"To ensure that measurements remain stable through seasons and various competition markings, Geodetic Survey GPS signaling datums are used throughout the course."
Go to "Click here for a detailed course description!"
"To ensure that measurements remain stable through seasons and various competition markings, Geodetic Survey GPS signaling datums are used throughout the course."
Go to "Click here for a detailed course description!"
coachy wrote:
So now how do we measure that can be trusted? Every known possible type of measurement is now not good enough! Ok that solves it, must be short
With a 100 meter steel tape on the straight parts between tangents, Jones counter bike on corners and dips/mounds. That will be +/- 20 meters.
coachy wrote:
Well that solves it. I am sure that this is way more accurate then the hundreds of people that ran it with a GPS and couldn’t find one that came out short.
Have you ever heard of a short course that failed to produce a short result on any GPS? Typically you are questions the length of a course BECAUSE it was short on the GPS. I know here come the “GPS doesn’t count” crowd.
It's more typical for a short xc course to produce long gps results (ie longer than 3.107 miles).
Another giver of +1 wrote:
coachy wrote:
Well that solves it. I am sure that this is way more accurate then the hundreds of people that ran it with a GPS and couldn’t find one that came out short.
Have you ever heard of a short course that failed to produce a short result on any GPS? Typically you are questions the length of a course BECAUSE it was short on the GPS. I know here come the “GPS doesn’t count” crowd.
It's more typical for a short xc course to produce long gps results (ie longer than 3.107 miles).
That is some really interesting logic, "a short course produces longer GPS results". I've got some Ocean front property in Nebraska I'm trying to sell. I'll give you a good deal.
Saladbar who? wrote:
Another giver of +1 wrote:
It's more typical for a short xc course to produce long gps results (ie longer than 3.107 miles).
That is some really interesting logic, "a short course produces longer GPS results". I've got some Ocean front property in Nebraska I'm trying to sell. I'll give you a good deal.
That’s a first for me as well.
This may have been covered but I can't find it. Are any of the Running Lane runners also running at Eastbay?
Yes they are a few. West regional for footlocker was same day as running so nobody from the west. Natalie Cook and Ava Parekh are two that ran runninglane and will run footlocker. And Riley Stewart.
coachy wrote:
If there is no definition of what a proper way to measure a XC course is, then why are you using a wheel? I think some governing body needs to first determine how XC courses can be "certified" before diving in with some way to measure it. That is the whole problem.
I have certified dozens of road courses over the years but this has nothing to do with that.
coachy-
You didn't study your USATF Course Certification Manual very well...
Read page 34 -
https://www.usatf.org/resources/course-certification/certification-proceduresSaladbar who? wrote:
rojo wrote:
What are you talking about? Misleading? I'm open to the fact it's short. I'm open to the fact that it's accurate. I never stated one thing or the other.
What's misleading about saying a guy wheeled it and found it to be short and we are looking into writing an article about that (waiting to here back from RL)?
I'm the opposite of misleading. I'm willing to fly down there so there is nothing misleading about it.
I'll say this. Someone on our Monday staff call said, "72 guys broke 15:00 so I think it's short." That' deosnt' stun me at all.
The reality is 73 guys were within 16 seconds per mile of Sahlman.
If he's an 8:40 guy, that means they are 9:12 guys. Well in 2019 there were 180+ people that ran 9:12 or faster so does it shock me that 73 could do it here? No.
One thing that's possible is that this course is accurately 5k but most courses are wheeled and therefore actually a little bit long.
So have you checked all the other courses around the country, who wheeled and flew to the course when Ritz "Set the record". FSU course, have you spent money to investigate it? You are blatantly trying to discredit the City of Huntsville and RunningLane, I'm sure the City Attorney would love to chat with you.
Which past course has ever produced such a high percentage of huge PRs? The FSU has been changed/lengthened for this year's NCAA Meet.
Many years World's is off by hundreds of meters and that distance is stated on the results - but it's CROSS COUNTRY - it was never supposed to be about fast times.
LCPSsux wrote:
Yes they are a few. West regional for footlocker was same day as running so nobody from the west. Natalie Cook and Ava Parekh are two that ran runninglane and will run footlocker. And Riley Stewart.
Cool Thanks.
Riley Hough, Eastbay MW Champion, will as well.
coachy wrote:
Saladbar who? wrote:
That is some really interesting logic, "a short course produces longer GPS results". I've got some Ocean front property in Nebraska I'm trying to sell. I'll give you a good deal.
That’s a first for me as well.
I'm sure he means you need a long gps reading to have a true distance when on courses with trees, hills, ground undulations and turns.
Another giver of +1 wrote:
coachy wrote:
So now how do we measure that can be trusted? Every known possible type of measurement is now not good enough! Ok that solves it, must be short
With a 100 meter steel tape on the straight parts between tangents, Jones counter bike on corners and dips/mounds. That will be +/- 20 meters.
A steel tape can and should be used on the turns as well, but someone who knows how to use a measuring wheel can do as good of a job as a steel taper or Jones counter.
Another giver of +1 wrote:
coachy wrote:
So now how do we measure that can be trusted? Every known possible type of measurement is now not good enough! Ok that solves it, must be short
With a 100 meter steel tape on the straight parts between tangents, Jones counter bike on corners and dips/mounds. That will be +/- 20 meters.
What do you mean +/- 20 meters?
coachy wrote:
Steel Tapeless wrote:
Plenty of coaches I know have questioned it and only one of them is a Let Run lurker.
I just feel bad for all the kids that will not PR next year unless they head back to Alabama to do it.
Or they actually continue to improve.
That would be amazing! Lets hope it happens!!
Beckham wrote:
So what happens when GPS data for NXN and Balboa come back similar to RXC GPS data? Are those course subject to the same scrutiny?
I see courses that are hilly like Balboa and are short and no one cares/questions them because they run slow because of the course difficulty. There is no rule that a course MUST be exactly 5000m. That's why comparing times from course to course is silly. Set up a good course, and keep the course as close to the same as possible each year and keep course records. That should be more than good!
fh wrote:
"To ensure that measurements remain stable through seasons and various competition markings, Geodetic Survey GPS signaling datums are used throughout the course."
Go to "Click here for a detailed course description!"
what is a gps signaling datum?
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
I don't think too many people are concerned about their Turkey Trot 5k course measurement and very few road races are claiming they have the fastest course in the nation.
Obviously in track there are such differences that even the NCAA has factors in place. But, most people are okay with comparing track times as long as the races were contested over the correct, full distance. Someone posted the mistake in a 200m race where the contestant started at the wrong place and raced 185m for a huge World Record. Should that time have counted? It was only off by 15m? Are we bad fans of the sport if we question a sub :19 200 in to a head wind?
Actually my Turkey Trot was USATF certified.
Great! I bet ERVEYONE didn't PR and the Meet Director isn't
promoting that race as the fastest Turkey Trot in the Nation.
Road courses have an actual procedure in place for certifying but unfortunately XC does not (that I know of).
I already shared the USATF language and the NFHS and NCAA have no procedure or specifications.
So now we are comparing a race that was on TV and everyone saw and know for a face that it was 13% short to a XC race that you are guessing that you think might have possible been short? Yep that's exactly the same.
No, just showing how silly it is to say if the race was contested and timed the results are official, as a prior poster contended.
Replies above in bold
Sorry, an accurate xc course produces long gps results. If your gps shows exactly 3.107 miles it's probably short.
Steel Tapeless wrote:
coachy wrote:
If there is no definition of what a proper way to measure a XC course is, then why are you using a wheel? I think some governing body needs to first determine how XC courses can be "certified" before diving in with some way to measure it. That is the whole problem.
I have certified dozens of road courses over the years but this has nothing to do with that.
coachy-
You didn't study your USATF Course Certification Manual very well...
Read page 34 -
https://www.usatf.org/resources/course-certification/certification-procedures
So you are using the road measuring guide to tell us how to measure XC courses? Ok if we do that it says don’t use a bike on grass and don’t use a steel tape to measure a whole course because of error. Is there something else I am missing there?
Irish gymnast shows you can have sex in the "anti-sex" cardboard beds in the Olympic village (video)
Finishing a mountain stage in the Tour De France vs running a marathon: Which is harder?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach
George Mills' dad: "Watching athletics is the worst on the planet."
Serious question: Does anyone think Kamala Harris can actually win? Seems very unlikely to me...