wanting to make big bucks wrote:
wanting to make big bucks wrote:oh boohoo...tell that to Native Americans... when the English came, they erased thousands of years of history.
By the way...I think YOU are misinterpreting the point of this forum. Go back to the first post and you will see: "How short was that course?" Which by the way, that guy is a moron. Who comes home after a 53 second PR and complains about a course. A douche bag, that's who...
A person who knows the course is SHORT!!!!
Did you run this course last year? Cuz that is the only way you can compare times and if you got better. every cross country course is different. if you look at the placing, you problably finished about the same as you always do in most races. People ran fast because its a fast course. I measured it with my 400dollar GPS and it was 5mile so suck on that!
He probably got a pedometer from McDonald's... hahaha
YoYo wrote:
wanting to make big bucks wrote:By the way...I think YOU are misinterpreting the point of this forum. Go back to the first post and you will see: "How short was that course?" Which by the way, that guy is a moron. Who comes home after a 53 second PR and complains about a course. A douche bag, that's who...
A person who knows the course is SHORT!!!!
I wonder if Scott Bauhs (23:07) at Stanford came home and raved about the course being short...everyone should just be straight forward and say what they really mean: We don't want the UCR guys to run fast, and when they do we're gonna question it. It's just as simple as that and you'll probably feel better after you say it.
The original post was "Just got back from UC Riverside. I ran 53 sec PR. How short was that course? Does anyone one?", which I suppose should have said "does anyone know?". That being said, that post, and very few others, had anything to say regarding Riverside running fast. They dominated a weak field, thus their top finishing positions give an unrealisticconception that they ran incredibly fast.
Furthermore, if you look at their times from Saturday compared to their last year's bests (which was on their page yesterday but not today), you'll have noticed that of those who ran both years to compare, no one ran the 40 seconds that some of these guys are talking about. Tachias was closest, running 29 seconds faster than last year. But if I recall correctly, Tachias wasn't running his best last year, so the big jump makes sense. Lara was only :16 seconds faster than his last year's best. Coach Nate is right... people should improve from year to year.
What does make it somewhat suspicious for me, though, is that 8 of the 9 runners on their squad had their 8K PR from last Saturday's race.
you know what, this will all be settled at conference. If ucr guys really are running under 2430 then they should do fairly well. If they get their asses handed to them by guys who have never run that time, then i guess we will know the course is bogus huh. simple as that
dustbowl wrote:
you know what, this will all be settled at conference. If ucr guys really are running under 2430 then they should do fairly well. If they get their asses handed to them by guys who have never run that time, then i guess we will know the course is bogus huh. simple as that
Well Said!
I think people do NOT understand cross country at all. If UCR runs shitting at conference, that just means that they did not live up to expectations. It does NOT mean that they didn't run fast times at UCR. Some people hit their best marks earlier on in the season and some people run their best in the end depending on the program. I have ran UCR every year for four years and let me tell you, I have had my share of good times there and bad times. The course is legit!
Should a community college's seventh man really be that close to your second or third man. And just to stop you before you start again, Valley didn't run all of their guys at the Redlands invite. In fact, they did not even run any of their top seven from the race before at the Redlands Invite.
If they get beat by runners who havnt ran times as fast as them it means either the course isnt legit or they are peaking wrong as they have in years past.either way its not good. Lets hope they live up to these fast times later in the season
"Fast" does not mean "illegitimate." It actually just means fast. Have you ever run cross country?
CPPFan=Idiot wrote:
Should a community college's seventh man really be that close to your second or third man. And just to stop you before you start again, Valley didn't run all of their guys at the Redlands invite. In fact, they did not even run any of their top seven from the race before at the Redlands Invite.
Ronell, don't diminish the capabilities of juco runners. It is entirely possible that a CC's seventh man would be that close to the second or third guy, especially when the team sucks, and you said it first... CPP sucks. And since they suck, a crappy runner such as yourself will get bragging rights when you finish ahead of crappy univeristy runners. Although I don;t know why you'd want to take them.
Hey CPP Fan,
you are just a fan. you didn't run and you probably don't know anything about running so why dont you shut it.
UCR was not short and as for you smackdown be lucky you got a PR and leave it at that!
Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:
The original post was "Just got back from UC Riverside. I ran 53 sec PR. How short was that course? Does anyone one?", which I suppose should have said "does anyone know?". That being said, that post, and very few others, had anything to say regarding Riverside running fast. They dominated a weak field, thus their top finishing positions give an unrealisticconception that they ran incredibly fast.
Furthermore, if you look at their times from Saturday compared to their last year's bests (which was on their page yesterday but not today), you'll have noticed that of those who ran both years to compare, no one ran the 40 seconds that some of these guys are talking about. Tachias was closest, running 29 seconds faster than last year. But if I recall correctly, Tachias wasn't running his best last year, so the big jump makes sense. Lara was only :16 seconds faster than his last year's best. Coach Nate is right... people should improve from year to year.
What does make it somewhat suspicious for me, though, is that 8 of the 9 runners on their squad had their 8K PR from last Saturday's race.
I thought my last post was my last but.....Wait....i missed something - isn't the job of a Coach to help their runners improve? Am i supposed to second guess my exact same course because all my runners PR'ed or should i maybe look at the fact that the training is better this year than last? I'm SUPPOSED to help my runners improve from year to year right? The reason why 8 of 9 PR'ed is because they trained their a**es off during the summer - the lone guy that didn't was injured and got a late start. Don't try and diminsh the work my guys have put in to improve from last year.
First off, im not Ronell. Second, i don't feel happy beating crappy runners, im just trying to make a point that you said that cal poly was a decent team and they are not. I just wanted to furter prove that you dont know jack about running, and you did all of that for me. And crappy runner, you have no idea who i am, but by how you talk, im sure you have never broken 27 minutes, if you have ever really ran at all. Just be happy that some of your team had good times on a LEGIT course, because that will probably be the best race of their season seeing how the coach probably has them doing 200s everyday or some other stupid workout that will further ruin what was once a great program. If you ever want to race let me know.
I ran it wrote:
Hey CPP Fan,
you are just a fan. you didn't run and you probably don't know anything about running so why dont you shut it.
UCR was not short and as for you smackdown be lucky you got a PR and leave it at that!
people ran/run 35-60sec faster at riverside then they run on any other course. Something is NOT right with that course.
Remember we are dealing with Coach Ray.
My bad, you're not Ronell, you're John Merring. Pomona-Pitzer school officials would be mortified to read your posts, what with your weak grasp of the English language.
It's you who has absolutely no idea who I am, so you really can't speak to my credentials. By the way I talk, you can tell my times? That''s rich. What else does your incredible sense of perception tell you? FYI, I am no longer competitively running, but I've run under 27 (hell, under 25) many times. I was also an SC All-American.
So that you can have a little chuckle, my last 5K was just under 19 minutes. But save the laughter for when you're running those times in 20+ years from now.
Re-read my posts, numb-nuts... I never said CPP was a decent team. If you knew me, you'd know that I'd be the first to tell you how crappy they are this year. My observation was that they ran significantly faster at UCR than they did at Redlands. Now the Redlands course might have been challenging, as I did not see this year. However, if you extract your head from your butt, you would note that the CPP girls team not only ran faster, but since they ran 5K at UCR and 6K at Redlands, I compared their average pace per mile, which was 20 seconds faster.
Coach Nate wrote:
Don't try and diminsh the work my guys have put in to improve from last year.
Coach - that was not my intent. I think I explained in the first paragraph why some people might be jump to the conclusion of unrealistic times, and then explained in the second paragraph that their times weren't out of line in the second paragraph.
My last paragraph was vague, though. I should have said "would make it suspicious", not "does". Not that I am currently suspicious regarding the accuracy. However, when this post started, I did analyze the results, looking to compare times from last year to this year from runners who ran both. Since I did not see any glaring discreps, I let it go.
Lara ran 24:38 last year... 10 second improvement. That's not unrealistic...