mt sac v fresno

The Woodward Park 5k course in Fresno runs about 15-20 seconds slower than Mt. SAC. So if someone is able to run a 15:00 at Mt. SAC, the equivalent at Woodward Park would be somewhere in the 15:15-15:20 range. It is generally understood that Mt. SAC times are a good predictor for what one could run on a flat 5k course

so maybe girls 20-25 sec?

no one wrote:

I've heard that mt sac times are closely comparable to fresno's / vice versa. - Any take or info on that?

this was true until 1998 (when mt. sac was still 2.95)... now, mt. sac (at 2.91) is about 15-20 seconds faster...

According to the Mt. Sac Web site, the course is 2.93 and the length hasn't changed over time. Compared with the 80s and 90s, though,the surface is considerably smoother, has less loose dirt on the uphills and probably is harder packed as well. Apparently, one turn leading into the valley loop was made smoother during the late 90s. According to meet officials, those changes are what have made the course faster, rather than a change in length.

On to the question: if fast boys run well and in similar conditions at both Mt. Sac and Woodward, the average difference will be in the previously mentioned 15-20 second range. The conversion for top girls running well on both courses will be a little slower.

The problem with all conversion calculations is that conditions are not often the same at Mt. Sac and Woodward, especially when comparing the invitational with state. The invitational is often warm (70-80) by the sweepstakes races (between 9 and 10:45 am) and hot for all races in the afternoon. This year was an exception, as temperatures were mild throughout the invitational. At the end of November at Woodward temps tend to be much cooler than at the invitational and usually cooler than at SS Prelims and Finals. Hotter temps send times soaring at Mt. Sac and the regular conversion numbers no longer work.

Especially for slower girls or anyone who has trouble with hills, the conversion begins to approach zero, as Mt. Sac is much more difficult for those runners. Some of the conversion calculators using all comparable individual times from Mt. Sac and Woodward show Mt. Sac as being the slower of the two courses. This is due to the inclusion of all the slow Mt. Sac times.

[quote]CA Guy wrote:

According to the Mt. Sac Web site, the course is 2.93 and the length hasn't changed over time.[quote]

---------------------------------------------------------

The course length has changed to 2.91 in 1999.

'"The Times Of Our Lives"

An 'altered' Mt. SAC course purges classic records

WALNUT -- Newsflash! October of 2000: Glendale Hoover High's Anita Siraki stuns the national prep cross country scene when she smashes the Mt. San Antonio College girls course record by a stunning 17 seconds.

Newsflash! November of 2000: Big Bear High's Ryan Hall tears through the very same layout, slicing four seconds off a revered Jeff Nelson course record for boys that went unchallenged for nearly a quarter century.

Newsflash! November of 2000: Don Lugo High's Erick Maldonado breaks the sophomore boys course record as five of the six fastest boys 10th-grade course times in history are achieved. All told, a whopping 39 revisions are made to the all-time grade lists.

Newsflash! October of 2001: Ukiah High's Amber Trotter does the unfathomable, ripping Siraki's course record to shreds with a mind-boggling 16:16 performance that leaves pundits on the national scene in utter disbelief.

Newsflash! October of 2001: Within a matter of 16 hours, three different runners take turns at claiming the No. 8 spot on the boys' all-time lists. Additionally, five boys dip under 15 minutes in the same year for the first time in the history of the famous course. They do it within a span of just 16 hours!

Newsflash: October of 2001: The 54th annual Mt. SAC Invitational is completed, with another harrowing assessment of the assault on the all-time lists. Not only does the all-time course standard for girls fall, but the junior- and sophomore-class boys course records are toppled as well.

Oddly enough, these standout runners have enjoyed ample success on the Southland trails before and since, but not quite to the degree achieved recently along the revered 2.95-mile Mt. SAC course.

Why? Well, maybe it's because that course is no longer 2.95 miles. Oh, and there are other contributing changes, too.

Mt. SAC women's cross country coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three separate interviews since last November that the traditional course had indeed been altered over the last few years, once also stating that it had been shortened. Safety concerns and course 'upgrades' were among the reasons that Todd and Mt. SAC men's cross country coach Mike Goff stated were responsible for the change.

"We struggled not to make the changes because the Mt. SAC course and the meet are so steeped in history," said Todd, who oversaw last weekend's conclusion of the 54th annual Mt. SAC Invitational, an event which mushroomed to an all-time high of 10,423 high school finishers -- 506 more than a year ago.

"Some (course) changes were unavoidable," conceded Todd, "but it doesn't make accepting the changes any easier."

The most notable change was reconfiguring a portion of the first mile's 'Valley Loop' in concern over safety. With the number of entrants continually swelling to match the meet's growth in popularity, maneuvering along the original course's sharp, jutting turn surrounding a concrete-encased drain roughly a minute into the race created some logistical problems.

Mt. SAC staff attended to the problem by changing it to a more sweeping and easier-to-navigate path, which Todd estimated cut about five seconds off each loop -- or 10 seconds per runner on the double loop. If his estimate is accurate, that translates roughly to a 50-second team-time improvement from the "pre-renovation" years.

That revelation alone somewhat helps to explain this fact: In the three years prior to the change, there were six (6) revisions to the all-time by-grade lists. In the two-and-half years since? A whopping eighty-two (82) revisions to those lists, or 40% of the record book!

"No comment," quipped Todd when told of the numbers in a Sunday morning phone conversation the day after this year's invitational.

It hasn't been an easy ride for Todd lately. Despite continually improving on the most prized cross country meet in the nation in recent years, there are some from various generations that will complain of the course changes.

Todd originally discounted the concerns of anyone suspicious of the fast course times in recent years, citing it as just a case of runners getting faster and faster. But the data is getting harder and harder to dispute. Course records are falling with great frequency, and this type of rampant time success is not happening to similar degrees at other longstanding invitational courses.

"It's definitely out of whack," said CalTrack.com's Doug Speck, a longtime cross country historian and the one credited with helping to devise the all-time course lists for the Mt. SAC people decades ago.

"It used to be that Mt. SAC was a great predictor of track times and a time of 15:10 usually meant 4:10/9:05 ability (for 1600/3200 in track)," Speck explained. "As you can see nowadays, it's certainly anything but."

Yong-Sung Leal, who topped the recent weekend's field with a sensational 14:43 mark, has run the 3200-meter equivalent time to a 9-minute two-mile. Of course, he was 27 seconds under the 15:10 barrier Speck speaks of. No other of the current athletes has been at nine minutes in track. And of those near the 15:10 range, must are 3,200-meter runners in the 9:20's range.

One by one, "very good runners" on the Golden State scene have captured "legendary" status with their recent times at Mt. SAC. On other courses, their times were very notable, but hardly eye-popping efforts (with the exception of Trotter).

It even got the the point in August of this year that Todd said he would "go back over the results and create two all-time lists: one for the old course and one for the 'altered course'." Additionally, Todd expressed a desire to use the necessary funds in trying to get the course back to its original condition, if that's what the schools and runners wanted.

Since then, Todd has softened the offer about reviving the previous course, realizing it is smartest to keep safety as the primary concern. As for his suggestion to revamp the record book, Todd has also rethought that issue and asked on Sunday for everyone to wait for a few days while he thinks about what is best to do.

Even Siraki's coach (Greg Switzer) and a second coach who's team is capable of smashing many records here this fall were both reported to have been stating that the course had indeed been measured shorter in recent years.

Longtime reported via word-of-mouth as a three-mile course over the years, it was actually a 2.95-mile layout for some time. When measured recently, however, the course has been figured out to 2.91 miles on three occasions (2.92 on another instance; probably the difference stemming because the instrument used and the tangential path used per course certification standards is misunderstood by some, it should be noted).

But it doesn't just end there.

Heavy rains a few years back eroded certain patches of the course, Todd said, which also had a minimal effect on the integrity of the course. As with almost any cross country course, that's a part of nature that even the storied Mt. SAC course is not immune to. Additionally, 'beautification upgrades' have been undertaken, resulting in Mt. SAC becoming one of the best-kept layouts in the state. At the same time, however, these upgrades made it progressively faster.

It used to be that the Mt. SAC course was a dustpatch of loosely-strewn dirt along the steepest stretches of Switchback Hill and Poopout Hill. Nowadays, however, one can actually see the limestone rock surface where dirt used to be clumped. As one expert observer put it, "the course went from a challenging, tough-footing sandy layout, to one that has about as much grip difficulty as an all-weather track."

So why did it take so long for the word to get out? Well, we were aware for some time, but people didn't really listen to us without any proof. Mt. SAC Invite meet director Jim Polite said he was unaware of any change and Todd had initially indicated that the cosmetic changes didn't really affect performances (but his notion of a five-second change per lap on the Valley Loop is one we consider enough of an effect).

The first red flag in our minds went flailing up a few years ago, when a number of teams rocketed to some impressive "against our charts" team times at Mt. SAC. We say against our charts because we'd have actual team-time indicators projected for each team heading into Mt. SAC. These formulations were based on a team's performances at other various long-standing courses. These indicators were usually highly accurate, with teams usually ending up running within five (5) or so seconds of that team time prediction.

The mystery continued for another Mt. SAC meet, and then another. We kept asking, but could never find the answer to the riddle. Teams and individuals just kept running faster and faster. Last year, a slew of schools reported they set team time records. Best we could tell, teams were running approximately 80-90 seconds faster than we were projecting under the old charts, but pretty much right on with newer charts, which factored in a 15-to-18-second improvement from what was projected off showings at other courses (yes, that's our estimate of the effect).

But it wasn't until the days AFTER last year's CIF-SS Finals at Mt. SAC that Goff and Todd talked of the changes, resulting from the tail end of another conversation. Todd initially disagreed with our views, then asked if we thought Ryan Hall or Anita Siraki would follow up their course records at Mt. SAC with ones at the CIF-State Championships at Woodward Park in Fresno a few days later. Hall and Siraki are gifted and competitive, but we assured Todd those course records would not fall. Under our new conversions at Mt. SAC, we were highly confident that even though both would run well, the course records at Woodward Park would not fall (Woodward Park, by the way, has also undergone a change of its own here and there over the years). Those records did not fall.

Todd's confirmation of a time difference for the altered course and the other factors helped account for the time difference in the conversion charts. For this reason, performance marks at Mt. SAC these days need to be treated differently.

Yes, the course is clearly faster these days, but it's also better, safer and has a more beautiful appearance. Spectators coming to Mt. SAC are now, more than ever, treated to a first-rate course ideal for competition and improved for viewing.

Goff, the one entrusted in maintaining the course to useable standards, has confirmed that ample landscaping has improved the course's footing, making it "safer and with better traction" for runners of all abilities. The path has been widened at parts, fencing has been installed, trees planted in formation along the route.

"We try to respect history and tradition, yet safety becomes a factor, too... a much more important factor," said Goff in an interview last November. "If historians have a problem with it, I understand. At the same time, if we can improve the course to maximal conditions for runners, that's great too. Bottom line, the best teams and runners still win."

The only lasting drawback now is that the ever-popular notion of being able to compare times from one generation to the next (you know, those father-son/mother-daughter bragging rights comparisons) has -- whether people wish to admit it or not -- gone by the wayside. Todd's own admission of the effect of course alterations on a runner's final time support that.

Gone are the realities of when runners from decades ago could run into a runner from today's era and ask: "What's your best time at Mt. SAC?" and know the query was a comparable one.

Regardless, the course remains the most traveled, most popular and most famous one West of the Mississippi.

Even so, as Goff will tell you, you can't please all the people all of the time.

"I've heard it all... Well, Mt. SAC's been too hot, too dusty, too slow, too crowded, too hard," rattled off Goff, echoing some course critics over the years. "And now... they say it's too fast. THAT'S a new one!"

So what now?

Running IS getting better in the Golden State... More media outlets, more sponsorship dollars, better coaching, quality peer clinics, the publicity of running Websites and the like have helped in reviving our sport. Oh yeah, the popularity of Alan Webb and Dathan Ritzenhein have had something to do with it as well.

But that's only part of the reason for fast times. Those factors have had a minimal effect on improvements of times and rewriting of the record books at other popular courses in California. Mt. SAC has had a slew of them, for the reasons cited as the topic of this story.

Hall and Trotter are unquestionably among California's finest runners. But is Hall clearly faster than the national recordholder in the 3200 (nearly 20 seconds at that distance than Hall)? Is Trotter really 39 seconds swifter than the amazing Julia Stamps was as a prepster? The Maldonados, Spikers (imagine if he was healthy for CIF his senior year!), Nelsons, Dukes, Sirakis, Pasciutos and Haddans of the California scene are outstanding runners. It remains tpo be seen if they truly are among the very best ever. Are they talented? Undoubtedly. Are they quick? Very. Are they running on a quicker course than their predecessors? Unfortunately, yes they are.

We implore Mt. SAC to follow up on its own earlier suggestion and devise two sets of all-time lists.

[quote]CA Guy wrote: According to the Mt. Sac Web site, the course is 2.93 and the length hasn't changed over time. [quote]

---------------------------------------------------------

More on the Mt.Sac 2.91 course.

SAC thrown a curve

Pasadena Star-News Online

College: Mt. SAC thrown a curve

Course improvements call into question the validity of new marks

October 18, 2001

By Richard Gonzalez

Staff Writer

October, 2000: Glendale Hoover High's Anita Siraki stuns the national prep

cross country community when she breaks the Mt. San Antonio College course

record by a stunning 17 seconds.

November, 2000: Big Bear High's Ryan Hall runs the Mt. SAC course in

14:28, slicing four seconds off Jeff Nelson's 22-year-old boys course

record.

November, 2000: Don Lugo High's Erick Maldonado smashes the sophomore boys

course record as five of the six fastest 10th-grade course times in

history are achieved. All told, a whopping 39 revisions are made to the

all-time grade lists.

Oddly enough, these standout runners have enjoyed ample success before and

since, but not quite to the degree achieved recently along the revered

2.95-mile Mt. SAC course.

Well, maybe it's because the course had been shortened to 2.91 miles.

Mt. SAC cross country women's coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three

separate interviews since last November that the course has indeed been

shortened, an end result of safety concerns, course upgrades and

environmental effects.

"We struggled not to make the changes, because the Mt. SAC course and the

meet are so steeped in history," said Todd, who oversees this weekend's

conclusion of the 54th annual Mt. SAC Cross Country Invitational, the

nation's largest.

"Some changes were unavoidable, but it doesn't make accepting the changes

any easier."

The most notable change was reconfiguring a portion of the "Valley Loop"

as a safety matter. With the number of entrants swelling to match the

meet's growth in popularity, maneuvering along the original course's

sharp, jutting turn less than a minute into the race created logistical

problems.

Mt. SAC staff changed it to a sweeping and easier to navigate path, which

Todd estimates cut about five seconds off each loop or 10 seconds per

runner off the double loop. If his estimate is accurate, that translates

to roughly a 50-second team-time (five runners) improvement over

"pre-renovation" years.

Additionally, heavy rains a few years ago caused erosion along some

patches of the course. Throw in the beautification steps imposed in recent

years a wider running path, planting of shade-producing trees along the

route, and considerable landscaping to improve footing and the

once-imposing course becomes a more inviting one.

"We try to respect history and tradition, yet safety becomes a factor too

... a much more important factor," said Mt. SAC men's coach Mike Goff, who

is the one entrusted with the upkeep of the course.

"If course historians have a problem with it, I understand," Goff added.

"At the same time, if we can improve the course to maximum conditions for

runners, that's great, too. Bottom line, the best teams and runners will

still win."

The only drawback now is that the ever-popular time comparisons by

generations of runners might lack integrity, since the course has changed.

It used to be when one California runner would meet another, the first

question was: "What's your best time at Mt. SAC?"

Regardless, the course still offers a tough test to challengers.

"Well, Mt. SAC's been too hot, too dusty, too slow, too crowded, too

hard," said Goff, echoing some critics over the years. "And now... they

say it's too fast. That's a new one."

Since you like quoting old articles, you might want to try reading this more recent essay from the Mt. Sac Cross Country Invitational Web site:

http://events.mtsac.edu/ccinvite/coursemisconceptions.htm

Let me quote one short, pertinent section:

___________

Coach Reeves measured the Mt. SAC Course in 1984, and he measured the Mt. SAC Course 21 years later in 2005, and he followed the exact same path on the course each time he measured it.

This is a direct quote from Ken Reeves, “In 1984 and 1985, course was at 15,467 feet. That makes it at 2.929 (or 2.93) distance, never the 2.91 distance currently listed by Dyestat. IN 1984, THE COURSE WAS 12 FEET SHORTER THAN TODAY. Would imagine, if the course was measured from the middle, it would be 2.95 or more. Calibrated the wheel that year. It was a brand new wheel, and I had to send one back because it was not calibrated correctly...Yes, I am that anal.

“Measured (the course) in 2005, it was 15479 feet. This also was a brand new wheel. I calibrated it and checked with Bill's (Tokar) wheel also. Course is now 2.9316 by doing the tangents.”

So, let’s put to rest once and for all the discussion that the course is shorter today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The course is not shorter!

_________________

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but the Mt. Sac people believe the course is 2.93 miles long.

Of course, none of this has to do with the OP's question about the course conversion. Do you have something to add to that topic?

Fact: It took the people at Mt. SAC EIGHT YEARS to come out with their distorted version of the explanation on the course changes. For years, Mt. SAC contended that NOTHING about the course had ever changed until HS coaches who'd been around for a while said the course had changed significantly.

Bottom Line: They changed the course and screwed with history. Can't compare over generations anymore. The old meet director was absolutely irate when he heard of the course changes (done after he had retired). Now they all get together and claim nothing has changed. Then people laughed. So they came out with a "story" which tries to mullify the whole situation. The truth doesn't lie. They made the course way faster and easier. Idiots.

Almost forgot to mention that the guy in charge nowadays has been the recipient of the Mt. SAC curse. Mt. SAC's teams used to be crazy nasty on the JC scene for years under the old coaches. Now, the guy in charge of the Mt. SAC meet took over as the girls coach too. They've nosedived the last several years. All the girls who run there for him ran faster in high school on the same courses. *sigh*

[quote]CA Guy wrote:So, let’s put to rest once and for all the discussion that the course is shorter today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The course is not shorter! [quote]

______________________________________________________________________________

_"_Mt. SAC women's cross country coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three separate interviews since last November that the traditional course had indeed been altered over the last few years, once also stating that it had been shortened. Safety concerns and course 'upgrades' were among the reasons that Todd and Mt. SAC men's cross country coach Mike Goff stated were responsible for the change."

Sacsfullofit wrote:

[quote]CA Guy wrote:So, let’s put to rest once and for all the discussion that the course is shorter today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The course is not shorter! [quote]

______________________________________________________________________________

_"_Mt. SAC women's cross country coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three separate interviews since last November that the traditional course had indeed been altered over the last few years, once also stating that it had been shortened. Safety concerns and course 'upgrades' were among the reasons that Todd and Mt. SAC men's cross country coach Mike Goff stated were responsible for the change."

Do you people bother to read? Let me quote another section of the Mt. Sac essay:

________

Now, let’s explore the second question, “Is the course faster today”. The answer is “absolutely”. Ask any coach whose teams raced on the course in the 80s and early 90s.

_____________

Yes, the course is faster. Yes, it has been changed in several different places. All of this is discussed in the essay.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that Ken Reeves measured the current Mt. Sac course at 2.93?

Do all of you non-readers think that Ken Reeves is a shill for Mt. Sac? If you don't know already, I'll let you figure out who he is and what he's accomplished.

CA Guy wrote:

[quote]Sacsfullofit wrote:

[quote]CA Guy wrote:So, let’s put to rest once and for all the discussion that the course is shorter today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The course is not shorter! [quote]

______________________________________________________________________________

_"_Mt. SAC women's cross country coach Doug Todd has confirmed in three separate interviews since last November that the traditional course had indeed been altered over the last few years, once also stating that it had been shortened. Safety concerns and course 'upgrades' were among the reasons that Todd and Mt. SAC men's cross country coach Mike Goff stated were responsible for the change."

[quote] Do you people bother to read? Let me quote another section of the Mt. Sac essay[quote]

------------------------------------------------------------

The quote from the article above predates the Mt.Sac essay, and the meet directors admit to a short course. The problem is your essay doesn't answer how the two mile mark that was on top of poop out hill, moved about 200 meters farther down the course? How about the starting line that has been moved farther up the road? Do you think they added distance to the course in the third mile? If so, explain. Now read below what someone else had post and get back to the original topic of the thread.

----------------------------------------------------------

Robert Hendricks wrote:

Fact: It took the people at Mt. SAC EIGHT YEARS to come out with their distorted version of the explanation on the course changes. For years, Mt. SAC contended that NOTHING about the course had ever changed until HS coaches who'd been around for a while said the course had changed significantly.

Bottom Line: They changed the course and screwed with history. Can't compare over generations anymore. The old meet director was absolutely irate when he heard of the course changes (done after he had retired). Now they all get together and claim nothing has changed. Then people laughed. So they came out with a "story" which tries to mullify the whole situation. The truth doesn't lie. They made the course way faster and easier. Idiots.

The course is definitely about 15-20 seconds faster than it used to be but that is not because they took away significant distance. Like CA guy explained it is just due to a new distribution of terrain. I think the main difference is that they start people on the airstrip now, and the first mile is much faster than it used to be. Don't quote me on that because I never ran the old course but that's what I read somewhere. Anyway, it's not really the distance that changed but the difficulty of the distance that contributed to the slightly faster times.

The fact is that people complain that the course is too "fast" but it is not a 3 mile course. It is 2.93 miles. Who cares? VCP is a 2 mile course in high school. Everyone knows that Mt. SAC isn't a full 3 miles, and everyone knows that it is one of the most challenging courses in the country. The end time may be relatively quick but like I stated before you should be able to run your Mt. SAC time on a pancake flat 5k course.

CA Guy - or others ...OK - bare with me a moment. Some armchair conversion question:

Selected variables:

Female

Late 1990s

Excellent hill runner (both up and down, steep or gradual)

Temperature roughly the same - 70-75

Runs 18:21 @ Woodward

Factor in other variables per your discretion.

And I know its not simple

Speculation of Mt Sac course time ...

have at it

18:00 at Mt. SAC