It was a fast year due to the depth but I think the biggest factor is how wet the ground is. When Paul Short is dry it is really fast. When it has rained a lot recently it sucks a lot of energy out of the legs because there isn't much return. I am guessing the super shoes (which would have been useless on a wet course) benefited from the lack of rain
As a coach that was at the meet and have been there a few other times in the past. The course was the same as it has been every other year (that we attended).
At first I was surprised with the times but honestly it was just the perfect day and course setup
Conditions were ideal, competition for the races was solid, spikes are super these days, but most importantly in my opinion the course was in the best shape I’ve ever seen it. Grass was low and ground was firm.
As funny as it sounds, it will make it hard for me to want to take my own team back the next few years. I don’t see us getting lucky and things lining up that nicely again.
Or, another way of putting it, 20:22 at this time of year is similar to the best in the country for D1. Those are mid 15 5000m runners. A 16:50 D3 runner should be running 21.
Best in the country for D1? She was 46th in the merged results, sandwiched by a 2:00/4:12 runner and a 16:40 5K runner. I think it’s pretty obvious that the conditions were nearly perfect to run fast, and the woman from Emory ran right in line with her history (which is outstanding, esp for a D3 runner). This is not evidence of a short course.
These kids are just next level now. I was at Paul Short in 2017 when Dalton Hengst won with a 14:57 and that was the #7 time in the country at that point. In Friday’s race we get two kids running sub 14:48 and third place was 14:58!
And third place apparently wasn't even a senior. What are these kids eating these days?
The one Strava entry I saw had it at 4.97 mi...so maybe a little short.
8k and 5M aren’t the same distance. Turns out that 8k equals…
4.97M.
Yes, but GPS watches will give a reading slightly longer than the actual course distance. So if a GPS says 4.97 miles, it was likely 4.9-4.95 miles which would indeed be short of 8km.
I ran at Lehigh and on the course a few times weekly. There are metal signs for every mile and kilometer that are stuck in the ground and haven't changed for as long as I have been there. The finish line is marked by 50 foot wooden poles that have never been moved, and the start is about 50 meters from the finish so it's a net zero change in elevation. The turns and landscape out on the course haven't ever changed as far as I can see.
ZachDO is correct above - the rainfall is the main factor here. When I was in college the course was soaked for Paul Short every year we hosted. When I saw the weather report Friday morning I knew times were going to be crazy fast because it is pretty rare to have a week of no rainfall leading up to the meet. Super shoes on the dry ground on Friday plus perfect racing temperatures made it way faster than previous years
8k and 5M aren’t the same distance. Turns out that 8k equals…
4.97M.
Yes, but GPS watches will give a reading slightly longer than the actual course distance. So if a GPS says 4.97 miles, it was likely 4.9-4.95 miles which would indeed be short of 8km.
Can you explain your logic here?
There is certainly a margin of error regarding GPS watches and they should not be taken at face value...but I've never heard anyone say you need to unequivocally add .05-.1 to a Garmin distance.
I ran at Lehigh and on the course a few times weekly. There are metal signs for every mile and kilometer that are stuck in the ground and haven't changed for as long as I have been there. The finish line is marked by 50 foot wooden poles that have never been moved, and the start is about 50 meters from the finish so it's a net zero change in elevation. The turns and landscape out on the course haven't ever changed as far as I can see.
ZachDO is correct above - the rainfall is the main factor here. When I was in college the course was soaked for Paul Short every year we hosted. When I saw the weather report Friday morning I knew times were going to be crazy fast because it is pretty rare to have a week of no rainfall leading up to the meet. Super shoes on the dry ground on Friday plus perfect racing temperatures made it way faster than previous years
No only was it a dry week but up until Friday, it's the driest summer I've ever seen in this area. Even the usual soft spots in the first mile were bone dry.
I ran it today and had 4.99 on my GPS. It's a legit 8K. Maybe some people cut the corners very tight. I'm not sure though. They've had the same course for years now.
Anyone who says it's accurate because of what their watch said is a fool
as is anyone saying it's inaccurate because of their GPS watch
A GPS watch measures the path your wrist took, measured at a certain frequency. If you took bad lines, your watch will capture the extra distance, which will be different from how the course is measured (shortest possible line). This can add up a lot in longer distances, eg. the marathon. Most runners will post distances like 42.7 km for a marathon race on Strava.
If a course has a lot of corners (most XC courses do), a underestimate will likely occur as the interpolations between the measured points will be shorter than the path you actually took. For 180s, it is especially bad. Paul Short has quite a few 90s as I recall.
There are other factors like trees and tall buildings that can interfere with signal quality. Probably not the case at Paul Short, but could be the case for a treed course or a big city race (skyscrapers).
With point one (shortest distance vs. path you ran + ) and point two (interpolations cutting corners -), measuring a course by GPS is a wash. Unless it's crazy off AND my trace looks accurate enough (no weird noisy path) I would assume that the course is legitimate.
PS ran ~21:00 for 6k at Paul Short a few years ago, which while good for me at that time, wasn't crazy unexpected... I'd run it other years when less fit and got what I deserved those years. As others have said the course is pretty fast if it's dry. I think the last km being gradually downhill and the wide nature of the course help a lot.
The one Strava entry I saw had it at 4.97 mi...so maybe a little short.
8km = 4.97097mi……….
I assumed Strava always measures a bit short. If you notice people's Strava readings when they run accurately measured courses, the Strava always comes out a bit longer. For example a certified 5K almost always come out to 3.13mi+ on Strava. In fact, I don't ever think I've seen a CERTIFIED 5K course come out to 3.1075 on Strava.
Kamred Todd of Utah State was third in 23:07 and I looked at his other xc results on tfrrs.org in the link. He has run in the 23:30s and 23:40s on something like five other occasions, including 23:35.8 and 23:36.2 at Paul Short and Nuttycombe in 2021. So, I think it's reasonable to think that the course was short by ten or twenty seconds, allowing for ten to twenty seconds improvement on his part. The sheer # of teams averaging 23s was insane. But where there is a clear and obvious discrepancy is in the women's 6k. A D3 woman from Emory who has run 16:50 ran 20:22 to win the Brown race, which is just not feasible.
The one Strava entry I saw had it at 4.97 mi...so maybe a little short.
8k and 5M aren’t the same distance. Turns out that 8k equals…
4.97M.
Yes...thank you. I am aware. I've measured a lot of race courses. It's just that Strava tends to give you a little more more mileage than you deserve. It's usually very small though. Maybe .03-.04 mi. If you see some examples where Strava was dead accurate for a certified course, I'd be more than happy to change my mind (no sarcasm).
The classic yearly post about Paul Short being less than 8k because people can't accept that anyone ran fast. The course is the same every year. It never changes. When I jog the course the day before the race I get 5mi on my watch. People ran really fast this year because they are fit and better than runners in past years. It makes no sense when half of you guys say that it must be short because somebody ran faster than they did last year, or they ran a big PR. PEOPLE IMPROVE. That person got better. I ran 25:37 at Paul Short in 2019, then 24:51 last year (2021), and I ran 23:30 this year. I trained hard and got better. My training reflects the time I ran and same with all the guys who beat me.
Also, the course may not have any crazy or steep hills, but it is not flat. A track is flat, Paul Short 8k course has nearly 300ft of elevation gain.
I think you need to run about a minute faster post covid to get the same place/relative performance. People are just way better now. Maybe the shoes, maybe the two years of no racing during covid (no peaking just training, fewer injuries) but times across the board from high schoolers to the pros are way better than they were before COVID.
8k and 5M aren’t the same distance. Turns out that 8k equals…
4.97M.
Yes...thank you. I am aware. I've measured a lot of race courses. It's just that Strava tends to give you a little more more mileage than you deserve. It's usually very small though. Maybe .03-.04 mi. If you see some examples where Strava was dead accurate for a certified course, I'd be more than happy to change my mind (no sarcasm).
It's almost impossible for someone to run the exact measured distance on a certified course. They would have to run step-by-step the same course on the exact path that was measured. Deviating a few feet from the course here and there a few times (passing, water tables, etc.) adds up over the the entirety of the race. Everyone always thinks they are cutting the tangents, running the shortest path, etc. It's statistically improbable that a runner takes the exact same path as it was measured.
