we can not create a rule for where the runners DO run, we create a rule for the shortest possible route they COULD run. In general the only way to run the SPR on a course with a tight turn is to slow way down so you don't swing wide. Runners don't do that, but we don't change the rules because of it. Again, as long as the radius clearance is consistent, then it doesn't matter much what someone uses. We can adjust the numbers after the fact to match whatever radius becomes the standard.
First we need to pick one 30cm or 12". They are not the same - 61cm or 24" would be better just because they are more consistent with each other. I truly understand the shortest possible route, but again, with the fencing at courses like Terre Haute, it is impossible to put your left foot 30cm from the inside line and not be hitting the fence with your shoulder elbow, right? So... maybe we need language like we have when measuring a track?
You are funny. How about I send you an article that includes various numbers and I allow you to read it once and then I give you a 20 question quiz. The average person like me would get 10 correct, a smart person would get 15, and maybe a smarty pants like you would get 18. That is why I read the article several times. I attended a conference with 1000 coaches after the Garmin meet. Coaches talked about the meet at breaks and in the evening. All coaches accepted the times and distance and were focused on speculating how fast the guys would run in track. Most were predicting 30-40 seconds faster on a track.