Sorry 167 speed rating. But doesn't change a whole lot
Sorry 167 speed rating. But doesn't change a whole lot
astro wrote:
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?
Huh? You asked if you misstated anything. I pointed out where you did (several times) using Bruce’s own words. Now you are attempting to deflect because I am not going into verbose description of the entire course. Nice try.
Remember, you are the one claiming this a ‘downhill course’ and that her performance was ‘pedestrian’. The onus is on you to prove that.
A wheel is more accurate than an analysis. The wheel said it is accurate. The designers of the course said it is accurate. Many 9:30 guys ran 15:30-16 minutes so no girls could run 15:16, silly.
H'm. We certainly would not want you to wax verbose.
So anyway, to quote the course description:
"The elevation is a very slight uphill towards the end of the starting straightaway where people are still in high gear, from the start, significant net downhill until about 2k,gently rolling hills until the 2 mile (this is no Griak, Mt. SAC, or Terre Haute...think a nicer version of the rollercoaster hills in the first and last mile of Woodward Park), a nice big downhill heading into the "big hill" with about 1700 to go, and an even bigger net downhill from there to finish (which is flat with the starting straightaway). When I was out there while sod was getting laid 18 months ago, a few other coaches and the city crew and I looked at that downhill and turned to each other and said "oh my, this last mile is going to be nuts". It's a 248m uphill maxing at a 7% grade followed by much longer downhill at 3.5% grade that continues to drop until the turn before the finish. "
And again:
"...the first mile is a little net downhill, the second is a significant net uphill (though rolling), and the last mile is a nice drop (particularly the 3.5% grade downhill from the approx. 3750m mark to the 4k post) to balance the total gain/loss out."
So correct me if I am wrong but that is downhill for the first mile, described alternatively as a significant net downhill until 2K or a little net downhill, but downhill in any case, gently rolling hills the 2nd mile, then in the 3rd mile a "big downhill" until about 1700 meters, a hill of 248m, and then "an even bigger net downhill from there to finish" and/or "followed by much longer downhill at 3.5% grade that continues to drop until the turn before the finish." He specifically wrote that "the last mile is a nice drop (particularly the 3.5% grade downhill from the approx. 3750m mark to the 4k post) to balance the total gain/loss out."
So what am I mischaracterizing? That is right from the horse's mouth. The first and 3rd miles are downhill and the 2nd mile has gentle rolling hills. That is why the splits show the runners losing 10-20 seconds the second mile then recovering the 3rd where they would normally be expected to slow down.
It sounds like a lot of folks on here just do not understand the sport of Cross Country.
Is that right? Only one (1) Olympian on that list? 10% chance of Olympic glory.
tracking wrote:
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
A record was set on a very fast course that was designed to be very fast. Not sure why that bothers people. Still goes in the books.
astro wrote:
A record was set on a very fast course that was designed to be very fast. Not sure why that bothers people.
You seem to be pretty bothered.
TN runner1 wrote:
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.
What do you mean debunked?? Everything that people have said about the measurement has pretty much proved that it was short. There have been several people pointing out that the GPS watches in the race are giving measurements that are right around 3.11 miles. This proves the course is short. There are some people that want to believe that GPS watches will produce very accurate measurements for XC courses, but this is just not the case. The vast majority of watches are going to give a measurement that is significantly longer than the actual distance. You always have that one guy that will come in and say their GPS watch measures short but they are very much the minority. The vast majority of kids that we coach have worn GPS watches for at least 10 years now and they ALWAYS give measurements that are longer than the actual distance. Any time that people are saying that a course is "lightning" fast, you can pretty much take it to the bank that the course is short. This doesn't mean that these kids ran slow or that they are not any good, it just means that they didn't run a 5k XC race. They ran a race that was close to 5k. No big deal.
Hutchins' watch measured her run as 3.13.
tracking wrote:
Hutchins' watch measured her run as 3.13.
EXCATLY. A true 5k would show up on a watch as much closer to 3.2. That proves the course was short.
Don Mauer wrote:
tracking wrote:
Hutchins' watch measured her run as 3.13.
EXCATLY. A true 5k would show up on a watch as much closer to 3.2. That proves the course was short.
You're an idiot and know nothing about running or GPS technology! I could literally link you dozens of Strava runs of mine on USATF Certified 5ks where they have NEVER measured over 3.15. If you are out front and can run the tangents you will be very close to the actually distance! Jenna ran the perfect race!
Stay Salty that you didn't bring your kid here or you didn't come, or whatever you about bitter about!
When a record gets set it is normal to discuss its merits. Here the course seemed blazing fast with 32 sub 15 times in the race and Hutchins run was speed rated at 166 after 160 in the boys race yielded 16 flat and a 167 at the Southern Showcase came out to around 15:45. That prompted speculation about the course and we got our answes.
astro wrote:So what am I mischaracterizing? That is right from the horse's mouth. The first and 3rd miles are downhill and the 2nd mile has gentle rolling hills. That is why the splits show the runners losing 10-20 seconds the second mile then recovering the 3rd where they would normally be expected to slow down.
You have called the course: farcical, excessively fast, and primarily downhill.
Those are all mischaracterizations. A non-net-downhill course simply cannot be ‘primarily downhill’. That all or most of the elevation gain happens in one of three miles is irrelevant. You wouldn’t call going up and down a mountain primarily downhill just because the path going up was shorter than the path coming down, or would you?
I have no idea what you mean by ‘farcical’ but the course is not paved and neither net-downhill nor flat so I am not sure how you can claim it is ‘excessively fast’ other than simply because you don’t like the times posted or the competitors.
You have also called the performance ‘pedestrian’ and ‘good but not great’ based on the speed rating. It has been explained to you why the SR is lower than it might otherwise have been but you haven’t really acknowledged that as you keep mentioning the ‘low’ rating and Tuohy’s higher ratings on different course.
Why isn't anyone talking about some of the ELITE male times and how we can use them to legitimize the course and accept that it is just super fast. Parker Wolfe PRd by 4 seconds. His previous time came at altitude. So noone thinks he could shave 4 seconds at sea level with outstanding competition?
Let's also look at the young lady who finished 7th, Sophia Gorriaran in 17:20. She has a track PR of 2:03 in the 800 and this was only her 5th or 6th XC race ever.
All of these athletes ran times that are well within their ability level!
Race to top wrote:
Some 10:10 guys and girls only ran 17 minutes yesterday so I guess the course really is not very fast.
The course is definitely really fast. Every guy from my school that ran had a huge PR. We had one guy go from 16:15 to 15:50, and another went from 16:40 to 16:09. Another went from 16:40 to 16:15. They signed up for Huntsville specifically to get a fast time because it's the fastest course near here.
Race to top wrote:
Some 10:10 guys and girls only ran 17 minutes yesterday so I guess the course really is not very fast.
That is about right adjusting for track to grass (about 30 sec slower), plus high schoolers tend to perform better at shorter distance.
Course not short, I've wheeled it and measured it with my Forerunner a few times including last week. Obviously such a wide starting line determines actual distance raced. My measurements were actually 5250 meters from starting box 1, and 5025 meters from the center starting boxes. I measured 1-2 feet from inside line and took proper tangents on the turns. We practice on course 1-2 times a week, all 1000 meter poles are accurate as well. Course was a golf course until a few years ago and is very hard at this time of year and groomed great. Bermuda grass mowed to fairway length and weather was perfect Saturday with no wind. Last 1200 meters is slight gradual downhill as is first 1000 meters of race. Biggest hill comes after 2 mile mark and is about 150 meter climb. I had 3 runners in race including one who pr'd by 9 seconds. Teams from altitude won the team titles.
Interesting - 25 meter difference between starting boxes.
Why don't organizers use a curved starting line to ensure that all of the runners run the same distance?
I see the LetRun denizens are reacting exactly how everyone would predict they would react to this: trying hard to pick it apart and attach an asterix to it. I especially love the angry shouting of "a measuring instrument showing it wasnt short PROVES it was short!!" Get serious... It wasnt short. It was definitely a fast course. But who cares. There have been plenty of races on plenty of fast (and faster) courses but no one else has run any of them as fast as this kid did. So give her her due. A "fast course" doesnt impact the legitimacy of the effort. She was given the opportunity to do what no one else has done and she succeeded. I respect those people who had the only correct response to what Hutchins did: "Wow." And maybe "Nice job." Everything else is just ungracious irrelevant grandstanding and pedantic bogus over analysis.