Is The RunningLane Course 5K? Or Is It Short?

What basis does anyone have to question the length? Oh. The times were too fast. But Arcadia times are too fast. Oh well. It is a track. No way the fastest runners in history could all run PRs on the same day even though they will all regroup in a few months to do it again at Arcadia. And as far as the multiple meet thing, many Alabama kids ran several meets on this course during the year but they all magically PRed at RunningLane.

NC State Insider wrote:

But they don't care about skeptics. Nobody does. The same few of you arguing that there are no XC records are also arguing that the course needs to be remeasured. For what?

RL is claiming it was a "record" race, not the skeptics. Again, the onus is on RL to hire a certified USATF course measurer. And this is the problem with RL trying to make time the emphasis of XC. It has never been about time, other than measuring best times on certain courses. Yes, Ritz's 14:10 was thought to be the best time ever run by an American HS kid, but time has historically been secondary in XC.

Does NC State have a XC school record? Did your HS?

And I said in a post a couple of days ago, the course may measure to a full 5k and we just witnessed a historic race. The field was deep, the weather was perfect, and the course is designed and manicured to be super fast.

DiscoGary wrote:

Oh, and for those wondering how this compared to the 1971 version of the course which had changed, and which we recreated using old satellite photos ( the path in the grass could be seen clearly) as well as our memory ( two of us witnessed races in the 1970s) ... the two courses basically came out the same within a reasonable margin of error. So Derrick may or may not have run faster than Virgin, but for XC purposes Virgin kept his record until Methner broke it.

Also we calculated that if the people who set up the course using the center-path method had assumed a path width of 12 feet, then it would measure almost exactly 3.000 miles. We tried to find the people who set up the course, but failed.

The lesson is, when someone does something spectacular, measure it with a tape.

Isn't the Detweiller course way wider than 12'?

$0.02 wrote:

Olivia Ekpone - majored in agricultural communication and journalism at Texas A&M. Sounds like a fallback for those who didnt get in the journalism/mass communications school.

Cory Mull - went to Kutztown University of Pennsylvania and majored in english. If I have never heard of your university and it is on the mainland of the USA it isnt a good sign.

Neither of these people are credible sources on GPS, software, engineering or devices and I also dont accept their opinions on distance running either. Again, fake news.

And what exactly are your credentials or credibility Mr. Keyboard warrior?

The problem with any wheeled measurement is bouncing, slippage, and calibration errors. We verified that the walking wheel gave us different measurements based on which direction we were walking over the same path. It turned out that the grass tended to lean one direction because of either wind or mowing, and that made a big difference. I think that's why the fat-guy-on-a-jones-counter-bike got closer. It took most of the friction and bouncing error out of the equation.

No. There is no onus. The record has been posted. Everyone is on their break preparing for track. You just don't seem to get that nobody has to convince you. Hutchins and Sahlman are the record holders and both were set at the same course. See how easy it was to state that? You can argue about it until next year but it doesn't change the facts.

not a duck wrote:

Your logic doesn’t make sense because it’s a track meet. I can guarantee the school can tell you who built the track and when, and their methodology for measuring the course as 400 meters. Running lane can’t say the same.

Also, Arcadia holds multiple meets a year where kids don’t PR at all or by large margins.

None of the Arcadia coaches would practice on their home track if they knew it was short.

The comparison you’re making is a complete joke

This park also holds multiple meets per year and there are PRs set there as well. I haven't seen how Arcadia was measured and built so I can't believe it's accurate because the times are too fast there. I had several kids PR at Arcadia last year so it must be short and yes they were by large margins and we were only there once. So someone needs to get out to Arcadia and measure that track before we can believe the results.

Hiring a USATF course measurer would do nothing because there is not a USATF procedure for measuring XC courses. The road measurement guide would not help with this. I have measured plenty of road courses and it would not apply in the least.

At some points yes, at others barely. We just took the tape measurement and the total number of turns and calculated how wide the path would have to be for a course measured at 2.9758 miles on the SPR route to measure 3.000 miles down the center of the path around the turns. Its perfectly reasonable that someone told them to set up the course assuming a 12' wide path, which would be 6' from the inside of the turns.

I think provides evidence that the people who built it, did it diligently according to the rules at the time. If we had to assume a path width of 50' to make the numbers work, then the conclusion would have to be different.

Many pages ago someone said that what the NP guys run in the Spring during track season will prove if this course is short or not. Doesn't Hutchins running 15:19 prove the same thing?

One more bit of evidence is that the mile markers are off by increasing amounts as the mileage increases, and by the amounts you would expect if the course was measured down the middle of a 12' path.

Hopefully no one is using center-path methodology any more.

Perfect so then if you take .01 per mile from the standard GPS reading of 3.13-3.15 for John Hunt, it comes out to 3.10-3.12. Perfect so based on Katz’ experience, the course should be a perfect 5000m. Awesome thanks for that info

She ran more than 20 seconds faster than her XC time 2 weeks later which quieted people last year but most have forgotten. I Sahlman runs 13:45 in a week, it probably settles down but I am unaware if anyone is running any more races.

Hutchins' 15:19? I was away and missed this news. I also read somewhere that this might have been an odd joke. Is it documented or rumor or what? All props to Hutchins for her big wins last year, but it would not be good to spread fake news (if that is the case).

Nike is knocking wrote:

She ran more than 20 seconds faster than her XC time 2 weeks later which quieted people last year but most have forgotten. I Sahlman runs 13:45 in a week, it probably settles down but I am unaware if anyone is running any more races.

But why do we need that? It's the same fixed course as last year right? Does it have to be proven every year?

Another problem with a walking wheel is the amount of dew on the grass. Many people measure the course the moment they get to a meet, which may be early in the morning when there is still dew on the grass. That would seriously mess with the results. If you use a wheel, wait until after the meet when the grass is drier and beat down from the runners. I don't know for sure but based on what I saw that will probably give you a better measurement.

How did your NFHS and NCAA officials help with the course measurement? You seem to be talking in circles!

Why wouldn't the USATF certification process work on the Running Lane CC course?

DiscoGary wrote:

Another problem with a walking wheel is the amount of dew on the grass. Many people measure the course the moment they get to a meet, which may be early in the morning when there is still dew on the grass. That would seriously mess with the results. If you use a wheel, wait until after the meet when the grass is drier and beat down from the runners. I don't know for sure but based on what I saw that will probably give you a better measurement.

I feel sorry for these coaches that I see out walking with a wheel at meets. I don't have time for that I am busy coaching.

I think similar to road measurements you would need someway to calibrate whatever measuring tool you are using to that day's conditions.

DiscoGary wrote:

Another problem with a walking wheel is the amount of dew on the grass. Many people measure the course the moment they get to a meet, which may be early in the morning when there is still dew on the grass. That would seriously mess with the results. If you use a wheel, wait until after the meet when the grass is drier and beat down from the runners. I don't know for sure but based on what I saw that will probably give you a better measurement.

Yes and no. If you apply good downward pressure you can prevent slippage...and when there is dew on the grass you can easily see the wobble factor you would get if walking the course, especially if adequate pressure isn't applied...

The course is definitely easier to measure after the meet since the ground is smoother (unless a really wet day) and no people to deal with.