I was more defending Jensen than anything else. I think the further back in the results you go the more the course seems fast. Which is fine, we know it's fast and that's ok. Doesn't take anything away from how other worldly fast those 3 went, they are absolute studs, as is Jensen.
Random sampling
10th place - 30 second career PR, 1:15 seconds faster than State Meet
23rd place - 22 second career PR
31st place - 47 second career PR
Everybody must have had a great summer
H. Harvey wrote:
This is why coaches don't pay attention to XC times. They are meaningless.
Unless you are running the same fire trail carved out who knows if the flags/cones are in the same place.
Running this fast in August on an unverified course is meaningless. They going to run 15's in December? Say they do get to Balboa Park, my guess is they have a hard time breaking 18.
Except Forsyth has already run 17:46 at Balboa (5th last year).
Yes, H. Harvey surely doesn't know how good she is (Dad and Mom great genes, former very good U of M runners).
SpartanState wrote:
H. Harvey wrote:This is why coaches don't pay attention to XC times. They are meaningless.
Unless you are running the same fire trail carved out who knows if the flags/cones are in the same place.
Running this fast in August on an unverified course is meaningless. They going to run 15's in December? Say they do get to Balboa Park, my guess is they have a hard time breaking 18.
Except Forsyth has already run 17:46 at Balboa (5th last year).
Eh, no big deal. Probably just a fast course.
Bayshore Boy wrote:
Sielle Kearney (3rd place) and now a senior is very legit with range from a 2:14 800 to a 10:32 3200. A great race between three elite runners.
And all three of the girls' teams have Portage on their schedule. I have not looked to see who else will be at Portage who could make it even more competitive. I hope all are in the same divisional race at Portage. It could be another record setting race.
They won't be. Portage doesn't switch divisions. Ackley will run in the D3 race and the other 2 in the D1 race.
Hey all, i've run this course myself. If it's not short, it should be known it's flat as a pancake. Most of the top runners don't improve much if at all throughout the season after this race. But you may as well be running a 5k on a track if that gives you an idea as to what this course is like.
How many XC races are these kids gonna run this year? Not just against each other but all season long? More than 15? Less than 20?
10-14
These performances were 147, 146, 146 according to tullyrunners. According to the same site, Amber Trotter's FL performance in 2001 was the equivalent of running about 15:10 on this course.
Yep, the top 3 ran fast on an accurate course that is flat and was hard as can be that day with great weather to boot. I look forward to the re-measurement.
I like french toast wrote:
Hey all, i've run this course myself. If it's not short, it should be known it's flat as a pancake. Most of the top runners don't improve much if at all throughout the season after this race. But you may as well be running a 5k on a track if that gives you an idea as to what this course is like.
As someone who has raced at Benzie in 2015 and 2016 and who's PR is set there, I truly do think the course is a bit short. Came out to 3.03 and 3.04 on my watch each time I ran. Not as bad as some other courses, but still short.
Regardless, Benzie is fast. Extremely flat, normally great weather, and great competition. Decent amount of athletes set a PR at Benzie, don't come close for a good amount of the season, and think they can't come close by the state meet.
If you want crazy PR's in the beginning of the season that are hard to redo, Benzie is a great start. You can't win a state meet in August though, and you can't win a state meet with a team that thinks they are worse than what they were in August.
Your GPS watch is not as accurate as a calibrated wheel going point to point, that's what counts. It's a fast course, period. When conditions are perfect with great runners, they run the times that they are capable of with those kinds of conditions.
MI HS Runner wrote:
As someone who has raced at Benzie in 2015 and 2016 and who's PR is set there, I truly do think the course is a bit short. Came out to 3.03 and 3.04 on my watch each time I ran. Not as bad as some other courses, but still short.
Regardless, Benzie is fast. Extremely flat, normally great weather, and great competition. Decent amount of athletes set a PR at Benzie, don't come close for a good amount of the season, and think they can't come close by the state meet.
If you want crazy PR's in the beginning of the season that are hard to redo, Benzie is a great start. You can't win a state meet in August though, and you can't win a state meet with a team that thinks they are worse than what they were in August.
Yeah, it's fast and you expect most pr's to be set there. Hilly courses in rainy, cold, wet conditions usually don't yield pr's. I agree with the other poster, your watch doesn't count.
MI HS Runner wrote:
As someone who has raced at Benzie in 2015 and 2016 and who's PR is set there, I truly do think the course is a bit short. Came out to 3.03 and 3.04 on my watch each time I ran. Not as bad as some other courses, but still short.
Regardless, Benzie is fast. Extremely flat, normally great weather, and great competition. Decent amount of athletes set a PR at Benzie, don't come close for a good amount of the season, and think they can't come close by the state meet.
If you want crazy PR's in the beginning of the season that are hard to redo, Benzie is a great start. You can't win a state meet in August though, and you can't win a state meet with a team that thinks they are worse than what they were in August.
I mean but how does the wheel that got 4915 and watch by same guy on another run at 3.02 count? Do you courses that are long rountinely are short on wheels and watches? Regardless of if watches "count"
it doesn't count because he wasn't telling the truth. if the wheel is calibrated and the person wheeling it goes to the "allowable" point to point by a runner, it's accurate. a watch is simply NOT accurate. two people wheeling the course with 2 calibrated wheels would be very close at every split and the finish line over 5000 meters. two people running with watches won't be nearly as close...try it;) ever go running with 5 kids that all have gps watches and they are off by as much as 3/10ths of a mile? I have;) look up gps watch accuracy and it'll make sense.
Indoor? wrote:
I mean but how does the wheel that got 4915 and watch by same guy on another run at 3.02 count? Do you courses that are long rountinely are short on wheels and watches? Regardless of if watches "count"
Well he wheeled it at 4915, running more than the shortest possible route. Then when he ran open race had 3.02. In the past when our athletes have ran it they have ranged it from 3.02 to 3.08, never anything over that. So the watches may be wrong in a statistically unlikely way is what you are saying? Or they just don't count? I understand that if it's a watch you are just going to say it's wrong, and I agree they aren't accurate to the foot. But most courses that measure 5k on the wheel end up being 3.09 to 3.12 on a GPS watch. When the wheel and several watches match up it atleast allows one to lean towards a conclusion.
Personally I have wheeled it 3 times and when shortest possible route got 4906, when taking a more realistic run the other 2 times got 4923 and 4935. None of those were this year though so who knows exactly with start/finish line placement.
Indoor? wrote:
Well he wheeled it at 4915, running more than the shortest possible route. Then when he ran open race had 3.02. In the past when our athletes have ran it they have ranged it from 3.02 to 3.08, never anything over that. So the watches may be wrong in a statistically unlikely way is what you are saying? Or they just don't count? I understand that if it's a watch you are just going to say it's wrong, and I agree they aren't accurate to the foot. But most courses that measure 5k on the wheel end up being 3.09 to 3.12 on a GPS watch. When the wheel and several watches match up it atleast allows one to lean towards a conclusion.
Personally I have wheeled it 3 times and when shortest possible route got 4906, when taking a more realistic run the other 2 times got 4923 and 4935. None of those were this year though so who knows exactly with start/finish line placement.
Sounds like there should be some disqualifications. Isn't this against NFHS rules?
Nope, the only rule is that it can't be more than 5k.
All three girls are scheduled to run in the same race on 9/15 at the MSU Spartan Invitational meet. Their schools are all listed for the Spartan Elite race. Olivia Theis (17:21 5K & 10:14 2 mile) from Lansing Catholic is also scheduled for the same race. It looks like Audrey Belf’s meet record of 17:14 will be under attack. (Neither Goethals nor Finn ran faster at the meet.)