Manchester Invitational

[Runnerguy88PAXC]

http://www.lancertiming.com/

Big meet for New England. Good races for Burnt Hill, Pinkerton, Ludlow, Con-Val, and Oyster River

Great individual performances by Amirault, Collins, MacPherson, Houghtalen, Merra, Mcgrath, Eyob, and Hoyt

How do these races stack up, if at all, with the NE performances at Great American?

[IrishBH]

I posted this on another thread but i figured I'd put it here too.

Burnt Hills Girls- won elite race, Average: 19:25.00
1 Gregory, Meaghan 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 18:15 139
2 Roecker, Sam 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 18:52 127
10 Cameron, Larene 7 Burnt Hills- Bal 19:36 112
14 Herkenham, Carolyn 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:02 103
26 Olsen, Lizzie 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:20 97
31 Brown, Martha 11 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:36 92
35 Mullins, Lauren 11 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:50 87

Burnt Hills Boys- won elite race, Average: 16:37.60
4 Houghtalen, Drew 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 15:57 182
11 Pezzulo, Ryan 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:27 172
33 Buell, Cody 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:51 164
34 Goodrich, Zach 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:52 164
40 Jess, Andrew 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:01 161
48 Gray, Dan 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:09 158
65 Burton, Matt 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:21 154

I think the speed ratings done for Manchester Invitational are a little low. Not only was it a muddier course then last year but the course is much harder then a course like Queensbury. At Queensbury the runners recieved higher speed rating by running the same time or slightly slower then at Manchester. I think the Manchester speed ratings could be 3-5 points too low. I realize that is 9-15 seconds but it is without a doubt, much slower then queensbury's course.

A comparison- Cory Thorne ran 15:38 and Guar Majak ran 15:40 in 2004 on a drier course. Both of these guys were in the top 10 in the northeast in cross country with Cory making his second trip to footlockers. Now speed ratings for guys this good are usually 190s if not higher. Mark Ameralt received a 186 for his 15:45. I think the difficulty of the course was underrated.

[spartanxc]

To piggy back on IrishBH:

If you run the same time on a course 2 years in a row, but one year the conditions are significantly slower then the speed rating should change for the better...

2005 - Meaghan Gregory 19:00 130 (nice conditions, no rain, nice temp)

2006 - Sam Roecker 18:52 127 (muddy course that is slippery and causes you to run wider and slower through parts)

I believe it was at least a 3-5 point gap of what I thought it would have been.

Is there a way to explain the difference? Roecker should have been at least a 131-132 if the conditions were the same as 2005, but they were surely worse, thus putting her up to 133-134.

Gregory runs the 4th fastest time at Manchester. I was surprised to see that only receive a 139 rating.

[DynamicDanielle]

Speedratings are based on deviation from the mean and presuming that average runners in all races are equal. (The bigger the race the better this assumption holds, but I don't think it holds universally) Perhaps in spite of the worse conditions the course ran faster. I know that sounds nonsensical but look at how fast Nicole Blood ran in absolute slop at Federations in 2004. A year later the conditions were much better but Mr. Meylan felt that "the course ran slower". (I would argue the girls field was stronger--Blood & Ryan battling up front. A close battle for 2nd between Shen, Bethlehem, Bayshore, and Hilton [and those Hilton girls took that race out!]. In 2005 Hilton opted out and Saratoga's girls ran for 2nd and 3rd and let Aislinn go (would they have beaten her? very unlikely but had they gone with her in the later stages of the race she would have likely run faster)

[gofast11]

Speedratings are based on deviation from the mean and presuming that average runners in all races are equal. (The bigger the race the better this assumption holds, but I don't think it holds universally) Perhaps in spite of the worse conditions the course ran faster. I know that sounds nonsensical but look at how fast Nicole Blood ran in absolute slop at Federations in 2004. A year later the conditions were much better but Mr. Meylan felt that "the course ran slower". (I would argue the girls field was stronger--Blood & Ryan battling up front. A close battle for 2nd between Shen, Bethlehem, Bayshore, and Hilton [and those Hilton girls took that race out!]. In 2005 Hilton opted out and Saratoga's girls ran for 2nd and 3rd and let Aislinn go (would they have beaten her? very unlikely but had they gone with her in the later stages of the race she would have likely run faster)

The conditions in 2004 were far from sloppy. There was a very light mist falling (not rain). The temperatures were right around 40 F and there was absolutely no wind at all. The mist allows the body to cool down more efficiently than any other condition you can have. It actrually was the best day we will have for cross country racing in a long time and both the boys and girls times proved it. We will not see something like that again for a decade. Maybe not for much, much longer for the girls.

[Kalaby]

The conditions in 2004 were far from sloppy. There was a very light mist falling (not rain). The temperatures were right around 40 F and there was absolutely no wind at all. The mist allows the body to cool down more efficiently than any other condition you can have. It actrually was the best day we will have for cross country racing in a long time and both the boys and girls times proved it. We will not see something like that again for a decade. Maybe not for much, much longer for the girls.

I agree that the '04 conditions looked worse than what they actually turned out to be, and that for the majority of the kids up at the front that stayed upright, the course did surprisingly turn out to be fairly conducive to some good performances. However, I can't say I agree with those being nearly ideal conditions that are experienced once in a decade or longer. Trust me, I have a pretty good handle on what conditions were like at virtually every Federation meet throughout the years and quite a few of them have seen fair skies, moderate temps, little or no wind and a firm course to run fast on.

[Runnerguy88PAXC]

I posted this on another thread but i figured I'd put it here too.

Burnt Hills Girls- won elite race, Average: 19:25.00
1 Gregory, Meaghan 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 18:15 139
2 Roecker, Sam 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 18:52 127
10 Cameron, Larene 7 Burnt Hills- Bal 19:36 112
14 Herkenham, Carolyn 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:02 103
26 Olsen, Lizzie 10 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:20 97
31 Brown, Martha 11 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:36 92
35 Mullins, Lauren 11 Burnt Hills- Bal 20:50 87

Burnt Hills Boys- won elite race, Average: 16:37.60
4 Houghtalen, Drew 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 15:57 182
11 Pezzulo, Ryan 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:27 172
33 Buell, Cody 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:51 164
34 Goodrich, Zach 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:52 164
40 Jess, Andrew 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:01 161
48 Gray, Dan 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:09 158
65 Burton, Matt 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:21 154

I think the speed ratings done for Manchester Invitational are a little low. Not only was it a muddier course then last year but the course is much harder then a course like Queensbury. At Queensbury the runners recieved higher speed rating by running the same time or slightly slower then at Manchester. I think the Manchester speed ratings could be 3-5 points too low. I realize that is 9-15 seconds but it is without a doubt, much slower then queensbury's course.

A comparison- Cory Thorne ran 15:38 and Guar Majak ran 15:40 in 2004 on a drier course. Both of these guys were in the top 10 in the northeast in cross country with Cory making his second trip to footlockers. Now speed ratings for guys this good are usually 190s if not higher. Mark Ameralt received a 186 for his 15:45. I think the difficulty of the course was underrated.


what are the speed ratings for some of the other teams? Pinkerton? Oyster River? Con-Val?

[polyxc]

I posted this on another thread but i figured I'd put it here too.
...

Burnt Hills Boys- won elite race, Average: 16:37.60
4 Houghtalen, Drew 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 15:57 182
11 Pezzulo, Ryan 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:27 172
33 Buell, Cody 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:51 164
34 Goodrich, Zach 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 16:52 164
40 Jess, Andrew 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:01 161
48 Gray, Dan 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:09 158
65 Burton, Matt 12 Burnt Hills-Ball 17:21 154

I think the speed ratings done for Manchester Invitational are a little low. Not only was it a muddier course then last year but the course is much harder then a course like Queensbury. At Queensbury the runners recieved higher speed rating by running the same time or slightly slower then at Manchester. I think the Manchester speed ratings could be 3-5 points too low. I realize that is 9-15 seconds but it is without a doubt, much slower then queensbury's course.

A comparison- Cory Thorne ran 15:38 and Guar Majak ran 15:40 in 2004 on a drier course. Both of these guys were in the top 10 in the northeast in cross country with Cory making his second trip to footlockers. Now speed ratings for guys this good are usually 190s if not higher. Mark Ameralt received a 186 for his 15:45. I think the difficulty of the course was underrated.

Did Bill Meylan do these speed rating? Where are they posted?

They do seem a bit low. At this point I need to see all the scores though.

[spartanxc]

Bill Meylan speed rated some of the teams and the top runners on Tullyrunners.com

[BMeylan]

An important element in speed rating races is profiling both races and runners ... even more important is being consistent in it's application. I have received complaints that the ratings are too low in nearly half of the races rated this year alone.

The Manchester Invitational was rated as follows ... I keep a library of base-line results (and graphs) for each invitational race I rate. A good method of comparing races is to compare the SAME race from previous years to the current year. For the Manchester Invitational, I took the results from the Elite, Large school and Small school divisions and merged them for BOTH 2005 and 2006 ... I plotted them on the same graph and it is clearly obvious that the race was overall faster in 2006 (by 12-16 seconds) ... This method works well assuming the quality of both races are approximately equal (Manchester gets many of same schools each year, so the assumption seems appropriate). In 2005, I used a correction of 45 seconds for the boy's races at Manchester (which means I added 45 seconds to all their times) ... in 2006, I used a correction of 57 seconds ... I then calculated the speed ratings and compared them to ALL the individual ratings for ALL the runners in the race for which I have individual data ... Overall, the ratings fell nicely within the ranges of the individual runners so I did not adjust them up or down.

Some invitational races can change in quality from year to year, so it's important to recognize that occurrence. At this year's Baldwinsville Invitational I literally threw-out the girls from both Hilton and Greenwich and rated the race without them ... After finding the race adjustment, I calculated their ratings.

Speed ratings are designed to compare runner to runner (and not runner to stopwatch) ... How fast you run is determined by how fast everybody else runs.

[polyxc]

... This method works well assuming the quality of both races are approximately equal (Manchester gets many of same schools each year, so the assumption seems appropriate). ...

Hi Mr. Meylan,

My opinion is that Manchester was clearly a stronger Invitational this year.

There were 4 top Massachusetts teams in the Elite race this year, and last year there were none.

thanks for all your good work.

[BMeylan]

Manchester had over a thousand individual varsity runners and 144 complete teams (combined boys and girls) ... Unless there was a big influx of new teams of differing ability, the quality of the average mid-level runners at this invitational did not change ... Elite runners are never considered in the comparison.

The existing ratings for most individual runners fit nicely ... so unless the majority of runners magically improved en masse, the ratings are correct. I NEVER use an approximated rating for the winner and calculate backwards (NEVER). Most complaints involve the winner because people think he/she should be higher ... but if he/she is 5 or 10 points higher, so is everybody else in the race (and that needs to fit statistically or it's wrong).

[Runnerguy88PAXC]

Manchester had over a thousand individual varsity runners and 144 complete teams (combined boys and girls) ... Unless there was a big influx of new teams of differing ability, the quality of the average mid-level runners at this invitational did not change ... Elite runners are never considered in the comparison.

The existing ratings for most individual runners fit nicely ... so unless the majority of runners magically improved en masse, the ratings are correct. I NEVER use an approximated rating for the winner and calculate backwards (NEVER). Most complaints involve the winner because people think he/she should be higher ... but if he/she is 5 or 10 points higher, so is everybody else in the race (and that needs to fit statistically or it's wrong).

I'm going to have to agree with Poly in that the Elite race improved drastically this year.

2006- 38 runners under 17, 98 runners under 18
2005- 23 runners under 17, 74 runners under 18
2004- 14 runners under 17, 48 runners under 18

Also the weather in 2006 was rainy and very muddy, where as in 2005 and 2004 conditions were much more dry and suitable. Meaning the race was still much faster in 2006 than before even with worse conditions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the elite race teams are being penalized in their speed ratings because the large and small school races (Average mid-level runners) saw little change?

[OldMiler]

If I'm reading this correctly I believe there was an influx of better teams that may skew the results in comparison to 2005.
For girls : So Kingston (winner of the small school race), Hopkinton and Londonderry (the top two teams in the Large school Div) and Lincoln Sudbury in the Elite race did not run in 2005.

would that not result in better times for the average and for the mid pack teams as last year's top ones are forced back? Just a thought...

One question for anyone who saw the course : at 3/4 mile there was road, sidewalk and grass with nothing preventing runners from taking the shorter route on the grass. Is that the case every year ? If not I can see where that could knock a bit of time off





Manchester had over a thousand individual varsity runners and 144 complete teams (combined boys and girls) ... Unless there was a big influx of new teams of differing ability, the quality of the average mid-level runners at this invitational did not change ... Elite runners are never considered in the comparison.

The existing ratings for most individual runners fit nicely ... so unless the majority of runners magically improved en masse, the ratings are correct. I NEVER use an approximated rating for the winner and calculate backwards (NEVER). Most complaints involve the winner because people think he/she should be higher ... but if he/she is 5 or 10 points higher, so is everybody else in the race (and that needs to fit statistically or it's wrong).

[Runnerguy88PAXC]

One question for anyone who saw the course : at 3/4 mile there was road, sidewalk and grass with nothing preventing runners from taking the shorter route on the grass. Is that the case every year ? If not I can see where that could knock a bit of time off

I'm pretty sure the course was run the same way it always is regarding the pavement versus grass

[LongRedLine4H]

The issue you are referring to was a spot where usually, runners run on the (shorter) grass part of the pavement. However, due to the fact that that area was a complete swamp, the officials diverted the course from it and onto the road, which added a few meters. Apparently runners could go whichever way they wished.

Taking the road diversion added maybe 5 yards to the course. Ignoring the road diversion would result in the course being run as it was always run.