DCXC Times
09/25/2016 11:15:30 AM
Coach
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 162
Was this the same course as in the past? I know the weather was perfect, but WOW are those times fast!
Was this the same course as in the past? I know the weather was perfect, but WOW are those times fast!
09/25/2016 11:52:13 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 98
Not only was the weather ideal, the course was hard pack and grass was cut really short. People were flying in the perfect conditions.
Not only was the weather ideal, the course was hard pack and grass was cut really short. People were flying in the perfect conditions.
09/25/2016 8:26:57 PM
Coach
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 162
Looking carefully at the times, I feel like the course had to have been short. Here are a few averages that were eye opening to me.... Senior boys #1- 28 seconds faster then at Monroe Parker the week before (2.95 miles) Senior Boy #2- 34 seconds faster than Monroe Parker (2.95 miles) Senior Boy 3- 36 seconds faster then at WAKEMED in raleigh the week before???? That course is a drag strip! Senior #4- 20 seconds faster then Monroe Parker Senior boy 8- 20 seconds faster then Monroe Parker #22- 44 seconds faster then wakemed last week? #23- 55 seconds faster then wakemed last week. JR Boy #5- 42 seconds fster then wakemed? Jr boy #15- 59 seconds faster then wakemed? No way this course should run on average 25 seconds faster then a blazing 2.95 mile course and 40 seconds faster then wake med. I havent even looked at the other races, but it seems a bit unrealistic that the course was a true 5k. Based upon the map, the course was changed from the past. Did anyone wear their garmin during the race? (I know, Garmins are not the best measuring device.)
Looking carefully at the times, I feel like the course had to have been short. Here are a few averages that were eye opening to me....

Senior boys #1- 28 seconds faster then at Monroe Parker the week before (2.95 miles)
Senior Boy #2- 34 seconds faster than Monroe Parker (2.95 miles)
Senior Boy 3- 36 seconds faster then at WAKEMED in raleigh the week before???? That course is a drag strip!
Senior #4- 20 seconds faster then Monroe Parker
Senior boy 8- 20 seconds faster then Monroe Parker
#22- 44 seconds faster then wakemed last week?
#23- 55 seconds faster then wakemed last week.
JR Boy #5- 42 seconds fster then wakemed?
Jr boy #15- 59 seconds faster then wakemed?

No way this course should run on average 25 seconds faster then a blazing 2.95 mile course and 40 seconds faster then wake med.

I havent even looked at the other races, but it seems a bit unrealistic that the course was a true 5k. Based upon the map, the course was changed from the past. Did anyone wear their garmin during the race? (I know, Garmins are not the best measuring device.)
09/25/2016 10:15:00 PM
User
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 26
I was there yesterday and I am also somewhat dubious of the distance but in terms of your course comparisons I would note that Monroe Parker was two weeks ago and the weather was so bad that the meet was was cancelled midway through. In addition Monroe Parker (and Wakemed actually have a couple of modest hills), whereas DCXC is flatter than any course I have seen in VA other than last year's MileStat course (even less hills than McAlpine Park in NC). The past couple of years the weather at this meet has not been ideal and the footing on the course was not great. Yesterday the weather was near perfect and the course seemed in better shape. Again, I would not be shocked if the course was a little short, but there is a chance that is was just a perfect day.
I was there yesterday and I am also somewhat dubious of the distance but in terms of your course comparisons I would note that Monroe Parker was two weeks ago and the weather was so bad that the meet was was cancelled midway through. In addition Monroe Parker (and Wakemed actually have a couple of modest hills), whereas DCXC is flatter than any course I have seen in VA other than last year's MileStat course (even less hills than McAlpine Park in NC). The past couple of years the weather at this meet has not been ideal and the footing on the course was not great. Yesterday the weather was near perfect and the course seemed in better shape. Again, I would not be shocked if the course was a little short, but there is a chance that is was just a perfect day.
09/25/2016 11:56:15 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 415
Not that it changes much, but Monroe Parker is 2.98 miles....I wasn't there yesterday, but I can't help but wonder if the course is short, or is it just so pancake flat that guys are just rolling. Even compared to Oatlands, when the weather was pretty decent, the improvements by the winners were pretty substantial.
Not that it changes much, but Monroe Parker is 2.98 miles....I wasn't there yesterday, but I can't help but wonder if the course is short, or is it just so pancake flat that guys are just rolling. Even compared to Oatlands, when the weather was pretty decent, the improvements by the winners were pretty substantial.
09/26/2016 11:30:26 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 43
According to this article http://www.runwashington.com/2016/09/25/dcxc2016/ the course is 3.07 miles--around 60m short of full 5K.
According to this article

http://www.runwashington.com/2016/09/25/dcxc2016/

the course is 3.07 miles--around 60m short of full 5K.
09/26/2016 12:37:29 PM
User
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 8
Had to be short. Probably by .2 miles. Go through the average times of the top ten boys: Average is 58.8 seconds, stdev of about 17 seconds. Most of the runners had barely broken 16 in the past, moving to the low 15's is huge VO2 difference. One runner. Maybe. All runners. Not likely. Check all their times after next weeks races. Will be back to a few seconds from their average runs.
Had to be short. Probably by .2 miles. Go through the average times of the top ten boys: Average is 58.8 seconds, stdev of about 17 seconds. Most of the runners had barely broken 16 in the past, moving to the low 15's is huge VO2 difference. One runner. Maybe. All runners. Not likely. Check all their times after next weeks races. Will be back to a few seconds from their average runs.
09/27/2016 11:24:29 AM
Coach
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 162
Agreed- Taking a closer look- ALL 8 course records were broken. Some substantially- Fr. Boys- Broken by 24 seconds. Fr. Girls- Broken by 1:48??????? Soph Boys- Broken by :46, old record held by Rohan Asfew. Soph Girls- Broken by 6 seconds (old record held by H. holt) Jr. Boys- Broken by :20 (old record held by a top 20 runner at FL South) Jr. Girls- Broken by :49 (Old record held by Kelati who went onto finish 20th at Foot Locker Nats that year) Sr. Boys- Broken by :9 seconds (Old record held by a 3x NXN Qualifier???) Sr. girls- Broken by :16 seconds (Old record held by NXN Qualifier Nora Macumber) If you want to see drastic changes, look at the results from the original meet in 2014 and compare them to the last two years. Was it hot. Very much so. Was it so hat that fast times could not be run? No. The course did change after year one. No one left the last two years thinking that the course was short. I know weather plays a role in performance, but I fear a lot of our VA kids are going to end up disappointed when they aren't running PR's later in the year when it matters. That being said, I hope I am wrong. If I am it's going to be a banner year for NOVA, DC, and MD when Foot Locker and NXN roll around!
Agreed- Taking a closer look- ALL 8 course records were broken. Some substantially-
Fr. Boys- Broken by 24 seconds.
Fr. Girls- Broken by 1:48???????
Soph Boys- Broken by :46, old record held by Rohan Asfew.
Soph Girls- Broken by 6 seconds (old record held by H. holt)
Jr. Boys- Broken by :20 (old record held by a top 20 runner at FL South)
Jr. Girls- Broken by :49 (Old record held by Kelati who went onto finish 20th at Foot Locker Nats that year)
Sr. Boys- Broken by :9 seconds (Old record held by a 3x NXN Qualifier???)
Sr. girls- Broken by :16 seconds (Old record held by NXN Qualifier Nora Macumber)

If you want to see drastic changes, look at the results from the original meet in 2014 and compare them to the last two years. Was it hot. Very much so. Was it so hat that fast times could not be run? No. The course did change after year one. No one left the last two years thinking that the course was short. I know weather plays a role in performance, but I fear a lot of our VA kids are going to end up disappointed when they aren't running PR's later in the year when it matters. That being said, I hope I am wrong. If I am it's going to be a banner year for NOVA, DC, and MD when Foot Locker and NXN roll around!
09/29/2016 12:34:25 PM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 42
Seems like a pretty easy thing to figure out for sure. Have someone who lives near the course take their Garmin and walk the course. I routinely walk courses for my daughter who runs routinely at Pole Green Park and the distances are extremely close to the watch. Someone get on that and put this topic to rest :)
Seems like a pretty easy thing to figure out for sure. Have someone who lives near the course take their Garmin and walk the course. I routinely walk courses for my daughter who runs routinely at Pole Green Park and the distances are extremely close to the watch. Someone get on that and put this topic to rest :)
10/03/2016 1:03:51 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 7
I wheeled it yesterday. 3.0. I was at the race and saw the course plus the trail of dead grass from the races was easy to follow.
I wheeled it yesterday. 3.0. I was at the race and saw the course plus the trail of dead grass from the races was easy to follow.
10/04/2016 7:20:52 AM
Coach
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 162
@zackd70534 Not surprised it wasnt more...With perfect weather at Great American, not a single kid who ran DCXC and GA PR'd. You'd be hard pressed any year to find a team go to Great American and not have any pr's. The course is blazing. That being said the times should get switched to 3 miles in the database to keep things from being unrealistic.
@zackd70534 Not surprised it wasnt more...With perfect weather at Great American, not a single kid who ran DCXC and GA PR'd. You'd be hard pressed any year to find a team go to Great American and not have any pr's. The course is blazing. That being said the times should get switched to 3 miles in the database to keep things from being unrealistic.
10/04/2016 7:54:32 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 211
It is truly a shame that people do not know how to correctly measure a course so it will be true 5K. Unfortunately this seems to be happening more and more often.
It is truly a shame that people do not know how to correctly measure a course so it will be true 5K. Unfortunately this seems to be happening more and more often.
10/04/2016 9:37:12 PM
User
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 155
This is an interesting thread. Yes, in a perfect world all of our courses should be the 3.14 miles. But XC is more of a, or it should be, competition between the runner the course and opponents. Track is where we need to worry about times. Every team I have coached, I have stressed that you need to beat your opponent, not the clock. It doesn't matter if you run 18 flat and win or run 15 flat and win..... Plus you have different courses with different degrees of difficulty, that factor into the time. If people are worried about getting looks from coaches, simmer down, coaches know who is good, who has potential and are smart enough to understand that not all courses are the same. Kids just need to remember to run to beat the guy in front of them.
This is an interesting thread. Yes, in a perfect world all of our courses should be the 3.14 miles. But XC is more of a, or it should be, competition between the runner the course and opponents. Track is where we need to worry about times.

Every team I have coached, I have stressed that you need to beat your opponent, not the clock. It doesn't matter if you run 18 flat and win or run 15 flat and win.....

Plus you have different courses with different degrees of difficulty, that factor into the time. If people are worried about getting looks from coaches, simmer down, coaches know who is good, who has potential and are smart enough to understand that not all courses are the same.

Kids just need to remember to run to beat the guy in front of them.
10/05/2016 6:55:49 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 211
Agree its not a perfect world and courses will differ, but don't advertise it as a 5k if it is not! If its only 3 miles, fine, but say so! Our courses are getting flatter and shorter. This needs to stop.
Agree its not a perfect world and courses will differ, but don't advertise it as a 5k if it is not! If its only 3 miles, fine, but say so! Our courses are getting flatter and shorter. This needs to stop.
10/05/2016 1:27:08 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 8
@Frank Rizzo - 100% agree, and I certainly use the same approach with the kids that I coach. That said, there is TREMENDOUS pressure put on the kids to run "fast" times by MileStat. Look at all the descending order lists that are put out as "rankings." Even if college coaches know how to discern the relative value of a time, our athletes have a more difficult time doing so (even when repeatedly told that times do not matter as much as order of finish). I tweeted Nolan a couple weeks ago in reference to using speed ratings (from TullyRunners.com) or something similar to provide a better way to compare performances from course to course. He mentioned that we have the "Flo50 XC" rankings to provide that subjective comparison, but frankly the rankings that are posted do not demonstrate the level of analysis that should be expected from the premier high school site in the state (it would be nice to have a small write-up to provide a context for why teams and individuals are ranked the way they are).
@Frank Rizzo - 100% agree, and I certainly use the same approach with the kids that I coach.

That said, there is TREMENDOUS pressure put on the kids to run "fast" times by MileStat. Look at all the descending order lists that are put out as "rankings." Even if college coaches know how to discern the relative value of a time, our athletes have a more difficult time doing so (even when repeatedly told that times do not matter as much as order of finish).

I tweeted Nolan a couple weeks ago in reference to using speed ratings (from TullyRunners.com) or something similar to provide a better way to compare performances from course to course. He mentioned that we have the "Flo50 XC" rankings to provide that subjective comparison, but frankly the rankings that are posted do not demonstrate the level of analysis that should be expected from the premier high school site in the state (it would be nice to have a small write-up to provide a context for why teams and individuals are ranked the way they are).
10/05/2016 2:08:55 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 387
We will try and do that next week for the release of the updated Flo50 Rankings! Thanks for the suggestions. -Nolan
We will try and do that next week for the release of the updated Flo50 Rankings! Thanks for the suggestions.

-Nolan
10/05/2016 3:30:23 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 8
@vamilesplit Thanks Nolan! We of the Virginia running community recognize the labor of love that is MileStat, first with Brandon, and now you. I think the "hype" surrounding DCXC times is indicative of a larger issue, which many here have touched on. This sport is about match-ups and head-to-head comparison. It requires analysis that is not always clear-cut, but instead demands sifting through results to look for common opponents to seek a better understanding of how two teams that have never faced one another might fare when they eventually do (be it at an invitational or the grand stage of Great Meadows in November). Thanks again for what you do, and for your willingness to take suggestions as you work to deliver the best content you can. Brian
@vamilesplit

Thanks Nolan!

We of the Virginia running community recognize the labor of love that is MileStat, first with Brandon, and now you.

I think the "hype" surrounding DCXC times is indicative of a larger issue, which many here have touched on. This sport is about match-ups and head-to-head comparison. It requires analysis that is not always clear-cut, but instead demands sifting through results to look for common opponents to seek a better understanding of how two teams that have never faced one another might fare when they eventually do (be it at an invitational or the grand stage of Great Meadows in November).

Thanks again for what you do, and for your willingness to take suggestions as you work to deliver the best content you can.

Brian
10/05/2016 8:42:10 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 211
Nolan, I am curious, what do the Flo50 rankings take into account to be subjective? I know its not an easy task.
Nolan, I am curious, what do the Flo50 rankings take into account to be subjective? I know its not an easy task.
10/07/2016 9:32:54 AM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 609
@TrialsVT When I retire, I plan to write a program that will suck in all the data and compare kids head to head and solve a ginormous linear equation to rank kids without resorting to just raw times. We should be able to get a path that connects virtually every kid in the state that has run an invitational or run against a kid who has run an invitational pretty quickly and come up with a nice little system. I already know a lot of team sports get ranked like this. The major problem is that it's a lot of data to crunch. I can do every high school football game in Virginia and it's only about 1700 in a year. A dual meet with just two 7 person teams is already like 210 games, and then when you multiply it by all the meets we have in a year...well it's a lot of data to crunch.
@TrialsVT

When I retire, I plan to write a program that will suck in all the data and compare kids head to head and solve a ginormous linear equation to rank kids without resorting to just raw times. We should be able to get a path that connects virtually every kid in the state that has run an invitational or run against a kid who has run an invitational pretty quickly and come up with a nice little system. I already know a lot of team sports get ranked like this. The major problem is that it's a lot of data to crunch. I can do every high school football game in Virginia and it's only about 1700 in a year. A dual meet with just two 7 person teams is already like 210 games, and then when you multiply it by all the meets we have in a year...well it's a lot of data to crunch.
10/07/2016 5:57:28 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 387
@cawitt I try my best to incorporate current standings but be realistic to where things will fall by the end of the season... For example: Girls Top two have remained pretty constant considering Murphy and Davidson are powerhouses... can't really bump them or a team like Blacksburg off the top unless something huge happens. For the other spots I try and weed through performances for 3 mile and 5K and honestly sometimes it will take a week or two for me to notice a big team coming up or athlete slowly moving up the leaderboards. But I try and keep it honest to 5K performances and thus DCXC did not weigh heavily in the rankings. I think the coolest part about them those is that it tracks the movements up and down and I feel if you check out the weekly rankings' series that captures the leaderboards weekly so you can go back and check them out, you will see a really good picture for how athletes have risen to the top. Peter Morris and Peter Smith are two great examples... I'm hoping I'm not wrong about them because they both look like huge stars come November. -Nolan
@cawitt I try my best to incorporate current standings but be realistic to where things will fall by the end of the season...

For example: Girls Top two have remained pretty constant considering Murphy and Davidson are powerhouses... can't really bump them or a team like Blacksburg off the top unless something huge happens.

For the other spots I try and weed through performances for 3 mile and 5K and honestly sometimes it will take a week or two for me to notice a big team coming up or athlete slowly moving up the leaderboards. But I try and keep it honest to 5K performances and thus DCXC did not weigh heavily in the rankings.

I think the coolest part about them those is that it tracks the movements up and down and I feel if you check out the weekly rankings' series that captures the leaderboards weekly so you can go back and check them out, you will see a really good picture for how athletes have risen to the top.

Peter Morris and Peter Smith are two great examples... I'm hoping I'm not wrong about them because they both look like huge stars come November.

-Nolan

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.