MT SAC HS CROSS COUNTRY

OOOOOOOOOOOPPPSS...Jeff Nelson no longer holds the CR at Mt Sac...he is number 2 to Ryan Hall's 14:28...a little clarification before the ubiquitous letsrun.com bashing begins...MF

Good post! Indeed, it is good to see xc running alive and kicking in CA.

It's good to see Trafeh get his ass handed to him, after he talked all season about how he'd easily win Mt. Sac. Talented kid, but so arrogant. Trafeh does have the confidence that Americans used to have, until the media and everyone else started on their campaign to convince (white) Americans that they're no good, sport by sport, profession by profession.

Trafeh ran 90 miles this week and is at a muich higher threshold this season then last year. And he is in fact very humble and does fear the other runners in the race as much as they fear him. he is a class act who got to where he is through sheer hard work, he kicks ass and he'll run well when it counts-- in nationals. your a shithead go to hell and suck satans cock

Sounds like Tooshi sucks Trafeh's cock.

Trafeh is in fact arrogant, as most kids in S. Cal know. If you weren't on your knees licking his nuts, you'd probably hear some of the stuff he says. Too little 2 layte is right, it was good to see Trafeh humbled.

"When it counts"? It did count that was a very important race, one highly respected on all accounts. The same goes for Deak not winning the state Title. That mattered! Sure it doesn't matter as much as winning FL, but it does really matter! Especially when you say you are going to win and dont.

You can't compare the current Mt. Sac Course to the past records of Jeff Nelson, Eric Reynolds, Eric Mastalir, Brian Dameworth and Luis Quintana. There were some changes made to the course about 1999 that shortened the course. It is well known in Southern California that the previous 4 years (since 99 or so) course times are no longer comparable to the 20+ year history on that course before the change.

For some reason, though they know the facts for themselves, the goofs at Dyestatcal still refer to the course records as if there were no difference between the "new course" and the "old course" and all the idiot drones that visit that site just eat it up and believe what they read.

Depending on who you ask, the time differential between the "old" and "new" Mt Sac course is somewhere between 12-18 seconds for a top varsity boy. Given that fact, only 2 runners would have been under 15:00 today on the "old course" and there have been many other years that have had that many fast runners up front.

They keep referring to Ryan Hall having the course record there, but in all reality, he does not have it. It still belongs to Nelson. Hall's time would put him somewhere in the top 5 all time though.

IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THESE FAST TIMES ON THIS COURSE DONT ADD UP TO YEARS PREVIOUS TIMES. NELSON BLAZES 14:32

THEN RUNS 8:36 IN THE SPRING . ALL THESE OTHERS COME CLOSE TO HIS TIMES AND ARE 8:50 3200M RUNNERS IN THE SPRING.

SO CAL GUY WHY WOULD THEY CHANGE THE FRIKEN COURSE AND

SCREW WITH THE HISTORY????? WHERE DID THEY SHORTRN IT AND BY HOW MANY YARDS???

History has proven that you don't need to win your state meet to be a footlocker champion. Heck, Adirizak Mohammed got the first win of his career at Footlocker.

Everytime I see a photo of h.s. xc meets in California, they almost never seem to be on grass. The photos usually show the runners on asphalt, occasionally a dirt trail of some kind. This is a serious question---I know every course is different, but is this an accurate portrayal of the typical California xc course? If so, maybe they should call it h.s. "road racing."

In the fall of 1999 the Footlocker west regional meet was moved from Woodward Park in Fresno, CA to the Mt. SAC for whatever reason. From what I understood, the meet directors needed to make "slight" changes along the course to accomodate for the large numbers and large pack of runners for the seeded races. The slight changes included making many sections of the course wider and in doing so cutting into the insides of the turns and in turn shorting the course approx close to 100 meters. Also, I think the first mile "valley" loops use to have soft dirt and now is compacted. All the mile markers are way off of what they use to be prior to 1999. Look back at past results and you'll notice that sub-15's on that course was a rarity with fairly good runners and now sub 15's a regular on the course. It sucks for time comparison and course history, but so it goes.

In the fall of 1999 the Footlocker west regional meet was moved from Woodward Park in Fresno, CA to the Mt. SAC for whatever reason. From what I understood, the meet directors needed to make "slight" changes along the course to accomodate for the large numbers and large pack of runners for the seeded races. The slight changes included making many sections of the course wider and in doing so cutting into the insides of the turns and in turn shorting the course approx close to 100 meters. Also, I think the first mile "valley" loops use to have soft dirt and now is compacted. All the mile markers are way off of what they use to be prior to 1999. Look back at past results and you'll notice that sub-15's on that course was a rarity with fairly good runners and now sub 15's a regular on the course. It sucks for time comparison and course history, but so it goes.

You are right about the course. I watched Hall break the record at Mt. Sac and thought I saw something as big as they come. Then Hall gets his ass handed to him at nationals and I realized something was wrong with Mt. Sac. Nobody that can run in the 14:30's and lower for Mt. Sac ever loses by 30 seconds to another high school runner no matter what. I heard that a study was done on the course and they determined that Mt. Sac is 18 seconds faster now. This is second hand knowledge so don't ask me for a link. Breaking 15 minutes is way too common these days. The people that run under 15 now "mysteriously" have slower times on the track than runners of the past.

The website http://www.skizzim.com has all time lists for the Mt. Sac course broken down by the periods before (pre 1999) and after the change (1999 and after). If you look at both lists, it is pretty obvious that the courses are not comparable. More people have gone under 15 in the past 4 years than the previous 21 years.

Thanks for the info on Mt. Sac, but my question was really about xc courses(h.s.) in California in general. It just seems that you rarely see a photo of one that show they are running on grass---it's usually an asphalt road or hard-packed dirt---makes you think you're looking at a picture of a road race, not xc. Just curious, no big deal, but maybe that's one of the many reasons for the fast times besides the obvious talent of the runners.

California HS distance running is deeper than it's been in quite some time, that's the reason for the fast times at Mt. Sac. Hell, the 6th place finisher has a track PR of 9:01 and I believe all of the top five have run 9:10 or faster.

Was the meet affected by the big wild fires not too far away?

TO answer your question about the courses in California I must assume that most of the pictures that you see are from SoCal. Well there is not a lot of grass around here to begin with. Anything that is green is either constantly watered or painted! The are some courses that are mostly paved or hard-packed dirt but many other courses are a combination of grass, dirt and sidewalk/road. Simply put, there are not that many places around the SoCal area that have enough publically available grass to run big meets on.

Mike wrote:

California HS distance running is deeper than it's been in quite some time, that's the reason for the fast times at Mt. Sac. Hell, the 6th place finisher has a track PR of 9:01 and I believe all of the top five have run 9:10 or faster.

HS runners of the past that could run 14:45 on Mt. Sac, typically would run the 3200m under 8:50. Now, you have 9:01-9:10 guys running 14:45. In the old days, a 9:00 3200m runner would sometimes barely dip under 15:00 on Mt. Sac. Any guy that could run 14:40 or lower would most likely win the national title. I can guarantee you that Jeff Nelson would not have been smoked by 30 seconds by Ritz, but that is what happened to Hall. On top of that, Hall's 3200m time does not come close to Nelson's. I know you would like to think it is the same course, but it is most certainly not. Maybe there is more depth and all that, but I don't see too many guys running 8:45 for 3200m. That is the type of runner that would be needed to crack 14:40 on Mt. Sac in the old days.