Inflated HS XC marks?

5k often means 2.9-3 miles

the best way to gauge marks is by the courses run i know nj times are compared by holmdel park the course they have run for over 20 yrs compare courses run that may help u

If you are talking about Illinois, most of their courses are 3 miles or less and very flat. Many kids still list those times as 5k on their resumes. I am sure some other states are like that. Having designed many courses over the years, I never understand why it is so difficult to make an accurate course. It takes a little time, but why not put in the effort. For the majority of the kids that are not finishing near the front, the only thing they have to look forward to is trying to run a PR. If they run on a short course, they get excited for the pr, but then spend the rest of the season frustrated that they can't get another pr.

Why would you care about the XC times? If you're trying to recruit a particular runner, or trying to evaluate runners' performances to decide whether they're worth the time to try to recruit, check how they placed in important meets relative to other athletes. Learning that your guy ran 15:30 for "5K" last fall doesn't tell you anything. It might, however, be useful to know that he was 6th at state XC last fall as a junior, finishing 20 seconds behind the 9:00 two-miler who won the meet.

See how that "16:00" flat guy places at state. For xc all you can do is see how they compare against others from within the state. Wouldn't put any emphasis on cross times. Don't let the Illinois/Cali kids fool you.

Oh yeah, it is rediculous.

A lot of people tout these 15:30s and 15 flats and barely sniff 9:30.

I ran a 9:40 the season after a 16:54 and the next season a 16:06, so that means my 16:06(when I was most likely in at least a little better shape) would be equal to ~9:30.

So in 9:30 shape I ran the 16:06 on literally the fastest legitimate course I've ever seen. Most of my races the year after my 9:40 were in the 16:40- 16:55 range with 1 at 16:15 and ofc the 16:06. And then in the post season when all our courses are hilly I struggled with 17:05 and 17:30 (PIAA course).

I call bs whenever people run sub 15:30 but not 9:30 or 16 and 9:50.

A lot of California XC races are 3 miles, not 5k.

Er... wrote:

Why would you care about the XC times? If you're trying to recruit a particular runner, or trying to evaluate runners' performances to decide whether they're worth the time to try to recruit, check how they placed in important meets relative to other athletes. Learning that your guy ran 15:30 for "5K" last fall doesn't tell you anything. It might, however, be useful to know that he was 6th at state XC last fall as a junior, finishing 20 seconds behind the 9:00 two-miler who won the meet.

Agreed. Why are you even looking at XC times? If you want to judge an athlete's XC performances, look finishing place at states and big invites.

I feel like a lot of high schools go to certain course to run blazing fast 5k times, and then never approach those times again or in the big meets.

I still follow my high school, which never really goes to a completely flat, fast course, and they still compete with a lot of teams that looked national class on paper. As other said, look at post season times, and big, credible invites on courses used for many years.

The same thing has occured at my old hs. Since I graduated, there have been 4-5 guys that have bested my xc times and regularly posted similar or faster times during the season. Yet, none of them have gotten within 10 seconds of my 3200m time from hs. In fact, there times at states are typically what I ran at the beginning of the track season in hs. I moved on and ran in college, even getting to compete ncaa xc championships. None of these other guys had any success running in college.

However, I don't know that the courses being shorter is the main reason. Many of the top runners at the hs I attended play football and basketball as well. I focused solely on distance running. Perhaps they aren't training for track like I did during the winter.

a blazing fast xc time is a good ego boost for kids, who cares, you'll see what really happens at regionals/state, but including a fast course or two is a way to keep kids motivated. A lot of kids will work harder/run more mileage if they think they have a shot of making whatever list of times for the year.

Bear of Bad News wrote:

Agreed. Why are you even looking at XC times? If you want to judge an athlete's XC performances, look finishing place at states and big invites.

In college, we had two kids: one was about 30th in the small schools division in an upper midwest state. The other was state champ in a small schools division in a southeastern state. The kid from the midwest was about 90 seconds faster than the southern kid. You can't just go by place because you have no idea what the quality of the competition is.

asdfsadfsd wrote:

In college, we had two kids: one was about 30th in the small schools division in an upper midwest state. The other was state champ in a small schools division in a southeastern state. The kid from the midwest was about 90 seconds faster than the southern kid. You can't just go by place because you have no idea what the quality of the competition is.

I think that you can assume that recruiters are not retarded, and will take quality of competition into account.

I run in IL... do not put any value into our xc times

Here in North Carolina most XC courses are accurate.

Just recruit Foot Locker finalists. Most of them will be pretty fast. For safe measure, maybe narrow it down to Foot locker All Americans. Problem solved.

I wouldn't ignore xc time completely. When I was in HS I ran a 15:16 at Detweiller Park in Illinois, arguably a one of the faster courses in our state but also a hair short of 3 miles. On all of my resumes I listed my races as 3 miles and not a full 5k. My only problem was that I never had a good track season. My senior year after running the 15:16 I could only get my 2mile down to 9:49 and my mile was only 4:38. I had a different coach in track so that's probably partly to blame, but it could be that I just am not a track runner. Maybe there is something else besides just exaggerated xc times to blame.

Well a 15:16 for lets say 4800meters which is a hair short of 3 miles is worth about a 15:56 5k and a 9:51 3200 is on the same performance level as that.

I think the coaches that have measured it say that it comes out to 2.95, but you do have a valid point. But after going through the first 2 miles of the race in 10:02 I had hoped I'd be able to do a bit better than 9:49. That is, of course, assuming that the 2 mile is measured correctly.