Nike is knocking wrote:
This course has no real turns while Detweiller has several turns around posts. Wile was the top IL finisher at RunningLane. He ran 14;19 at state and 14:48 here. He got beat by over 40 seconds. Sahlman would have run 13:40 at Detweiller.
:29 for 2.977 to 3.11?
Remember that it's never as bad as you think it will be.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
and here I thought you maybe were Gary Hill from Track & Field News!
Thanks for your contribution to the measuring project at Detweiller! Looks like one in your crew wasn't happy with your findings!!
You're welcome. It was a satisfying day because when we finished all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. All the anecdotal stories mixed with the detailed descriptions of course changes, rule changes, and everything else that went into the discussion all made sense and all the conspiracy theories vanished. I laughed my ass off when the old course measurement came very close to the existing course. It was well within the margin of error for measuring a 35 year old course and it would mean that we could not say who ran the fastest time. It was the best way to end it.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
This debate is unfolding the same way the Detweiller discussion went. As the debate raged, the heavy hitters started weighing in. Hopefully it will end the same way, but I won't be there.
How do you calibrate a walking wheel? Steel tape.
How do you calibrate a Jones counter? Steel tape.
How do you verify a GPS measurement? Steel tape.
Steel tape is the gold standard, so for less than $100 in equipment and a few hours slogging around the course we can get the best measurement possible. Why bother with any other method?
As far as records are concerned, if all top performances are measured with a tape, then at least the course length variable can be taken out of the "record" discussion, and it would certainly make a course record meaningful. Everyone knows that some courses run slow and others run fast but we still talk about the fastest time ever run. Again, that only becomes ~meaningful if we know the course lengths to a high degree of accuracy... which we can know.
Now... who's going to do this?
A crew would be needed, otherwise someone like me reporting 4921m, 4919m, and 4918m would just get ridiculed like back with the Detweiller Debate.
Depending on when others could meet, I would be willing to fly down and help.
That's why we need two teams if all involved are rookies. If two independent teams each measured twice and all four measurements came within a few meters, then I think everyone would be satisfied. I would be.
If anyone does this, don't get a 100 meter tape. Use 50 or 60 meters. the longer tape is too hard to manipulate, easier to damage, and screaming at someone a football field away gets old real fast.
Thank you for the link.
I just spent a few hours studying the course and doing a handful of measurements with Google Earth.
Observations:
- Congratulations to the organizers and venue operators. Not too many XC courses that can easily be identified so clearly which makes it easy to measure with Google Earth.
- Without ever being there in person, this appears to be a very well manicured course that could possible yield times comparable to a road course especially if it's rolled and dry - plus the athletes have the ability to wear spikes but who really knows in this world of super shoes. Some might argue that this isn't really what a XC should be.
- The course appears to be lightning fast with long straights and rounded turns.
- Because of the long straights and rounded turns it would be a challenge to measure the long diagonal tangents and maintaining the required distance on turns. But it can be done, just would take time.
- Add the fast course to a highly competitive race with athletes of similar abilities pushing each other and you get fast times. I remember being interviewed after the 2011 Boston Marathon when Geoffrey Mutai set a course record (and the fastest time marathon time ever) of 2:03:02 where the reporter wanted me to focus on the course. I asked him why do you think Mutai ran so fast? The reporter said because it's a downhill & point to point course. I said - that's how fast he needed to run to beat second place - Moses Mosop who was just a few seconds behind him!
Now for the results of my Google Earth measurements:
Follow the shortest possible route (SPR) directly on the line (not really possible) = 4942 meters
Approximately 30 cm out (this is hard to achieve but close) + SPR= 4955 meters
Approximately 1 meter + SPR = 4967 meters
Ted Corbitt's "prudent path" - not the actual SPR but a few meters out= 4981 meters
Down the middle of the course = 5000 meters +
D.Katz wrote:
Thank you for the link.
I just spent a few hours studying the course and doing a handful of measurements with Google Earth.
Observations:
- Congratulations to the organizers and venue operators. Not too many XC courses that can easily be identified so clearly which makes it easy to measure with Google Earth.
- Without ever being there in person, this appears to be a very well manicured course that could possible yield times comparable to a road course especially if it's rolled and dry - plus the athletes have the ability to wear spikes but who really knows in this world of super shoes. Some might argue that this isn't really what a XC should be.
- The course appears to be lightning fast with long straights and rounded turns.
- Because of the long straights and rounded turns it would be a challenge to measure the long diagonal tangents and maintaining the required distance on turns. But it can be done, just would take time.
- Add the fast course to a highly competitive race with athletes of similar abilities pushing each other and you get fast times. I remember being interviewed after the 2011 Boston Marathon when Geoffrey Mutai set a course record (and the fastest time marathon time ever) of 2:03:02 where the reporter wanted me to focus on the course. I asked him why do you think Mutai ran so fast? The reporter said because it's a downhill & point to point course. I said - that's how fast he needed to run to beat second place - Moses Mosop who was just a few seconds behind him!
Now for the results of my Google Earth measurements:
Follow the shortest possible route (SPR) directly on the line (not really possible) = 4942 meters
Approximately 30 cm out (this is hard to achieve but close) + SPR= 4955 meters
Approximately 1 meter + SPR = 4967 meters
Ted Corbitt's "prudent path" - not the actual SPR but a few meters out= 4981 meters
Down the middle of the course = 5000 meters +
What's the margin of error?
D.Katz wrote:
Thank you for the link.
I just spent a few hours studying the course and doing a handful of measurements with Google Earth.
Observations:
- Congratulations to the organizers and venue operators. Not too many XC courses that can easily be identified so clearly which makes it easy to measure with Google Earth.
- Without ever being there in person, this appears to be a very well manicured course that could possible yield times comparable to a road course especially if it's rolled and dry - plus the athletes have the ability to wear spikes but who really knows in this world of super shoes. Some might argue that this isn't really what a XC should be.
- The course appears to be lightning fast with long straights and rounded turns.
- Because of the long straights and rounded turns it would be a challenge to measure the long diagonal tangents and maintaining the required distance on turns. But it can be done, just would take time.
- Add the fast course to a highly competitive race with athletes of similar abilities pushing each other and you get fast times. I remember being interviewed after the 2011 Boston Marathon when Geoffrey Mutai set a course record (and the fastest time marathon time ever) of 2:03:02 where the reporter wanted me to focus on the course. I asked him why do you think Mutai ran so fast? The reporter said because it's a downhill & point to point course. I said - that's how fast he needed to run to beat second place - Moses Mosop who was just a few seconds behind him!
Now for the results of my Google Earth measurements:
Follow the shortest possible route (SPR) directly on the line (not really possible) = 4942 meters
Approximately 30 cm out (this is hard to achieve but close) + SPR= 4955 meters
Approximately 1 meter + SPR = 4967 meters
Ted Corbitt's "prudent path" - not the actual SPR but a few meters out= 4981 meters
Down the middle of the course = 5000 meters +
One thing I am curious about with overhead measuring from a satellite is that you can't really measure a vertical change (hill) correct? I know there aren't many of them on this course (I ran it) but I am just wondering if that's a factor when doing this style of measurements?
coachy wrote:
One thing I am curious about with overhead measuring from a satellite is that you can't really measure a vertical change (hill) correct? I know there aren't many of them on this course (I ran it) but I am just wondering if that's a factor when doing this style of measurements?
That only matters for very steep hills or whoop-do-dos. For example assume a 10 meter climb over a 600 meter straight will have the satellite image would showing 599.92 meters.
A 10 meter climb and drop over a 1000 meter segment adds about 2 meters. Doing that over a 5k would add 10 meters. Guessing most will discount that but it has to be taken into consideration.
Nike is knocking wrote:
A 10 meter climb and drop over a 1000 meter segment adds about 2 meters. Doing that over a 5k would add 10 meters. Guessing most will discount that but it has to be taken into consideration.
I get 0.2 meters. Am I doing something wrong?
I think I made a mistake. So only about 1 meter over 5k if there are 5 gradual ups and downs. Less than I thought.
10m up, 10m down = 20 m (over 1000m)
(20x20) + (1000x1000) = (1000.2x1000.2)
.2m x 5 = 1m total, if 50m climb and drop over 5000m course
only 1 m total added
...could add more, depends on how steep the ups and downs are. If there is much flat in between, then it adds more. But probably still very little.
D.Katz wrote:
Down the middle of the course = 5000 meters +
I know it's stupid, especially on a course this wide but isn't this the current standard of measurement for XC courses? If there even is a standard.
...for an exaggerated example, if there is a 10m hill in the last 10m of the course, that alone adds approx 4m.
If there is no standard method to measure, then there cannot be records.
steve unbanned wrote:
If there is no standard method to measure, then there cannot be records.
I am not sure why anyone does this. We don't really have a choice. Although it's not ratified by some governing body its literally on every running website that it's a record.
Apparently in Europe, they don't even try to make xc courses a standard length. They just make a good course that fits in the space they have. And they keep records of how came 1st 2nd etc.
Why keep a 'record' if you cannot even say how far they ran, never mind about mud/turns/hills/etc
Running websites report it as a record, to generate clicks and arguments from suckers like us. I will admit that this discussion is interesting, and a legit topic. But if other courses turn out to be longer or different because they were setup with a different measurement method, with lrc have new headline that course was short?