To put this in perspective, if these runners went the exact same average pace for the proper 5000 meters...
Weini Kelati would've run a 16:26
Drew Hunter would've run 14:14
https://twitter.com/milestatdotcom/status/671770003184754688
Foot Locker admits to adding 70 meters to South Regional course
-
The rumors are confirmed that extra distance was added to the FL south course, 70 meters at that. Foot Locker stated in an email before the race that the trails had been widened but it was still a certified 5k course, then waited until today to say otherwise.
To put this in perspective, if these runners went the exact same average pace for the proper 5000 meters...
Weini Kelati would've run a 16:26
Drew Hunter would've run 14:14
https://twitter.com/milestatdotcom/status/671770003184754688 -
Somebody must die! lol.
-
Your post assumes that it was 5k prior to this year, rather than 5k now. Is that a good assumption? It's always been a ridiculously fast course.
-
That's a very fair assumption. Foot locker did say it was a certified 5k course last year and that it's "remained the same" this year, so they had to
have measured wrong one of these two years. -
FL baloney wrote:
That's a very fair assumption. Foot locker did say it was a certified 5k course last year and that it's "remained the same" this year, so they had to
have measured wrong one of these two years.
By a very fair assumption I mean you have a very good point. Just to avoid confusion -
asdfasdfsdfa wrote:
Somebody must die! lol.
Also if the course is short. Absolute GPS perfection is required for courses. -
Foot Locker south has always been short. It probably still is but who cares. Stop worrying about cross country times. Place is all that matters. If you want to compare times, compare track times.
-
Actually both are kinda true. Last year it may have been a little short, but still certified. Over the summer they did construction on it which shortened it dramatically, but the they added the distance in season.
-
This should be the final say on this matter. Have 5 try hard hobby joggers race the course with their garmins. They will tell you the exact distance run according to their watch
-
gulpgulp wrote:
Foot Locker south has always been short. It probably still is but who cares. Stop worrying about cross country times. Place is all that matters. If you want to compare times, compare track times.
On a course that has been run by large numbers of elite runners over many years (e.g. McAlpine, Mt. SAC, Van Cortland Park) it is reasonable to compare times. -
mudcat16 wrote:
Actually both are kinda true. Last year it may have been a little short, but still certified. Over the summer they did construction on it which shortened it dramatically, but the they added the distance in season.
How can a course be short if it is "certified"? What does certified mean in this context? Certified to be what by whom and how? -
"On a course that has been run by large numbers of elite runners over many years (e.g. McAlpine, Mt. SAC, Van Cortland Park) it is reasonable to compare times."
This is NOT true. Some years are muddy messes, some years the grass is dead and the ground is hard and fast. Generally, the older a course gets the faster it gets. Each year they widen turns allowing shorter tangents. Each year they smooth out rough sections and the ground gets more packed down and supports less energy absorbing grass.
The course record of the big course I ran on in HS has improved by 60 seconds in 35 years. Both records were run by guys who ran 9:20 for the 3200 as juniors and who never broke 9:00 in their lives. I'm sure the average runners are 30 seconds better but the other 30 seconds is course changes. -
courses don't get 60s faster by rounding corners.
It's perfectly reasons to compare footlocker times since you have qualifiers from four different regionals heading toward a final on yet a different course. It's an age-old excercise to evaluate how that championship meet will go. -
&ijnfiu4%@gsadgyuJITF wrote:
"On a course that has been run by large numbers of elite runners over many years (e.g. McAlpine, Mt. SAC, Van Cortland Park) it is reasonable to compare times."
This is NOT true. Some years are muddy messes, some years the grass is dead and the ground is hard and fast. Generally, the older a course gets the faster it gets. Each year they widen turns allowing shorter tangents. Each year they smooth out rough sections and the ground gets more packed down and supports less energy absorbing grass.
The course record of the big course I ran on in HS has improved by 60 seconds in 35 years. Both records were run by guys who ran 9:20 for the 3200 as juniors and who never broke 9:00 in their lives. I'm sure the average runners are 30 seconds better but the other 30 seconds is course changes.
We compare performances run on tracks even though we know the surfaces of those tracks are different and the weather conditions may have been better in some places than others, so I don't see a problem there. Those who run in poor conditions just got unlucky.
With regard to old courses getting faster over time due to soil compaction... that's an interesting theory, but we haven't seen that in Illinois. The high school State meet has been run on the same course since 1971, and the evidence suggests that due diligence has been put into maintaining the course distance over all those years. Craig Virgin was the first State champion on this course and set the course record which has not been broken since. We have had Olympians and other notable runners such as Jorge Torres, Don Sage, Lukas Verzbicas, and Chris Derrick all come within striking distance of the record. If the course were 30 seconds faster than in 1971, then one of these guys would have beaten the record. There is no evidence that the course is getting naturally faster over time.
My guess is that your theory on wider turns and other course modifications shortening the course is correct. If you don't have reliable information for the historical length of the course, then the length is suspect and comparing times over many years will be difficult. -
DiscoGary wrote:
mudcat16 wrote:
Actually both are kinda true. Last year it may have been a little short, but still certified. Over the summer they did construction on it which shortened it dramatically, but the they added the distance in season.
How can a course be short if it is "certified"? What does certified mean in this context? Certified to be what by whom and how?
certification of a cross country course is vastly more difficult than the certification of a road course. The uneven surfaces are difficult to measure consistently and the ability to ensure that the course is laid out the same way every time is difficult. For many years I believe USATF did not certify XC courses at all. I understand that they now allow it but it is not without controversy. I remember a long discussion on here a few years ago about the difficulty and logistics of measuring an XC course accurately. Perhaps some of our measurement nerds (and I use that as a term of affection) could pipe in here? -
Mr. Obvious wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
mudcat16 wrote:
Actually both are kinda true. Last year it may have been a little short, but still certified. Over the summer they did construction on it which shortened it dramatically, but the they added the distance in season.
How can a course be short if it is "certified"? What does certified mean in this context? Certified to be what by whom and how?
certification of a cross country course is vastly more difficult than the certification of a road course. The uneven surfaces are difficult to measure consistently and the ability to ensure that the course is laid out the same way every time is difficult. For many years I believe USATF did not certify XC courses at all. I understand that they now allow it but it is not without controversy. I remember a long discussion on here a few years ago about the difficulty and logistics of measuring an XC course accurately. Perhaps some of our measurement nerds (and I use that as a term of affection) could pipe in here?
Geeks. The term is "Stat Geeks".
The course should be measured with a metal tape. All other methods are too imprecise. -
So is it now a full 5K marathon?
-
DiscoGary wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
mudcat16 wrote:
Actually both are kinda true. Last year it may have been a little short, but still certified. Over the summer they did construction on it which shortened it dramatically, but the they added the distance in season.
How can a course be short if it is "certified"? What does certified mean in this context? Certified to be what by whom and how?
certification of a cross country course is vastly more difficult than the certification of a road course. The uneven surfaces are difficult to measure consistently and the ability to ensure that the course is laid out the same way every time is difficult. For many years I believe USATF did not certify XC courses at all. I understand that they now allow it but it is not without controversy. I remember a long discussion on here a few years ago about the difficulty and logistics of measuring an XC course accurately. Perhaps some of our measurement nerds (and I use that as a term of affection) could pipe in here?
Geeks. The term is "Stat Geeks".
The course should be measured with a metal tape. All other methods are too imprecise.
Not true if the course has a larger number of turns and twists. A steel tape works well on flat courses with minimal turns. -
I read on their website it was a certified 5k last year too.
-
Poor eater wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:
mudcat16 wrote:
Actually both are kinda true. Last year it may have been a little short, but still certified. Over the summer they did construction on it which shortened it dramatically, but the they added the distance in season.
How can a course be short if it is "certified"? What does certified mean in this context? Certified to be what by whom and how?
certification of a cross country course is vastly more difficult than the certification of a road course. The uneven surfaces are difficult to measure consistently and the ability to ensure that the course is laid out the same way every time is difficult. For many years I believe USATF did not certify XC courses at all. I understand that they now allow it but it is not without controversy. I remember a long discussion on here a few years ago about the difficulty and logistics of measuring an XC course accurately. Perhaps some of our measurement nerds (and I use that as a term of affection) could pipe in here?
Geeks. The term is "Stat Geeks".
The course should be measured with a metal tape. All other methods are too imprecise.
Not true if the course has a larger number of turns and twists. A steel tape works well on flat courses with minimal turns.
What method is better?
