JENNA MF HUTCHINS - Runs 15:58 - 1st US HS Girl To Break 16:00 in XC!!

Standard Setter wrote:

Here is a legit conversation with a D2 coach about this:

Me: Hutchins ran 15:58

D2: Course must be short.

Me: You just had your men do a 2-mile time trial, what do you think would equate for sub-16 in XC?

D2: About 10:10

Me: Okay. She's already run 9:47.

D2: Not all the same. There is a muscular aspect. One of my best post-collegians can outrun my guys over 10k, but they outrun her over a mile.

Me: Got it, so we think 15:58 probably is not representative of her true ability for 5K xc.

D2: Not, it's not the same. I haven't coached a sub-10:00 2mile girl so don't really know.

Wow.

Is it just me or does 10:10 not at all equate to sub 16?

We've had 20 boys be 10:10 or faster at our HS and only 1 break 16.

I guess we don't run XC on super fast courses like they do in the south tho.

Except she has run 9:47.

I was at the race and she looked perfectly healthy for an elite distance runner. Great biomechanics and looked comfortable the whole way.

This event was comparable to Terra Haute NCAA D1 Nat's atmosphere! Crowds were huge and the HS runners put on a show! Hopefully, this meet keeps the momentum and turns into the Go-to national meet for years to come.

Nonobo wrote:

This event was comparable to Terra Haute NCAA D1 Nat's atmosphere! Crowds were huge and the HS runners put on a show! Hopefully, this meet keeps the momentum and turns into the Go-to national meet for years to come.

I agree, the event was electric, it is no wonder the kids ran the way they did! The meet had all the ingredients for an amazing day!

I don't think High School kids visit LetsRun, but maybe some of their parents or coaches do. It would be great to get their perspective, would they come back to this versus some of the other options?

astro wrote:

No. It was explained that the second mile is rolling or undulating without any steep hills where a runner was expected to lose 10-15 seconds off the first mile time, that the first mile is downhill and the third mile involves a long downhill right to the final turn. That is what was explained and I don't think I am misstating anything. But whatever makes you happy.

From Bruce’s posts:

First mile: slight net downhill

Second mile: gently rolling, significant net uphill. 20ish seconds slower (for the top boys?) than the first mile

Third mile: climbs up fairly steeply (7%) then drops to bring you back down to the starting elevation

You seem dead-set on calling this a downhill course when it has been described as anything but. It is fast, despite the elevation, because it is wide, with gentle turns, well-groomed, and the surface happened to be near-perfect for this race. The crowd, deep and fast field, and lack of racing this season apparently didn’t hurt either.

So yes, you misstated several things in some bizarre attempt to discredit the achievement of a high school girl. Strange.

It's not a legit 5 km cross-country course!

Just like the New York Fifth Avenue mile is not a legit mile

I'm not trying to put you down or anyting the New York Fifth Avenue mile is still an awesome event I would run it if I had the chance to be an elite Runner

Just like I'm sure this was a really good event and it is a legit 5K course, it's just not comparable to a legit cross-country course in the traditional sense

And no one's being a hater but rather just keeping it real. A166 speed rating is something that has been bettered by about 10 other girl runners en probably 20 or 30 other occasions maybe a little more or a little less

It's no reason to like think that's some epic event just occurred. Sorry reality can be a real #@#@#

Whereas you seem deadset and committed to misstating the course description. The 2nd mile is described as rolling, a net uphill but no steep hills. The 3rd milr as have a long decline with 350 meters at a 3.5 percent grade, which you leaveout. Pot meet kettle. Anything else?

I think multiple people have already answered this question. It absolutely has. That was kind of the whole point of building this park.

I would guess the typical 10:10 2 mile athlete would do more like 16:10 or so for 5K.

FastTuohy wrote:

Indoor? wrote:

Is it just me or does 10:10 not at all equate to sub 16?

We've had 20 boys be 10:10 or faster at our HS and only 1 break 16.

I guess we don't run XC on super fast courses like they do in the south tho.

I would guess the typical 10:10 2 mile athlete would do more like 16:10 or so for 5K.

Not on grass. 10:10 = 16:20 on the track.

ContextisKing wrote:

It's not a legit 5 km cross-country course!

Just like the New York Fifth Avenue mile is not a legit mile

I'm not trying to put you down or anyting the New York Fifth Avenue mile is still an awesome event I would run it if I had the chance to be an elite Runner

Just like I'm sure this was a really good event and it is a legit 5K course, it's just not comparable to a legit cross-country course in the traditional sense

And no one's being a hater but rather just keeping it real. A166 speed rating is something that has been bettered by about 10 other girl runners en probably 20 or 30 other occasions maybe a little more or a little less

It's no reason to like think that's some epic event just occurred. Sorry reality can be a real #@#@#

Ok Mr. Context..... how many of these girls that have bettered the 166 speed rating have run 9:47 for 2 miles..... I'll be waiting right here.

Some 10:10 guys and girls only ran 17 minutes yesterday so I guess the course really is not very fast.

Here is some context. 15:58 would be good for ninth on the all time 5K track list.

And at least half of these were in races with non-HSers so if that bothers you can throw those out.

15:37.12i **Katelyn Tuohy (North Rockland, Thiells, New York) 2018

15:45.46 *Mary Cain (Bronxville, New York) 2013

15:48.91 Emily Sisson (Parkway Central, Chesterfield, Missouri) 2010

15:50.32 Cayla Hatton (Phillips, Andover, Massachusetts) 2012

15:52.88 Caitlin Chock (Granite Bay, California) 2004

15:55.75i Brie Oakley (Grandview, Centennial, Colorado) 2017

15:55.94 Wesley Frazier (Ravenscroft, Raleigh, North Carolina) 2013

15:56.84 Fiona O’Keeffe (Davis, California) 2016

16:00.4 Cathy Schiro (Dover, New Hampshire) 1985

16:08.83i **Weini Kelati’ (Heritage, Leesburg, Virginia) 2016

Being a loser must suck wrote:

It's a teenage girl distance runner. Are you seriously entertained by this? Women's sports are a joke, but can be entertaining if you need to laugh. Teenage women's distance running? A grown man getting excited over that? That's just borderline creepy.

Did it ever occur to you that women watch... women's sports too? If a HS guy ran sub 14 on an XC course the boards would be full of excitement and discussion, but somehow if a HS girl does a similar achievement, men are creepy for talking about it or giving it some hype? Let people enjoy the sport for what it is and root for all up and coming runners regardless of gender.

I myself used to be a "phenom" in my youth days and seeing what the newer generations of girls are doing nowadays makes me feel nothing but excitement and happiness seeing them find passion in something that can teach them so many life long lessons about themselves. I hope nothing but the best for Jenna and all the other HS girls out there killing it in this season filled with uncertainty. Seeing them succeed even in despite of everything that is going on in the world right now is worth getting excited about.

astro wrote:

No. It was explained that the second mile is rolling or undulating without any steep hills where a runner was expected to lose 10-15 seconds off the first mile time, that the first mile is downhill and the third mile involves a long downhill right to the final turn. That is what was explained and I don't think I am misstating anything. But whatever makes you happy.

You seem to be really stuck on discounting the performances from yesterday. Bruce didn’t give a meter by meter description nor should he have to. First mile is flat for 700 and then a decent downhill before a long section to the 2k where you run back up the same hill they ran down at 700. Just past the 2m, there is another downhill followed by a very tough uphill. That’s followed by a long gradual downhill and another small hill before you head into the finish area. It is a fast course, but by no means are the first and third miles all downhill. There are videos from the lead cart yesterday you can watch so you don’t have to take anyone’s word for it.

ContextisKing wrote:

Are all the people on this thread either someone that ran in the race or who is Kid did

I mean who in their right mind would think that times on a fast flat Golf Course is the same as a time on a tough cross country course

Do you think times run at Woodbridge when someone PRS by a minute is somehow reflective of their real ability.

Has anyone said this course is the same as a really tough course? Of course not. Several claimed it was short and when that was debunked, they shifted to claiming its mostly downhill which is also false. This is a legitimate, fast 5k course. As is the case with all xc courses, the only real comparison is to other times run on the same course.

We have one reliable method to give a comparison of cross-country performance, speed ratings!

Bill has been doing it for decades, he's well-respected, and you know what his number is almost always proved right when it comes around to track season cuz the guys with the highest speed ratings almost always had the best times on the track to match

Anyway if you want to do a mathematical analysis and show why he is wrong go for it but I basically trust his numbers and so do the majority of people who look at this stuff

And bottom line he gave it a 166. And that's all you need to know unless you're going to do some mathematical analysis

So we have that number and we had the fact that an ungodly amount of Runners got major PR in this race

And it almost definitely means it short because according to that the top girl runners would have been 33 and 42 seconds faster on this course

That means Amber Trotter would have run a 1516 on this course at her best. So we know the course is some combination of incredibly fast and or short.

It's not rocket science but rather basic math. If you want to argue it's wrong do it with math and statistical analysis like Bill does not with just random appeals to beside the point arguments

Bottom line the only thing anyone here knows for sure is that people ran a race and they got times. No one knows for sure the exact distance they ran and no one knows for sure the amount of effort it was greater than being on a track

So unless you want to come up with some actual evidence like going there with lasers and surveying The course or showing some satellite footage of the actual race

Or doing some statistical analysis like Bill does

The only thing that matters right now, and the only thing that has any actual evidence behind it is a 166 speed rating!!!