How much slower than a track 10k, 60 seconds? i wasn't there, whats your guess.
How much slower than a track 10k, 60 seconds? i wasn't there, whats your guess.
I can't really help with estimating time difference, as I came very close to a PR at every distance throughout the 6k, but I did really like the course. It was mostly flat, except for one verrrry small incline and, even though it was pretty muddy, it seemed fast to me!
ailidh wrote:
I can't really help with estimating time difference, as I came very close to a PR at every distance throughout the 6k, but I did really like the course. It was mostly flat, except for one verrrry small incline and, even though it was pretty muddy, it seemed fast to me!
Pretty muddy?!? Were you in the men's open race - last race of the day?
I was in the men's masters race. I wore racing flats and no problem with traction. It was as close to running a 10k on roads as XC gets. Almost all on fairways, with the occasional stint on dirt/gravel. A few "inclines" but no hills.
As someone who hates running cross country, I loved this course!
A little slick, but I would not say muddy, like shoe-sucking muddy, but without hills so you would run with even effort and speed. I ran the masters and would have preferred a course much different from "a road race on grass" or golf course running, but challenging places with transportation and travel amenities may be hard to find in cities where an organization is willing to host the meet. I was, however, excellent for watching runners on the narrow 2km loop.
Tom
Short. Probably 100m per loop.
I was in the open women's race and several girls around me fell on the muddy turns, even with spikes.
A couple of 10k runners with Garmins both got it at 6.32 miles, so it was pretty close and long if anything. I thought it was a pretty fast course, but the turn at about the 3/4 mark of each loop was pretty sloppy. As with most XC races, spikes become more important the faster you run. I loaned mine to an open teammate who is a solid trail racer, and he said he wouldn't have done nearly as well without them.
PNW wrote:
Short. Probably 100m per loop.
My Garmin read 6.39 so the chances of it being short are pretty slim. Others on my team also had Garmin readings of 6.3x
I also had 6.39 on my Garmin. That is a lot of extra time, but it seems plausible.
My buddy in the masters mens race also had 6.4 on his Garmin, so it definitely wasn't short.