73 boys break 15:00 in Running Lane champs; Salhman wins in 14:03

This course is legitimate. It is fast because it used to be a golf course and the footing is excellent. The turns are gradual. It has a hill but the hill is gradual and is followed by an equal downhill. The start and finish are at the same elevation. The main reason the course is so fast is that the footing is so good that it feels like running on a track.

I see the top six in the Silver race also broke 15, so 79 total sub 15:00s!

In a field with so many runners, very few would be able to run the best line so these times do seem suspect.

Let’s settle it send everyone to MIS…that being said what were the conditions of the MIS course in 2000?

Gangesman wrote:

This course is legitimate. It is fast because it used to be a golf course and the footing is excellent. The turns are gradual. It has a hill but the hill is gradual and is followed by an equal downhill. The start and finish are at the same elevation. The main reason the course is so fast is that the footing is so good that it feels like running on a track.

Seems like more people are now tacitly admitting that the only way Ritz’s XC 5K performance could be topped was via a magical course that is either short or *not* a cross country course (as far as terrain; a fairway?…a rolled course??…come on). Basically, an artificially fast course. So was this really the achievement some are trying to make it out to be? No.

It did absolutely prove NP is the best team ever, and by a very, very wide margin.

Ritz course had zero elevation. True definition of track style course. These runners are better or on the same level as Ritz. I know it sucks to admit it.

heartful wrote:

Ritz course had zero elevation. True definition of track style course. These runners are better or on the same level as Ritz. I know it sucks to admit it.

If I recall correctly that was a flat golf course in Florida...but was it a wet year, firmness of the ground, what was the temperature, dew point/humidity, wind, and lunar phase?

heartful wrote:

Ritz course had zero elevation. True definition of track style course. These runners are better or on the same level as Ritz. I know it sucks to admit it.

Zero elevation? Are you making the ignorant assumption that the course is run on the track itself, or all in the infield? LOL!

There’s rolling elevation change from the moment you leave the inside of the track (~500m) until the moment you re-inter the track (~3800m). The grass on the infield is normal length, and is typically soft and/or muddy if there’s rain at any point in the 2 weeks prior to the race.

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

heartful wrote:

Ritz course had zero elevation. True definition of track style course. These runners are better or on the same level as Ritz. I know it sucks to admit it.

If I recall correctly that was a flat golf course in Florida...but was it a wet year, firmness of the ground, what was the temperature, dew point/humidity, wind, and lunar phase?

That was his 14:29 as a junior, defeating a loaded field of seniors that went on the become NCAA All-Americans, NCAA champions, Olympians, etc.

Didn't he also race in Florida his senior year for Foot Locker?

Yes but the 1410 is from MI state meet his senior year. He ran slightly slower in FL at nationals due to the weather but his margin of victory over Webb and Hall was over 20s.

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

Didn't he also race in Florida his senior year for Foot Locker?

Yes. When he beat Webb by :20 and Hall by :25.

They went out in 4:48. Ritz pushed the 2nd mile - his fastest mile that day - and Webb couldn’t stay with him. It was over at 2M. He ran 14:35.

The NXR Heartland has about 15 x 90 degree turns that add 15 feet if you run the center as opposed to the tangent. That's 225 feet which is .04 miles. So a runner perfectly turning would run 3.1 while a mid packer would run 3.14 and the average guy 3.12.

Course seems too fast to be considered a legitimate course. Runners from my state all ran at least 45 seconds to 1 minute faster than at the State meet course.

A team that averaged barely under 17 had all 7 boys run under 16 and one almost break 15. There fastest runner was in the mid 16s at State.

I may be getting old but I don't like how everyone is focused on times for cross country. Even colleges are avoiding courses that are hilly or otherwise challenging. Cross country courses should be unique and challenging, not grass tracks.

They didn't fake the times so they are not too fast.

Not a single person who was there has validated the course being short. Glad all the arm chair runners who sat on the sideline know how short the course is without every attending the venue.

once a jogger wrote:

Not a single person who was there has validated the course being short. Glad all the arm chair runners who sat on the sideline know how short the course is without every attending the venue.

Not a single person who was there has validated the course being the correct distance. Glad all the arm chair runners who sat on the sideline know how accurate the course is without ever attending the venue.

you are bored wrote:

once a jogger wrote:

Not a single person who was there has validated the course being short. Glad all the arm chair runners who sat on the sideline know how short the course is without every attending the venue.

Not a single person who was there has validated the course being the correct distance. Glad all the arm chair runners who sat on the sideline know how accurate the course is without ever attending the venue.

How would you like them to verify it. A lengthy write-up about the course design has been provided, as discussed endlessly, there is not an OFFICIAL way to measure a xc course. What has been provided are dozens of users gps data (not without error) but none of which would indicate the course is Really short or short at all.

Too much too soon wrote:

The NXR Heartland has about 15 x 90 degree turns that add 15 feet if you run the center as opposed to the tangent. That's 225 feet which is .04 miles. So a runner perfectly turning would run 3.1 while a mid packer would run 3.14 and the average guy 3.12.

Assuming your numbers are correct (and I have no reason to doubt them), then my assertion stands that you simply won't find someone actually running (as measured by a wheel, not GPS) 3.19 miles on a 3.1 mile XC course due to 'not running the tangents'. One would have to go out of their way to take the worst line on every turn to add that much distance.

That is true. What is your point? Some runners are really dumb?