That sounds like the good old Irv. I've never seen the course, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was short. Some of the poster's are on the right track for the reasons too :)
That sounds like the good old Irv. I've never seen the course, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was short. Some of the poster's are on the right track for the reasons too :)
former assistant wrote:
That sounds like the good old Irv. I've never seen the course, but it wouldn't suprise me if it was short. Some of the poster's are on the right track for the reasons too :)
I agree.... The girl’s course and men's course were short. I hate admitting it, but if you race riverside you're guaranteed a XC best.
Ha-ha, you think they would just run the same damn course every year. Good old Coach Ray is sooooooo shady.
xcrunnerwholovestorun wrote:
the course was actually 30 meters long...what was your time 28:something...in that case it would be easier to improve alot.
Actually jackass, I ran sub 25min. However I will be the first to admit it's 40sec fast.
ok you idiot. he is saying the cours is short. hes saying 26:10 is what you would run if it was a ligit course, buts its not so you would run 25:30 thinking you ran amazing. obviously you didnt go to school for the academics.
kevinb wrote:
first off, if i measured it on Google earth it will be short not long.
second, i use google earth all the time to measure course before i will them and it is damn close when i check it with a wheel.
third, most people i talked with ran about what you would expect for a 8k based on their recent times.
fourth, you can not read as i said i ran 27:30 not 25:30 so that means i ran a 28:15 thank you very much according to you.
so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
academicallychallenged wrote:
ok you idiot. he is saying the cours is short. hes saying 26:10 is what you would run if it was a ligit course, buts its not so you would run 25:30 thinking you ran amazing. obviously you didnt go to school for the academics.
kevinb wrote:first off, if i measured it on Google earth it will be short not long.
second, i use google earth all the time to measure course before i will them and it is damn close when i check it with a wheel.
third, most people i talked with ran about what you would expect for a 8k based on their recent times.
fourth, you can not read as i said i ran 27:30 not 25:30 so that means i ran a 28:15 thank you very much according to you.
so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
You're the idiot. two different people.
The course was short. Coach Ray does it every year so his team can run fast times.
END OF STORY
This is the same argument every year. I have a 56sec best at Riverside. I would suggest running Stanford for better competition and correct measurements.
Google Earthed it also, it was perfect. Yes google earth can be slightly off but I use it all the time and it's usually very close. If you're wondering why the times were fast consider the obvious. It was packed dirt...very flat...went out very fast. None of the times were that shocking anyway.
Fact: The original course, that was used from 1983 until Irv Ray arrived, was changed by Irv Ray to make it shorter.
Fact: Irv Ray stated the reason he shortened the course that had been used for nearly 20 years was because it was longer then 8K.
Fact: The "old course" record is held by UCR alumni, Ray Cook, in 24:08.
Draw your own conclusions as to Irv Ray's motives to shorten the distance of a cross-country course. Next Irv is planning on shortening the UCR track.
so...then if he shortened it because it was too long, and multiple ppl have measured it at 8k...then it's correct distance
lookatthis wrote:
so...then if he shortened it because it was too long, and multiple ppl have measured it at 8k...then it's correct distance
dude just face it. Add 40sec on your time.
I hate it when people try and defend short courses. Simply put, take everyone's PRs going in for 5k in track. Look at them. Now look at the times they ran for this 8k. They don't match up. You can argue it until you are blue in the face... you are just fooling yourself.
My proof will be when you run 30-60 seconds slower in your next 8k (which i'm sure you'll say was long or bad footing or muddy...) or get your ass kicked by people whose 8k pr's on legit courses are much slower than your "PR" that you set on the Riverside course.
This is XC. ABSOLUTE TIMES DO NOT MATTER. Relatively you can compare how far you were behind someone who you raced that same day. You can't compare course to course.
GPS, google earth... blah! Who the hell cares. Look at your track PRs. Those are the only ones that should really matter.
why add 40 seconds? the course was basically a track if you ran it. Most xc course have legit hills, different surfaces. This was just all flat and very fast. And personally I did NOT pr on this course, didn't have a great day.
The course is fast but it is hard to argue with it being 8k. Everyone has Irv Ray conspiracy stories that are hearsay at best. If you want to question XC courses you need to also question Willamette, Stanford, Oregon (Springfield country club) because all of these courses produce ridiculous times (often much more so than UCR). Either most of these courses are 8k and just very fast or every one is short. I guess there is no way to know for sure and really, it does not matter. Track is for times and they can tell you who is legit and who is not. The fact is most people want to run fast courses in XC these days because it looks good for the region. Most who criticize these courses the most run slower courses or have not run that fast. What I say is whether a course is 7.9k or 8.2k, flat or hilly, all that matters is head to head competition and leave it at that.
I think the accuracy of pancake flat courses does matter; it is a way of comparing apples to apples, since one can extrapolate other known "flat" courses, such as, um, a track, to get a feeling of the fitness level of the other competitors.
Comparing times from courses with hills, such as Stanford, is a moot point.
I love it when people say they are "in the know" or "fact" and they not involved with the course or measurements....tell us who you are so we can decide if your statements have any validity.....couple of quick points....so let me put all your conspiracy theories, lies and personal attacks to rest.
1. This is the same course we have used for the last 4 years - nothing has changed over that time.
2. I measure the course myself( i am the meet director) and was involved in the original design of the new course to make it fan friendly and not have us running on the back side of the course where no one can see.
3. How come no one complained about the length of the course for the 2 years we hosted the Big West Championships on it?
4. Every measurement tool has some margin of error - so call me at the school bring your measuring device and we'll go over there so you can measure it and see how close it is. It was measured with the wheel and in the truck for accuracy.
OTHERWISE close your mouth and realize that when people train improvement is possible for anyone....compare your times from year to year on the SAME course and not from different courses - this will tell you if you are improving or not.
Coach Nate wrote:
2. I measure the course myself( i am the meet director) and was involved in the original design of the new course to make it fan friendly and not have us running on the back side of the course where no one can see.
Then you might want to take a refresher in course measurement or have Irv follow the training principles of new Pomona coach, Troy Johnson. All the CPP men improved by at least a minute from the week before, and their women had a nearly 20 second faster per mile average from their last dual meet.
call my office and you can give me a refresher course - people improve either from training or because a course is faster....look at Southern Utah's times from Aztec and from our meet and you'll see they're different...because the courses are different in terrain, uphills, etc....
Oh come on now... don't get your feelings hurt. When an entire men's team makes a one minute improvement over the course of a week is combined with people who actually ran the course questioning it's validity, then you probably have a short course.
Mis-measuring the course is like the inability to get an erection... it happens to every guy sometimes.
1 Mark Currell Southern Utah 24:07.20
2 Juan Mejia CS San Marcos 24:15.90
4 Sergio Gonzalez CS San Marcos 24:25.90
7 Cameron Levins Southern Utah 24:43.10
9 Steve Frisone Cal Coast TC 24:55.70
10 Paul Gonzalez Western New Mexico 24:57.90
Ok, I took the Riverside guys from the results... who are you smackdown? Just curious.