Someone should go through all the athletes who ran at both meets and compare their times. Then average out the difference in time from each race. That would give us a ballpark range for whoever has ran on the modern balboa course of what they could have run at runninglane
avg 65 seconds for the women.
For past years
2019 Dudek 16:45 > 15:40
2018 Mascierelli 17:00 > 15:55
2017 Lane 17:03 > 15:58
2016 Lane 17:04 > 15:59
2015 Kelati 17:09 > 16:04
2014 Rohrer 17:13 >16:08
2013 Barrett 17:16 > 16:11
2012 Rohrer 17:25 > 16:20
2011 Seidel 17:22 > 16:18
2010 Cuffe 16:53 > 15:48
Just puts into perspective that the top performances at runninglane (Cook and Hutchins) are really nothing that we haven't seen before. That being said they're still amazing athletes, the best in their grade, but comparatively to the years before they're about the same. It is interesting to see that besides Cuffe and Seidel, the women's results get faster every year! I will update after the men's race to compare times.
avg 66 seconds for the men
For past years
2019 Methner 15:08 > 14:02
2018 Hocker 15:13 > 14:07
2017 Jacobs 15:19 > 14:13
2016 Brown 15:01 > 13:55
2015 Hunter 14:55 > 13:49
2014 Fisher 15:03 > 13:57
2013 Fisher 15:07 > 14:01
2012 Cheserek 14:59 > 13:53
2011 Cheserek 14:52 > 13:46
2010 Verzbicas 14:59 > 13:53
Once again, shows how the top xc competitors this year are basically the same they have been in the past. Every athlete that won FL since 2010 would have beat the magical 14:10 time that people are so obsessed with, except Dylan Jacobs, who was probably the "weakest" winner since 2010. Cheserek with the fastest extrapolated time of 13:46. Obviously these comparisons are not 100% accurate, but I'd say within the +/- 5 second range is very realistic.
I think doing this off of just one year's results can be misleading, although clearly the Runninglane course is much faster than Balboa Park
Ritz would've won Running Lane in 13:23 as a junior and a tactical 13:29 as a senior LOL
not a duck wrote:
avg 66 seconds for the men
For past years
2019 Methner 15:08 > 14:02
2018 Hocker 15:13 > 14:07
2017 Jacobs 15:19 > 14:13
2016 Brown 15:01 > 13:55
2015 Hunter 14:55 > 13:49
2014 Fisher 15:03 > 13:57
2013 Fisher 15:07 > 14:01
2012 Cheserek 14:59 > 13:53
2011 Cheserek 14:52 > 13:46
2010 Verzbicas 14:59 > 13:53
Once again, shows how the top xc competitors this year are basically the same they have been in the past. Every athlete that won FL since 2010 would have beat the magical 14:10 time that people are so obsessed with, except Dylan Jacobs, who was probably the "weakest" winner since 2010. Cheserek with the fastest extrapolated time of 13:46. Obviously these comparisons are not 100% accurate, but I'd say within the +/- 5 second range is very realistic.
Interesting that Nico beat Methner by 14 seconds at NXN that year. I think we can all agree that RL was ridiculously fast. But this really confirms that HS XC needs to figure out how to have one championship race. The West field at EB was watered down this year because the top runners had to choose between EB and RL whereas teams from the other regions did not. One thing that would really help is for CA to move up CIF a week or two.
CA could easily change our schedules to match other States but they won’t. Just like there won’t be ONE National Championship because there is too much money in it for these companies to put on big post season meets.
not a duck wrote:
avg 66 seconds for the men
For past years
2019 Methner 15:08 > 14:02
2018 Hocker 15:13 > 14:07
2017 Jacobs 15:19 > 14:13
2016 Brown 15:01 > 13:55
2015 Hunter 14:55 > 13:49
2014 Fisher 15:03 > 13:57
2013 Fisher 15:07 > 14:01
2012 Cheserek 14:59 > 13:53
2011 Cheserek 14:52 > 13:46
2010 Verzbicas 14:59 > 13:53
Once again, shows how the top xc competitors this year are basically the same they have been in the past. Every athlete that won FL since 2010 would have beat the magical 14:10 time that people are so obsessed with, except Dylan Jacobs, who was probably the "weakest" winner since 2010. Cheserek with the fastest extrapolated time of 13:46. Obviously these comparisons are not 100% accurate, but I'd say within the +/- 5 second range is very realistic.
Wow, these NP guys are really slow. Didn’t realize until you posted this how far behind Hunter, Brown… they are. Colin in particular because he’s already a SR.
66 for guys seems high, especially if it’s around the same for the girls. Put it more like 60 and I think that is on target. It was a bit more of a tactical affair for the guys unlike RunningLane’s drag race feel.
That's why I said +/- 5 seconds. It will depend on the athlete of course, who has a good day or bad day, too many variables to say for sure. Obviously since running lane is short the men will cover the distance proportionally faster. Even if it is a 60 second difference, the results are still very similar. Multiple athletes breaking 14.
not a duck wrote:
avg 66 seconds for the men
For past years
2019 Methner 15:08 > 14:02
2018 Hocker 15:13 > 14:07
2017 Jacobs 15:19 > 14:13
2016 Brown 15:01 > 13:55
2015 Hunter 14:55 > 13:49
2014 Fisher 15:03 > 13:57
2013 Fisher 15:07 > 14:01
2012 Cheserek 14:59 > 13:53
2011 Cheserek 14:52 > 13:46
2010 Verzbicas 14:59 > 13:53
Once again, shows how the top xc competitors this year are basically the same they have been in the past. Every athlete that won FL since 2010 would have beat the magical 14:10 time that people are so obsessed with, except Dylan Jacobs, who was probably the "weakest" winner since 2010. Cheserek with the fastest extrapolated time of 13:46. Obviously these comparisons are not 100% accurate, but I'd say within the +/- 5 second range is very realistic.
Remember Runninglane was a championship race but also the top 3 guys went into it trying to also run faster than 14:10. Footlocker some years is extremely tactical. And not many of the people on the list came into their respective years championships with 8:40 2 mile credentials.
Just a year ago runninglane was won in only 14:26 by Parker Wolfe. That being said I think Hunter, ches, and Verzbikas would all have beaten the 14:10. VERZBICAS and CHES actually ran faster than that on the track anyways indoors
not a duck wrote:
avg 66 seconds for the men
For past years
2019 Methner 15:08 > 14:02
2018 Hocker 15:13 > 14:07
2017 Jacobs 15:19 > 14:13
2016 Brown 15:01 > 13:55
2015 Hunter 14:55 > 13:49
2014 Fisher 15:03 > 13:57
2013 Fisher 15:07 > 14:01
2012 Cheserek 14:59 > 13:53
2011 Cheserek 14:52 > 13:46
2010 Verzbicas 14:59 > 13:53
Once again, shows how the top xc competitors this year are basically the same they have been in the past. Every athlete that won FL since 2010 would have beat the magical 14:10 time that people are so obsessed with, except Dylan Jacobs, who was probably the "weakest" winner since 2010. Cheserek with the fastest extrapolated time of 13:46. Obviously these comparisons are not 100% accurate, but I'd say within the +/- 5 second range is very realistic.
following the further extrapolation that running lane is at least 20 seconds slower than a track, ches is a 13:26 guy and methner is better than Nico young. very good analysis!
The Newbury Park guys are the ones who pushed the pace at Running Lane and make it fast. They went 1,2,3, on the winner from Eastbay today. Also the boys at Eastbay did not push the pace like the Newbury Park boys did. Comparing times makes no sense at all unless the Newbury Park boys were out pushing the front of Eastbay.
Both were great races, but ran completely different
1.2.3 zipper wrote:
The Newbury Park guys are the ones who pushed the pace at Running Lane and make it fast. They went 1,2,3, on the winner from Eastbay today. Also the boys at Eastbay did not push the pace like the Newbury Park boys did. Comparing times makes no sense at all unless the Newbury Park boys were out pushing the front of Eastbay.
Both were great races, but ran completely different
How can you say that when the types of courses are different and no one can verify the split points or course lengths?
1.2.3 zipper wrote:
The Newbury Park guys are the ones who pushed the pace at Running Lane and make it fast. They went 1,2,3, on the winner from Eastbay today. Also the boys at Eastbay did not push the pace like the Newbury Park boys did. Comparing times makes no sense at all unless the Newbury Park boys were out pushing the front of Eastbay.
Both were great races, but ran completely different
Yes, the courses were completely different in terms of the ethos and measured distances.
running L = 2.91 miles with a questionable money grabbing design and major, major down hills
Eastbay = 3.1 miles at a respected venue
I think what it boils down to is that winning running L is like winning an amateur boxing match while Eastbay is the universally accepted heavyweight champion of the world. Every college coach rolls their eyes at running L results. Be real.
Running Bane wrote:
1.2.3 zipper wrote:
The Newbury Park guys are the ones who pushed the pace at Running Lane and make it fast. They went 1,2,3, on the winner from Eastbay today. Also the boys at Eastbay did not push the pace like the Newbury Park boys did. Comparing times makes no sense at all unless the Newbury Park boys were out pushing the front of Eastbay.
Both were great races, but ran completely different
Yes, the courses were completely different in terms of the ethos and measured distances.
running L = 2.91 miles with a questionable money grabbing design and major, major down hills
Eastbay = 3.1 miles at a respected venue
I think what it boils down to is that winning running L is like winning an amateur boxing match while Eastbay is the universally accepted heavyweight champion of the world. Every college coach rolls their eyes at running L results. Be real.
2.91 seems way too short. I heard a few people wheeled it last week after the race a 125 and 129 short, so still well over three miles
Running Bane wrote:
1.2.3 zipper wrote:
The Newbury Park guys are the ones who pushed the pace at Running Lane and make it fast. They went 1,2,3, on the winner from Eastbay today. Also the boys at Eastbay did not push the pace like the Newbury Park boys did. Comparing times makes no sense at all unless the Newbury Park boys were out pushing the front of Eastbay.
Both were great races, but ran completely different
Yes, the courses were completely different in terms of the ethos and measured distances.
running L = 2.91 miles with a questionable money grabbing design and major, major down hills
Eastbay = 3.1 miles at a respected venue
I think what it boils down to is that winning running L is like winning an amateur boxing match while Eastbay is the universally accepted heavyweight champion of the world. Every college coach rolls their eyes at running L results. Be real.
The Newbury Park boys took down the best in the country and the run hard up front. They did the same thing at Arcadia last year with no one pushing the pace. They pushed from up from and had two guys go 8:43 unchallenged. They bring excitement to a race and are not afraid to push from the front. I'm not saying they would run 14:10 if they ran Eastbay, I'm saying they would of made that race much faster. That 's what they do and they don't seem to shy away from going after what they want. Saying if you run this time on this course means you'll run this time on another course means nothing.
The Newbury Park boy took down the best in the country and proved that last weekend.
1.2.3 zipper wrote:
Running Bane wrote:
Yes, the courses were completely different in terms of the ethos and measured distances.
running L = 2.91 miles with a questionable money grabbing design and major, major down hills
Eastbay = 3.1 miles at a respected venue
I think what it boils down to is that winning running L is like winning an amateur boxing match while Eastbay is the universally accepted heavyweight champion of the world. Every college coach rolls their eyes at running L results. Be real.
The Newbury Park boys took down the best in the country and the run hard up front. They did the same thing at Arcadia last year with no one pushing the pace. They pushed from up from and had two guys go 8:43 unchallenged. They bring excitement to a race and are not afraid to push from the front. I'm not saying they would run 14:10 if they ran Eastbay, I'm saying they would of made that race much faster. That 's what they do and they don't seem to shy away from going after what they want. Saying if you run this time on this course means you'll run this time on another course means nothing.
The Newbury Park boy took down the best in the country and proved that last weekend.
Or caused half the field to die a terrible death on the SD Course with those hills. A crazy fast start is okay for some on easy courses, but few can handle that on a hard course like Eastbay.
Running Bane wrote:
1.2.3 zipper wrote:
The Newbury Park guys are the ones who pushed the pace at Running Lane and make it fast. They went 1,2,3, on the winner from Eastbay today. Also the boys at Eastbay did not push the pace like the Newbury Park boys did. Comparing times makes no sense at all unless the Newbury Park boys were out pushing the front of Eastbay.
Both were great races, but ran completely different
Yes, the courses were completely different in terms of the ethos and measured distances.
running L = 2.91 miles with a questionable money grabbing design and major, major down hills
Eastbay = 3.1 miles at a respected venue
I think what it boils down to is that winning running L is like winning an amateur boxing match while Eastbay is the universally accepted heavyweight champion of the world. Every college coach rolls their eyes at running L results. Be real.
wow if its 2.91 miles downhill, the track Jenna Hutchins ran on 3 weeks later must've been 2.75!
coachy wrote:
CA could easily change our schedules to match other States but they won’t. Just like there won’t be ONE National Championship because there is too much money in it for these companies to put on big post season meets.
National Championships in cross country have teams and lots of people in the field. That's why NXN took off. Footlocker / Easybay had their chance to take it over this year. I understand it's been going on for years, but the reason NXN has been getting the best runners the last few years is because of the set up with teams and the best individuals.
Things evolve with time and Footlocker used to be the holy grail of cross country meets, but has died down over the past 8 years. The individuals and teams are picking NXN or now Running Lane.