If it helps you sleep at night roughly add 1 minute to 1:15 to get their Mt. Sac and 1:10-1:30 to get their CA State meet time.
If it helps you sleep at night roughly add 1 minute to 1:15 to get their Mt. Sac and 1:10-1:30 to get their CA State meet time.
Heya wrote:
If it helps you sleep at night roughly add 1 minute to 1:15 to get their Mt. Sac and 1:10-1:30 to get their CA State meet time.
My #1 girl last year ran 18:56 at Woodbridge, then 18:58 at Mt. Sac.
My #1 boy ran 15:15 at Woodbridge, then 15:42 at Mt. Sac.
Woodbridge is a joke and the only people that won’t admit it are people out of the Southern Section who believe what they are told about how special they are as “California runners.”
So Dumb wrote:
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?
Are you aware that some locations tend to consistently have better weather (low wind and temps, especially at night). Stanford races in April/May are an example. Maybe Wood ridge is like this. You could look it up (Weather underground historical data), I don’t care enough to invest the time). These factors alone dont account for all the speed- but combined with surface, competition, course layout, etc,, could make it fast- and not necessarily “short”.
Big Baller wrote:
Woodbridge is a joke and the only people that won’t admit it are people out of the Southern Section who believe what they are told about how special they are as “California runners.”
lol
can we stop acting like distance matters in high school xc as long as the winning time is between 14 and 16 minutes?
Why the f*ck do you care about XC times?
i'm telling you that distance is a poor metric and a decent xc course should take between 14 and 16 minutes for a good to great athlete to complete it. that's the important metric.
I ran it 2004-2007. I remember being told the exact distance on it—something like 3.00 my fr/soph and it being 3.02 my jr/sr when they changed it around a little. I remember one year watching mac fleet fly around the corner with the drums beating and looking at that clock and seeing it @ like 13:40s during his final sprint. The adrenaline was nuts.
I also remember running fast as hell there. Not just fast times, my times were plenty fast, but I mean running fast. I could tell I was going so much faster than my other races, my legs were moving so quickly and it wasn’t as tiring.. The energy felt limitless. I broke my 3200m PR at the 2 mile mark and felt so little fatigue. There were so many people constantly cheering and the flood lights were lighting up the fields and paths.
It’s hard to put the sheer amount of energy you feel there in writing. But one thing is for certain, and that is you run fast, legit times there. Yeah it’s flat but you run those 3 miles on your own 2 legs on asphalt, turf, grass, and contrete. Who cares if the conditions are insane, it’s still a legit 3 mile. I always ran faster after Woodbridge too, like it taught me how quick I actually was.
So Dumb wrote:
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?
no, not really
Texas HS Coach wrote:
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.
GPS is not reliable, but it's more often underestimates the distance you ran because it cuts corners.
The reason people usually get long distances on their GPS is because they ran even longer.
Like Really Bro wrote:
I ran it 2004-2007. I remember being told the exact distance on it—something like 3.00 my fr/soph and it being 3.02 my jr/sr when they changed it around a little. I remember one year watching mac fleet fly around the corner with the drums beating and looking at that clock and seeing it @ like 13:40s during his final sprint. The adrenaline was nuts.
I also remember running fast as hell there. Not just fast times, my times were plenty fast, but I mean running fast. I could tell I was going so much faster than my other races, my legs were moving so quickly and it wasn’t as tiring.. The energy felt limitless. I broke my 3200m PR at the 2 mile mark and felt so little fatigue. There were so many people constantly cheering and the flood lights were lighting up the fields and paths.
It’s hard to put the sheer amount of energy you feel there in writing. But one thing is for certain, and that is you run fast, legit times there. Yeah it’s flat but you run those 3 miles on your own 2 legs on asphalt, turf, grass, and contrete. Who cares if the conditions are insane, it’s still a legit 3 mile. I always ran faster after Woodbridge too, like it taught me how quick I actually was.
This is a far more plausible explanation for the fast times. I'm sure Alex Hutchinson would agree.
I think Berlin was short this year. It was slightly under 42k. The same thing happened in 2014.
I had no idea what this Woodbridge invite was until this morning.
There is no way the winning team runs and average of 14:31. Approx 15:00 for a full 5k. Zero chance that course is accurate. Yes it was Great Oak, but lets be real here.
Where did you miss that a straight line is the shortest path between points! He may have saved some time in passing runners ahead of him, but no where was his path shorter by veering inside off the track and then turning to return to lane one.
texas tornado wrote:
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
This list is impressive. You're looking at a bunch of sub-4 or sub-3:42 1500 guys. They almost all went to either Oregon, Colorado or NAU. Most of these guys averaged a bit under 4:30 pace for 2 miles on the track, which would indicate they should be able to average about 4:40 pace for 3 miles on a track. At least for these guys the times sure seem in line with what they had run on the track 3 months earlier.
Add 10 seconds a mile to anybody's 3200 SB from the preceding track season. If you're getting the times they ran at Woodbridge I'd say it makes sense. If they are running at a faster pace than their 3200 SB from a few months before, they yeah I'll agree it's a garbage course.
dumb and dumber wrote:
So Dumb wrote:
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?
no, not really
So college scholarships don't matter? If one of these kids gets a scholarship over kids that didn't run this short course then it's a problem.
So Dumb wrote:
dumb and dumber wrote:
no, not really
So college scholarships don't matter? If one of these kids gets a scholarship over kids that didn't run this short course then it's a problem.
Haha, no...the real problem would be that the college coach who awarded the scholarship is a terrible recruiter.
College coaches aren’t stupid.. they don’t just blindly give scholarships based on who appears higher on the athletic.net lists.
To your credit, it’s a somewhat interesting concept though. Realistically, running a fast time on a short course could give an athlete more Initial exposure. Because they do appear higher up on the list and could be stumbled upon during a performance list search by a mid to low tier college program. So if you had two guys with the exact same Track PR’s but one who ran a fast time on a short course, the short course kid might get initially viewed by more colleges. A coach will still look at all their other times/ evaluate their training history/injuries/academics/personality/running form etc... but again, it could help in the initial discovery of the athlete.
However, everyone already knows Woodbridge is fast. So a 14:45 there isn’t really intriguing. The best way to do it is to run a short race nobody has ever heard of... You run 14:45 at some random course in Montana then coaches will see your time, be intrigued, and inevitably check you out. They’ll probabaly be disappointed in your other times and know very quickly it was a short course... but maybe a few colleges decide your ‘real times’ are good enough and send you a letter.
Looks like the most boring race course ever, with about a billion turns.
http://gvarvas.com/course-map/
Reminds me of my home course in HS, where we would set out cones for turns on our athletic fields. I felt like we could tweak the distance a bit by where we put those cones.
800 dude wrote:
Texas HS Coach wrote:
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.
GPS is not reliable, but it's more often underestimates the distance you ran because it cuts corners.
The reason people usually get long distances on their GPS is because they ran even longer.
I agree that GPS is not reliable... however I don't think it underestimates the difference, it's actually quite the opposite.
To check that out please go out to the track with your GPS watch on, run a mile, and then tell us how far it said you ran. Pretty sure it will register 1 mile before you get to the mile mark. If GPS cuts corners it would result in you hitting a mile before GPS said you did.
That is all.
So Dumb wrote:
dumb and dumber wrote:
no, not really
So college scholarships don't matter? If one of these kids gets a scholarship over kids that didn't run this short course then it's a problem.
... college coaches don't give scholarships out based on XC times. That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. They might give a scholly based on how someone completes in XC though.