Club cross: was the course actually long?

I ran the Womens Masters race, and my Garmin measured 3.7 miles, so I assumed the course was a bit short.

Not surprised that it would be short, but surprised it would be 150m short. Sounds like most gps measurements I've heard of were above 6.17 miles which is 70m short, and usually I thought gps measurements err on the side of too short? But nobody who ran the race actually cut the tangents, so maybe that explains the discrepancy.

D Katz wrote:

I have so many problems with the original article that my head is spinning!

just have a drink and let it go....

who cares, it is cross country and everyone ran the same distance

rojo wrote:

raced it wrote:

Pretty sure based on times/performances of myself and others that it was only 10k.

It was not a super fast day with some wind, some very muddy spots, and doing the full hill twice (I am told that the 8k doesn't even do the whole hill once, and the usual 10k course only does it once).

We were told multiple times leading up to the race that it would be 10.2k, and even specifically stuff like "the 9k mark is 1200m to go". But no way it ended up being long, everyone with a Garmin said it's about 10k.

Employee 1.1 has measure the course. It was short, not long.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/12/just-long-club-cross-country-course-really/

I'm disappointed in the Brojos that they consider this as sufficient evidence to claim the course was short. Usually they show better judgment.

But as long as people are clicking the link I guess they're doing their jobs...

Not running the tangents = a longer route. Individual GPS measurements vary, adding to the measurement error. The straighter the course the less over GPS tends to measure (assuming no tall buildings or heavy tree cover). On a course with lots of sharp turns, the corners get cut between 5 second reporting typically resulting in a shortened measured distance.In all cases, it's safe to assume that GPS provides an approximation of true distance.

John Clendon wrote:

Wheeler wrote:

If GPS shows it close, it was shorter than advertised.

I am positive that GPS measures less than what you actually ran (tangents).

its not long wrote:

It was not long, my team had multiple guys set 10k prs. There is no way that happens on a long course.

PRs on a muddy, hilly XC course means it was short.

Probably only the leader runs the tangent distance and everyone else runs longer.

Does it really matter? It's XC.

You know, if you're going to take the time to measure a course, you have to walk.

Running with a measuring wheel is not an accurate way of measuring, no matter how careful you are and your escapade on the track expounds this notion.

Unfortunately, despite your hard work, it's close to pointless.

Just like in running: when you're measuring a course - there are no shortcuts.

Doesn't matter at all. Everyone ran the same race. Suck it up people!

I mean come on wrote:

You know, if you're going to take the time to measure a course, you have to walk.

Running with a measuring wheel is not an accurate way of measuring, no matter how careful you are and your escapade on the track expounds this notion.

Unfortunately, despite your hard work, it's close to pointless.

Just like in running: when you're measuring a course - there are no shortcuts.

Exactly.

As for GPS accuracy, it can go both ways. Sometimes it can end up recording too short a distance on a course with lots of turns, because it cuts corners. But it can also record a distance longer than the actual race distance because a course is measured along perfect tangents, which nobody actually hits in a real race.

As for the guy who said a lot of people ran PRs, which shouldn't be possible on an XC course, I would suggest that psychological factors might have something to do with it. I'd bet most of the people in that field are used to running road races with only a handful of people around them. Being surrounded by so many fast people, with real crowd support most of the way, has a way of helping people to dig deeper than they normally would. I was a bit surprised at how fast I ran, but when I looked at my HR data for the race, it was higher throughout than any 10k I've ever done. I didn't feel like I was working harder, but it seems I was.

Lehigh is known to be fast despite having hills. The 10K I would expect to be a tiny bit slower because they had to run the hill twice, but the rest of the course was easy, the ground was firm (except for maybe two small patches), and the downhill finish was awesome. Throw in the depth of the field (a low-30s guy might only have one or two people to race on the roads, but this weekend he had company for the whole race) and I don't think PRs should be too surprising. Although I personally never run nearly as fast in XC as I do on the roads, I know several runners who do when the course is fast.

But yeah the course definitely wasn't long

Why didn't they have us run Lehigh's 10k course?Instead we ran more or less a double 5k course that the high school runners run. I raced the open Paul Short 8k course in 26:56 in October and the 10k on Sat in 34:07. I thought my 8k performance in October was much better. My 10k track PR is 33:32. I love running at Lehigh and I just wished they had us run the D1 10k course.

See 10k map.

http://lehighsports.com/sports/2013/7/27/MXC_0727135555.aspx?path=paulshort

By all means share your thoughts or email me:

There is no doubt in my mind that the course is short. Trust me, I ran the race, I would like it to be 10K, I wanted it to be. My heart sank when I finished wheeling it and got the measure I did. But I have to be realistic. Fast times, calling it 10.2K then apparently switching to 10K with last minute course changes, and getting the same significantly short measurement after wheeling it twice? I can't kid myself.

Those talking about the wheel bouncing when running and slipping, etc ... As I said in the article, I did admit that my method wasn't perfect. But you have to understand that this was a very heavy old school metal wheel on mostly even footing and if anything, I felt it bounced way less on the grass than the road or track since the road you hit little rocks and it's a hard surface so it's easier for the wheel to pop up a bit.

I was cognizant of avoiding bumps and slowed down on parts that were harder to navigate. I stuck sticks in the ground to mark certain points so I could measure the course in pieces. I swear, the people that past by walking their dogs must have thought I was nuts.

And as I stated in the article, even if my measurement was a little off, there was no way it was 234m off. If I had measured it 50m short, I wouldn't have made an issue out of it because between possible error on my part and not being able to cut all the tangents in the actual race, I would think most people actually ran 10,000m. But I didn't measure it to be 9,950m or even 9,900m. It was 9,766m.

Another piece of anecdotal evidence: To test this, after my workout this evening on my cooldown I measured 400m out from my house with my wheel (this is a lighter plastic wheel, more prone to bouncing than the one I used in Lehigh). I was running around 7-minute pace. I went out 400.0 meters, reset the wheel and came back, measuring 400.0m once again (the segment had one turn, for which I cut the tangent). After I was done running, I went and walked the same segment (I had put a lacrosse stick in the snow as a marker ... again, I'm sure people driving by thought I was crazy) and I got 400.0m exactly.

So at least this one time, for 400m, running at ~7-minute pace and walking slowly yielded the same result to a tenth of a meter. I plan on repeating the experiment on grass whenever we get some of that again in upstate NY.

debaser27, I'm not sure what your connection is to the local organizers, but you seem to have inside info. If the people who created the course are admitting that their measurement could have been 100m off, that doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence in their accuracy. If they could have been 100m off, why so crazy to think they were actually 200m or 150m off?

If you were saying the course was no shorter than 9,900m and I'm saying it was definitely no longer than 9,850m, are we really arguing over a huge number? However, you and others seem to be stuck on it actually being a full 10K, meanwhile acknowledging that you could have been 1% off.

One mistake I could see being made: If you were measuring the course and trying to avoid having to do the loop twice, you could just measure it once and double it and then add the start and finish (this was one of my two methods). But you have to remember that you don't run the connector between the first loop and the second loop twice, so you have to subtract this distance. Your line when running the second loop also is different than the first since the first time you are running right and the second time you b-line it left towards the finish. The way I measured, the connector was 422ft which equals 129m. If there were last minute changes to the course to make it 10K instead of 10.2K, I could see a mistake like that going overlooked.

I addressed this point pretty extensively here if you want to read:

Club cant even handle me wrote:

According to the website:

http://www.mausatf.org/2014ClubXC/2014-Club-XC-Championships-coursedescription.htm

the course was actually 10,200 meters. Did Ryan Hill just run the equivalent of 28:20 in that mud? Most of the times seem in line with 10K but then again that course is fast.

It doesn't matter, it's XC- it's all about the race, bout the race, bout the race, not distance.

What is with this recent phenomenon of people worrying about distance and times on XC races??? Want an accurate race with comparable times? "Go to your local track....."

By the way runn...very clever!

You can say it doesn\'t matter all you want, but intense runners will always qualify a race with a time. I finished in the middle of the race and loved the experience, but I still analyzed my time with my effort, because my place didn\'t mean much. I know that me and some others thought our times were actually slower than they should have been. I did finish stronger than usual and know I ran a tad conservative, but the GPS of the guy I was running with had us at splits of 10:25 for 2 miles and 21:00 for 4 miles. His 5 mile beeped around 200 meters before the 8k. Now, I realize a GPS will be off due to the weaving during the race, but it still begs a little curiosity. I closed the last 1k in 3:02 and finished with 33:13. Something doesn\'t add up. I personally thought I was in 32:20-30 track shape. My thoughts are the that course was a tad muddy in certain places and there were some very tight turns. The hills, I didn\'t think, were that significant, but enough.

All that to say, I enjoyed the fact that it was so intensely measured afterwards and what not, but I also question running with the wheel to measure the course. You can \'make sure\' it doesn\'t bump all you want, but I think it\'s going to create a large inaccuracy either way.

i had one issue with the article you published here. You said your wheel should have measured 399.06 around the track, and that it measured 397.8.... That's only 1.26meters off. Even if your 2.06 number was correct, you would be 2.06meters off every 399.06m(since that is the number you were suppose to get), not 2.06 off every 397.8m.

As for race directors having a knowingly short or long course, i directed a race a couple of years ago that had a 76 meter short 10k. I did this so that i wouldn't have to take up another block of inner city roads and i had a good finish location for gathering people at a park! Thats the only reason i could see being a valid reason for why a course isn't the right distance knowingly. (I have measured marathons, halfs, 10ks, 5ks for USATF certification that were USATF and RRCA state championship races.)

All that to say, I enjoyed the fact that it was so intensely measured afterwards and what not, but I also question running with the wheel to measure the course. You can 'make sure' it doesn't bump all you want, but I think it's going to create a large inaccuracy either way.

What I would say is that in XC your time would be compared to the top runners- not the distance.

There are XC courses that are flat on hard packed ground that would be very fast.

Others could be fairly flat but have poor footing for whatever reason or very soft ground with longer grass, things that make it slower. And obviously there are the hill and weather factors.

Compare your effort to the top runners. If you're 1 minute behind a 28 minute 10K guy then you ran really well.