blue man wrote:
I am surprised that they didn't drop more time. I have run both courses and would expect as much as a 1 minute drop.
So you think Hough could run faster than 13:49 on the track right now?!?
blue man wrote:
I am surprised that they didn't drop more time. I have run both courses and would expect as much as a 1 minute drop.
So you think Hough could run faster than 13:49 on the track right now?!?
The course is ratified as a 5k, but does run short. The reason for this is because the course was designed on a previous golf course with a wide width. Although the official measurement is a 5k that is if you ran in the middle of the course the entire time. The course is much shorter if ran on the inner portion of the course and running each of the turns tangents. GPS will always be off here due to this issue. While there, multiple runners watches listed 3.15 through 5k while others listed up to 2.97 while running. Go back and watch the race, determine how wide the course is and watch the turns. It’s not that hard to understand folks!
Pull up those results, neither of them ran faster?
Making up facts is sad. Jennas PR came from here. I know you want your time to count but sorry man!
He seems to be better at XC so I doubt it but close. I would estimate 13:55.
Eastbay Midwest is a slower course with a less elite field so obviously the times are slower! The google doc on this website gives a good explanation of the course.
True 5k wrote:
https://runsignup.com/Race/AL/Huntsville/HSXCRaceEastbay Midwest is a slower course with a less elite field so obviously the times are slower! The google doc on this website gives a good explanation of the course.
Certainly you agree that plenty of Elite HS runners have ran at FL MW in the past, and even this year, right?
I see nothing on the website/google doc on how the course was measured.
LogicIsHard wrote:
The course is ratified as a 5k, but does run short. The reason for this is because the course was designed on a previous golf course with a wide width. Although the official measurement is a 5k that is if you ran in the middle of the course the entire time. The course is much shorter if ran on the inner portion of the course and running each of the turns tangents. GPS will always be off here due to this issue. While there, multiple runners watches listed 3.15 through 5k while others listed up to 2.97 while running. Go back and watch the race, determine how wide the course is and watch the turns. It’s not that hard to understand folks!
That would make a lot of sense and was what I thought may have been the case, and was the way course used to be measured. Probably why another poster said he wheeled it 75m short.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
LogicIsHard wrote:
The course is ratified as a 5k, but does run short. The reason for this is because the course was designed on a previous golf course with a wide width. Although the official measurement is a 5k that is if you ran in the middle of the course the entire time. The course is much shorter if ran on the inner portion of the course and running each of the turns tangents. GPS will always be off here due to this issue. While there, multiple runners watches listed 3.15 through 5k while others listed up to 2.97 while running. Go back and watch the race, determine how wide the course is and watch the turns. It’s not that hard to understand folks!
That would make a lot of sense and was what I thought may have been the case, and was the way course used to be measured. Probably why another poster said he wheeled it 75m short.
None of that is true. The course was not designed around a center line. I live in Huntsville and run the course as a hobby jogger regularly, I have never wheeled it but I can say with 100% certainty that I've never had my Garmin Fenix 5x measure less than 3.11, and never longer than 3.17.
As many others have mentioned, look to the people that ran faster on the track last year, also think about what theses guys did a Woodbridge MONTHS ago, you mean to tell me they can't improve a few seconds?
inside scoop wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
That would make a lot of sense and was what I thought may have been the case, and was the way course used to be measured. Probably why another poster said he wheeled it 75m short.
None of that is true. The course was not designed around a center line. I live in Huntsville and run the course as a hobby jogger regularly, I have never wheeled it but I can say with 100% certainty that I've never had my Garmin Fenix 5x measure less than 3.11, and never longer than 3.17.
As many others have mentioned, look to the people that ran faster on the track last year, also think about what theses guys did a Woodbridge MONTHS ago, you mean to tell me they can't improve a few seconds?
Do they have it painted year round? Why so much of a variance in your gps readings? What's the distance, and what is footing like at Woodbridge?
The footing is very firm... even yesterday when there was some mud. It doesn't have any sharp turns and the one hill is gradual and the finish is downhill. I've run it twice (once easy, one race) and it appears to be a legit 5000 meters.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
Do they have it painted year round? Why so much of a variance in your gps readings?
Brojos need to do an intervention with the user base. Perhaps each user has to complete video tests. These people are absolute morons!
True 5k wrote:
The RunningLane website gives a detailed explanation of how the course was measured.
This does not exist.
You are going to be banned. Grouping people together due to where they live is like doing it based on race or gender or age.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
inside scoop wrote:
None of that is true. The course was not designed around a center line. I live in Huntsville and run the course as a hobby jogger regularly, I have never wheeled it but I can say with 100% certainty that I've never had my Garmin Fenix 5x measure less than 3.11, and never longer than 3.17.
As many others have mentioned, look to the people that ran faster on the track last year, also think about what theses guys did a Woodbridge MONTHS ago, you mean to tell me they can't improve a few seconds?
Do they have it painted year round? Why so much of a variance in your gps readings? What's the distance, and what is footing like at Woodbridge?
LOL. Woodbridge is short also. Everyone knows that. Can't believe people keep using that as proof of anything.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
inside scoop wrote:
None of that is true. The course was not designed around a center line. I live in Huntsville and run the course as a hobby jogger regularly, I have never wheeled it but I can say with 100% certainty that I've never had my Garmin Fenix 5x measure less than 3.11, and never longer than 3.17.
As many others have mentioned, look to the people that ran faster on the track last year, also think about what theses guys did a Woodbridge MONTHS ago, you mean to tell me they can't improve a few seconds?
Do they have it painted year round? Why so much of a variance in your gps readings? What's the distance, and what is footing like at Woodbridge?
Yes the course is painted year round and the variance is because I purposely don't run the tangents all the time to rest the grass on the inside.
As for the $0.02 person. They should be banned I've seen this person's posts and it is nothing but hate and vitreol, yet the Bros do nothing. Must say I'm not really surprised.
$0.02 just mad they chose the wrong horse by backing NXR or Eastbay.
inside scoop wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
Do they have it painted year round? Why so much of a variance in your gps readings? What's the distance, and what is footing like at Woodbridge?
Yes the course is painted year round and the variance is because I purposely don't run the tangents all the time to rest the grass on the inside.
As for the $0.02 person. They should be banned I've seen this person's posts and it is nothing but hate and vitreol, yet the Bros do nothing. Must say I'm not really surprised.
$0.02 just mad they chose the wrong horse by backing NXR or Eastbay.
Good info. When you do run the tangents, how close to the painted lines do you run?
Steel Tapeless wrote:
inside scoop wrote:
Yes the course is painted year round and the variance is because I purposely don't run the tangents all the time to rest the grass on the inside.
As for the $0.02 person. They should be banned I've seen this person's posts and it is nothing but hate and vitreol, yet the Bros do nothing. Must say I'm not really surprised.
$0.02 just mad they chose the wrong horse by backing NXR or Eastbay.
Good info. When you do run the tangents, how close to the painted lines do you run?
I essentially treat it like a track, I'm sure I've even been on the line, but the course is not always in this good condition. The city as mentioned in another post somewhere brought out rollers this week and were smoothing all the ruts and divots. Which made the ground even firmer than usual. It's always a fast course, but the course prep along with the competition, atmosphere, and weather made for a special day. That is just my opinion.
I thought this was great interview which happened right after the finish, which gives everyone an idea of how electric it was.
https://youtu.be/0Ml2UiXHgCgSteel Tapeless wrote:
well not really wrote:
One of the course measurers I know in New England actually walks the bike surprisingly straight. He is really good at it. He always follows the tangents and is extremely meticulous. I helped him measure a difficult course once and we actually used a 200' hand tape for any section that he did not feel the wheels were going to be accurate. Our RI state meet course, Ocean State course, and a course in East Greenwhich RI were all measured this way.
They use a bike with the counter on a steel measured 1000 meters just prior to measuring so that tire pressure in not an anomaly on that day. They measure backwards and forwards. If it is off by a certain percentage, they do it all over again until they get it right.
I have a workout spot for my team in a park and I measured it with my assistant coach with a similar tape measure for a 1k loop. It can be done. Honestly, if I was hosting a meet of this caliber, I would have done it manually. It would take me about 3 hours and well worth doing.
What are your situations that you used hand tape instead of the Jones Counter? Does RI have language on course measuring - such as how close to measure to course boundaries? If not, how are you handling that process?
The course I helped measure was a dual meet type course and had a couple of insane inclines and small stream crossing.
For the other courses I mention I believe they were done entirely with the jones counter. They used the standard road racing measurement guidelines measuring the tangents of the course.
high school xc coach wrote:
yes. and it would have been easy.
I've never watched any of Ritz's races, and it's possible he could've one today, but with the finishing speed of Newbury park, I bet it would've at least been close
1 post was removed from this page.