Just read Running with the Buffaloes for the first time. I thought it was a really great book but one of the things that I was thinking afterwards was how slow some of the races were.
Like at Pre-Nationals, their #2 runner ran like 25:20.
I would say Goucher would for sure be top 10 at NCAA XC now a days but the other guys wouldn't even be near All-America.
NCAA XC is just far deeper than it was back then.
Wetmore’s calorie restriction diets he prescribed did not age well.
No way that would fly in 2020. I actually laughed out loud at the part where Wetmore says you should look like a skeleton with a condom pulled over your skull and where he yelled at goucher for looking fat after the olympic trials in 1996.
Buffaloessszzz wrote:
Just read Running with the Buffaloes for the first time. I thought it was a really great book but one of the things that I was thinking afterwards was how slow some of the races were.
Like at Pre-Nationals, their #2 runner ran like 25:20.
I would say Goucher would for sure be top 10 at NCAA XC now a days but the other guys wouldn't even be near All-America.
NCAA XC is just far deeper than it was back then.
25:20 at Rim Rock is no joke. Much more difficult course than the manicured golf course-type courses used at major championship meets nowadays. Comparisons between courses are always faulty, but I would estimate at least 1:00 compared to the UW-Madison course.
That being said, yes, the NCAA is much deeper now than it was in 1998. Distance running in the US was just starting to emerge from the dark ages of low mileage and high intensity.
Yeah it seems like a pretty tough course. I think in the book it said their 4th or 5th guy from NCAA's ran 26:00 at pre-nationals. Even if we gave a minute conversion from Rim Rock to a course like UW Madison, that's still 25:00 for their 5th guy which is not too impressive for a DI program. Granted, they also did improve a lot from Pre-Nationals to Nationals which makes the story so much better.
Buffaloessszzz wrote:
Yeah it seems like a pretty tough course. I think in the book it said their 4th or 5th guy from NCAA's ran 26:00 at pre-nationals. Even if we gave a minute conversion from Rim Rock to a course like UW Madison, that's still 25:00 for their 5th guy which is not too impressive for a DI program. Granted, they also did improve a lot from Pre-Nationals to Nationals which makes the story so much better.
True, a minute was just an off the cuff guess. Might be a bit high I'll admit! But when you have legends like Abdi and Lagat running mid to high 24s, you can tell it's a tough course!
I also wonder who accurate XC course were back then.
How were they measured? It was before map my run.
DollyP wrote:
I also wonder who accurate XC course were back then.
How were they measured? It was before map my run.
The lined up hundreds of horses. There were no cars back then so the runners rode the horses from their respective lands. Today we call them campuses.
DollyP wrote:
I also wonder who accurate XC course were back then.
How were they measured? It was before map my run.
Somebody with exactly 12" shoes walked the course heel-to-toe the whole way.
LOL guys.
Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?
Genuinely curious.
DollyP wrote:
LOL guys.
Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?
Genuinely curious.
With a measuring wheel. Much like they do now, I believe. I would think the wheel would still be a lot more accurate than a GPS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_CounterDollyP wrote:
LOL guys.
Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?
Genuinely curious.
birdbeard wrote:
DollyP wrote:
LOL guys.
Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?
Genuinely curious.
With a measuring wheel. Much like they do now, I believe. I would think the wheel would still be a lot more accurate than a GPS.
They still use measuring wheels?
birdbeard wrote:
DollyP wrote:
LOL guys.
Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?
Genuinely curious.
With a measuring wheel. Much like they do now, I believe. I would think the wheel would still be a lot more accurate than a GPS.
GPS is not accurate at all. Overhead mapping is also not absolutely accurate as it typically does not take into account elevation, only point to point on a flat surface.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
birdbeard wrote:
With a measuring wheel. Much like they do now, I believe. I would think the wheel would still be a lot more accurate than a GPS.
GPS is not accurate at all. Overhead mapping is also not absolutely accurate as it typically does not take into account elevation, only point to point on a flat surface.
Alan
Right. That's why I think a wheel would be more accurate.
Buffaloessszzz wrote:
Just read Running with the Buffaloes for the first time. I thought it was a really great book but one of the things that I was thinking afterwards was how slow some of the races were.
Like at Pre-Nationals, their #2 runner ran like 25:20.
I would say Goucher would for sure be top 10 at NCAA XC now a days but the other guys wouldn't even be near All-America.
NCAA XC is just far deeper than it was back then.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that Colorado guys all ran considerably faster or on pace with their 8K splits at Pre-Nats even despite the extra 2K at Nationals. Lear made a big note of that, and it is telling (and makes sense with them training through and doing almost no anaerobic training through Pre-Nats). No question, NCAA is deeper now though, so not sure Wetmore having his guys so far from their peak at Pre-Nats would be looked at quite the same.
Goucher would be great in any era. His win at NCAA X was as a senior but he was in the mix the other years. Highly competitive runner who knew how to race and win. Well coached and part of a great program.
DollyP wrote:
LOL guys.
Anyone got a serious answer. How did they measure XC courses back then?
Genuinely curious.
How do they measure courses now?