Can we stop pretending Woodbridge isn’t short?

There was a thread on this last year and, from all indications, it's a legitimate 3 mile course, just an extremely flat and fast one, akin to running a 3 mile race on the track.

The course last year was definitely short. The way Varvas measures it is super dumb and not precise. They did alter the course slightly this year that may have actually made it 3 miles.

Nah there's no way it's 3mi. 14 flat in the beginning of the season like it's nothing? The course has to be 40-50 seconds faster than McQuaid, which is already a fast 3mi course.

They measure from the middle of the back

Some one who was actually there wrote:

The course last year was definitely short. The way Varvas measures it is super dumb and not precise. They did alter the course slightly this year that may have actually made it 3 miles.

Better question is why run a short 5k? Who cares if it's 2.7, 2.9, 3.0, or 3.2 if it's not a real 3.1.

I guess you can go there and get a fast time and pretend it’s real and inflate some PRs that are never reached again.

Hey coach varvis is my coach I'm pretty sure he got it right I got exactly 3 miles on my Garmin. Also we spent alot of time fixing it up and my coaches said they went around the course a lot of times measuring it

Course is almost always legit 3 miles.You can't compare running on a fast flat surface at night with hundreds of the fastest high schoolers all in one race and thousands of screaming spectators. Next you gonna call Arcadia 3200 short?

Cochise wrote:

Next you gonna call Arcadia 3200 short?

Actaully Arcadia 3200 was short. Winner passed 4 people by running inside of the track.

Last year's course was 2.96 based on the average our team got with GPS watches. This year we got 2.99 average.

Most people who have never run Woodbridge don't understand because they run on legit cross country courses with hills, dirt, wet/tall grass, etc. Woodbridge is essentially a 3 mile, or 2.99 mile track race. If you look at what the kids have run for 3200 the previous season their times align perfectly for a 2.99 mile race on the track and that's what's happening. Also keep in mind most of these kids are training in hot weather during the day and then they go and race in much cooler weather in front of about 10,000 people in the dark. There is a ton of electricity in the air for the sweepstakes races and the course is every bit as fast a road race.

Is it short? If so, only by a few seconds. It's the overall atmosphere and racetrack course that pumps up the crazy fast times. Think of it this way, though. Add about 30 seconds to the boys times and you've got 14:31 for 5000. Is a 14:31 5000 on the track really unbelievable for some of the top boys in the nation? Absolutely not.

Kipchoge just ran that pace for almost 9 times the distance.

So in other words, yes it's short. Also running mid pack is going to be longer then running up front and have full tangents available.

In other words, yes it's likely "short". Running mid pack is going to be longer than running up front, yes, as it is in every race ever run. You could also run a 5000 on the track and make it short by running less than 20cm or so from the rail, so what's your point? Is .01 miles really significant? It's about 3 seconds at the pace the top boys were running.

2.99 is average. So mid pack got 2.99? So then leaders cut more off that. Yes it’s all significant because it’s short and not the advertised distance.

Gps for a tangentially measured 5k will often yield 3.12 to 3.18. More for midpackers who stroll the midline like a stream of fish.

If you're getting under the race distance on the gps, it means the course is midline measured and/or legitimately short. Not that it matters.

Cochise wrote:

Course is almost always legit 3 miles.You can't compare running on a fast flat surface at night with hundreds of the fastest high schoolers all in one race and thousands of screaming spectators. Next you gonna call Arcadia 3200 short?

This is letsrun. People here will blatantly tell that certain 400 meter tracks are short ( favorites of theirs are swarthmore and any track in california that routinely turns out fast times).

Wind, temperature, surface, turns, hills- are very important in how fast a course is. How are they for this course/event?

These factors matter a lot wrote:

Wind, temperature, surface, turns, hills- are very important in how fast a course is. How are they for this course/event?

It’s got times that don’t make sense every year so you can eliminate wind and temp as reasons. For the person that says “it doesn’t matter” runnerspace is holding up that 14:01 as the fastest time in the country and he’s getting press. Does that matter?

Bleh wrote:

Nah there's no way it's 3mi. 14 flat in the beginning of the season like it's nothing? The course has to be 40-50 seconds faster than McQuaid, which is already a fast 3mi course.

If at a huge meet like this they run 14:40 for 3 mile like you say it equates to, that’s really not anything insane. That’s not much under 5 minute pace for a fast course. 14:01 on a fast course (4:40 pace) makes a lot of sense. Look at last years too. Cooper teare ran 13:58 or so I think, then he ran 14:17 on the track... FOR A 5K!! By the way, that was also an early season race. I am in no way near these guys in talent, but that doesn’t mean I go and call out their course for bein short. Quit acting like a freaking a$$ since some kid is way faster than you will ever be. If you did any research before making those claims you’d see that he (Nico young, the winner) ran 9:05 last year on the track as a sophomore, and he also went sub 15 for a road 5k that is highly publicized and runnerspace and other groups go out to take interviews at that race. He ran that in August. I believe he went 14:55, which is roughly 14:20 or a little under for 3 miles. This race was ran in the heat of a SoCal August day. I think it is very logical that Nico ran about 20 seconds faster a month later and at night in one of the most competitive meets in the nation. No, I am not Nico and don’t even know him. I just get salt when some LR trolls try to call races short when they haven’t done any proper research. It’s not fair to the guys that put in the work to run those insane times

Here's a few of the boys who have run very fast at Woodbridge. Basically a bunch of no-names that have never done anything outside of this race so clearly Woodbridge is fake news. Very very sad!

13:55 - Blake Haney

13:56 - Estevan De La Rosa

13:58 - Luis Grijalva

13:59 - Cooper Teare

13:59 - Justin Hazell

14:01 - Nico Young

14:03 - Kevin Ramos

14:04 - Austin Tamagno

14:06 - Philip Rocha

14:07 - Garrett Corcoran

14:10 - Sydney Gidabuday

14:10 - Caleb Webb

14:10 - Eduardo Herrera

14:11 - Reed Brown