"Follow The Yellow Brick Road"

[SEAURCHIN]

I know that we've been down this road (no pun intended) many, many, times before, however, after the running of this weekend's Manhattan Invitational, I couldn't resist in once again bringing up the notion that there were possibly a handful of high school runners, who ran during the 1970's, that no doubt had the talent to run a sub-12:00 on the 2.5 course at VCP, had they competed today. Two of the runners who immediately come to my mind are Matt Centrowitz and Alberto Salazar.

I remember the pre-renovated 2.5 mile course at VCP very well. I competed on it in the mid 1970's, and it was definitely alot tougher than it is today. I know that alot of people throw out 5 seconds as the time differential between the "old" and "new" courses, however, I'm telling you that it is more like 10+ seconds. It's simply amazing how much faster the course runs after they renovated it during the mid-1990's. There used to be sand all over the "old" course in many places, as well as jagged rocks that stuck up out of the ground in the back hills. The course was quite dangerous. To be quite honest, running on the course today is like running down the Yellow Brick Road when compared to yesteryear.

Another very important factor which is never really discussed concerns the racing shoes which were worn by the runners 30+ years ago. I remember owning a pair of Nike Waffle Racers and boy they were as thin as cardboard. They had nowhere the support and aerodynamics that the racing shoes of today have.

Something else that I notice today when I attend high school x-c meets, that didn't exist way back when, are runners staying plenty hydrated before their races. At every meet I attend, I see runners holding bottles of water, gatorade, or some other sports drink in their hands. Way back when, runners were not conscious about this. The only water you got before your race were a few sips out of a water fountain, if there happened to be one in the vicinity of where you were running. As we all know, the body is made up of nearly 70% water. We all know that in order for the body to reach optimum performance it must be hydrated.

I'm sure that Kalaby, Scotty, King and other Dyestater's will come on here and say that it is hard to compare runners from different eras, etc. and that may be so, however, I'll tell you this-"The top runners of yesteryear were as tough as they come".

[king99]

I always pretend to refuse to get embroiled in another one of these.BUt here I go anyway.

Bottom line the guys that run fast on here ARE fast.

Brian Leung ran 12:17.9 ,INDOORS he ran 8:58 yards he might have run faster Outdoors

Forys ran faster than ANY guy who ever ever up here at two miles.By a LOT, execept for Trautman.

While many want to do the conversion and there is NO DOUBT it runs faster, I am unsure of why people want to take guys that may have run AS fast on the track IF that back in the dayand make them faster, it does not work that way.

WE have this same argument about Holmdel in NJ, but the bottom line is?

The guys running fast times are as fast or FASTER guys.They are by and large in NJ, that is for sure.



Brett Johnson is a 4:08 returning miler, not 1600, he ran 15:44 at Holmdel, these are not flukes.

Tyler Udland ran 9:04 as a SOPH

Rosa 9:15 3200 as a FROSH

why does it rurpise people that they run this fast, it should not at all, really.

Here is an easy example, Kyle Soloff ran 12:35, in the spring he ran 4:15 and 4:17.x mile on Garden Track and 9:01 FULL two miles, Pohorence also from MH ran 12:27, did this surprise me? Maybe a bit, but not the coach at all, It will not surpise me if/when he goes 9:0 low outdoors at all.If he had not missed 20 days in a row of training in the spring he might have run 9:12 last year, he did relay 4:17.x

I'll buy the conversion at 5 secs, if same folks will acknwoledge that a guy like Forys who ran multiple sub 4:08 1600 relays and 8:44 and 50's yards, was good enough to run faster than guys who never broke 9 minutes.

See what I mean, guys that ran fast then, ran fast, there are guys on that low list that ran fast but not under 9 minutes. Gruenwald did, Rosa surely will sooner than later.


Brad Hudson and Andy Martin were GREAT not good XC runners, I would ask Andy if he feels like he wa sthat surprised that a Forsy would run like he did, or other 9:0 guys which is what he was.Brad never ran under 9 minutes when he ran 12:15.x


Chris Pannone ran 9:02 3200 at Princeton with no spikes INdoors, and ran 12:22.9
Shocking? Not really, the math works for me.

get good weather, get good guys, lace 'em up? Look what happens, ala Gras and Haji, etc etc.

[Kalaby]

For my money, when you consider all of the variables, Salazar's run may be the best of them all.

In normal/good conditions, I stick with the 5 second differential between the "new" and old" VCP for elite boys runners. In very bad conditions, the differential can be 20+ seconds.

Also, if you stick with that 5 second adjustment, Grunewald and Forys are essentially in that Hudson/Ostolozaga 12:15-12:16 range. It appears that Haile's age is in serious question, so I'll keep him out of the discussion for the time being.

All IMO of course.

[king99]

Here is the one thing Kalaby and I probably disgaree on, on this topic.

Brad Hudson was great, but the year he ran 12:15.x there would be no evidence on the face of the earth that he was a better XC runner than Craig Forys who lost to NO ONE until FL where he was second, and then came the almost expected aamzing track season , a season that Brad Hudson with all due respect never came near in any spring.

Forys was the as good or better guy, I always see it that way, so it surprises me not that he ran faster than Brad did as a Junior.

Again, my own opinion, but the data does support at least this item.

[Sandy Irvine]

At the CHSAA city champs in 1971 Kevin McCarey won in 12:24.5 (adjusted up to 12:25.0 as was the rule back then) and later went on to run 9:09 in the old armory and 9:01.7 at Penn for 2 miles. The course was a disaster back then. AT the bridge coming back he was side by side with Centrowitz and Mike Brown and beat them in by about 20 seconds.

[king99]

almost my point exactly, Sandy. While the course is clearly improved CLEARLY IMPROVED.

They guys that run fast times, check it out, are FAST guys, always were.

Some of thse guys running fast today and a few years ago, not 30+, ran serious serious **** on the track.

Barnicle ran 8:50 , Haji 8:50's, Gras 8:50's 1:51 INDOORS and 4:05 yards

Papazian ran sub 9 12:27.x

You can find examples all over the place.

These guys that run fast, are really friggin good, not just getting their marks off Course IMprovements.

Go look up any guy that ever ran under 12:30 recent or otherwise,
Put the comparable track marks next to them

You will find that any guy running real fast today was as fast as their Back in the Day counterpart.

[Kalaby]

Here is the one thing Kalaby and I probably disgaree on, on this topic.

Brad Hudson was great, but the year he ran 12:15.x there would be no evidence on the face of the earth that he was a better XC runner than Craig Forys who lost to NO ONE until FL where he was second, and then came the almost expected aamzing track season , a season that Brad Hudson with all due respect never came near in any spring.

Forys was the as good or better guy, I always see it that way, so it surprises me not that he ran faster than Brad did as a Junior.

Again, my own opinion, but the data does support at least this item.


King - we discussed this and as I posted on that other thread, I completely agree with you that there is a tendency to have slightly biased opinions about the guys we ran against or watched when we were younger. No doubt at all that it comes into play when people start voicing their opinions. No doubt in my mind at all that these guys are just getting better and better and that's why we see course and class records being set so frequently over the last few years. It's definitely a positive sign for the future of running in our country.

With that said, I think one area where our opinions diverge is how much we rely on track performances when comparing XC seasons/careers. As you know, some guys can be quite a bit better at XC than track and vice versa. I think taken as a whole that Forys' senior XC season was a bit better than Hudson's junior year (btw, Hudson was an older junior, so he was only about 2-3 months younger than Forys was when he was a senior). Forys was certainly faster at Holmdel, even if you account for the improvements that occurred on the course in the late 90s. However, at VCP for both the 2.5 mile and 5k courses, they are within the 5 second spread that I think almost all would concede the course improvements have given the modern day runner. If you look at Nationals, Forys took 2nd and probably wasn't even quite at his best. Obviously all races are different with respect to conditions, competition, pacing, etc. but Hudson ran 7th as a junior (top non-senior) and was 12 seconds faster than Forys was over the same course; he followed that up the following year by running around the same time as the year before and taking 3rd behind Fry and Trautmann. The fact that Forys was a juggernaut on the track adds to his overall resume, but I don't think it automatically makes him clearly the superior XC guy over Hudson if you start looking at it from multiple angles while just keeping it confined to XC.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Tough to tell what is real with this course. When I ran there in the late 60s, it was not bad, it was HORRIBLE. My freshman year at NYU, VCP was our home course. I stepped in a hole on a training run coming down the hill from the bridge and went up to my knee, (I found out later) tearing the cartilage. It was an intense experience to sprint across from the start knowing that if you didn't get out near the front, you really couldn't see the trail because of the hoards of guys around you. You knew you had to be one of the first there or else.

However, there is no question in my mind that these guys today are just fast as hell. While I believe the top guys then would be with the top guys now and vice versa, I think the number of kids running under 13:00 minutes is more than back then. Same with sub 14:00.

My big question about VCP however, is what the hell happened 2 -3 years ago? I know the course was resurfaced in the 90s, but there was a huge drop in times the year that Gruenwald and Forys broke the record and I still wonder what caused that to happen. That course record had stood since what, 1983? Then all of a sudden two guys in different races slaughter it? BRD runs 12:27 alone, then Springer goes 12:28, 11 guys go under 13:00 in Forys race, including Murdock at 12:15.5, Thomas Mikel at 12:21 and Adam Lenz at 12:26.

As a comparison, look at 2005. It was raining, but the fastest time of the day was 12:35. Forys ran 12:47. 37 second drop from junior year explained by him getting better (believe me, he did; I saw it very close up) and the weather? Maybe so, maybe all those guys just got better and were there at the same time but it seems like an awfully big, sudden drop.

[king99]

Not really that sudden a drop from top of the top guys.

Barnicle, Gras and Haji all ran fast there, as did Pannone 5 years ago etc.

Springer was a 4:10 and sub 9 minute guy,his senior spring, totally capable of a time that slower guys on the track ran,before him, so it is not that big an anamoly.

Murdock was THIRD at FL Nats beating many a good guy in process . He ran 14:36 5K Indoors, he was pretty good.

To me it just makes certain sense that a guy who would later be capable of running 8:44 yards could run that.Run 12:10.7

Gruenwald ran 4:12 relay and 8:58 yards, not quite as improbable either that he could and would hold the record, he had been over that layout a few times already.

Most of us all have no doubt that a Ritzenhein who was better than just about everyone who has run here like it or not. He was a two time National FL champ, and two time NCAA Champ, would have run close to 12 flat with two trips over this layout.

Webb surely would have run under 12:10 his senior year unless conditions prevented it.

So, the record would have been lower to begin with noting what type of guy it would have taken to go lower than the 12:15 prior to Forys, probably well under 12:10.Ritzenhein was good enough to run 15:10 at Holmdel and 12:05 at Vanny probably, he was on everyone All TImers of All Timers list every time in HS XC.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

And with few exceptions there had been guys on that course at those levels of track performances in the past and they didn't go under 12:20. 12:27 for BRD? 1 second slower than Kevin Byrne? Adjust it by 5 seconds and BRD runs 12:32 on the old course, still only 6 seconds slower than Byrne, and faster than a bunch of nobodies like Mike Keogh, Mike Stahr, John Coyle, Jeff Van Wie, Paul Vandergrift and a lot more. Makes no sense to me.

[10mexicans]

For my money, when you consider all of the variables, Salazar's run may be the best of them all.

In normal/good conditions, I stick with the 5 second differential between the "new" and old" VCP for elite boys runners. In very bad conditions, the differential can be 20+ seconds.

Also, if you stick with that 5 second adjustment, Grunewald and Forys are essentially in that Hudson/Ostolozaga 12:15-12:16 range. It appears that Haile's age is in serious question, so I'll keep him out of the discussion for the time being.

All IMO of course.


does 26+6=1 have to do with the counties of Ireland?

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Here is what I am talking about:

Sub-13:00 times at Manhattan
2008 45
2007 56
2006 46
2005 21 (rain)
2004 22
2003 22
2002 12 (rain)
2001 8
2000 11
1999 10

There actually seems to be two jumps - 2002 - 2003 and 2005 - 2006. I included the Easterns race rom Saturday in the 2008 total because those teams would have been in other races if there were no Easterns race (for the most part). Prior to 2003, no race for the years above had more than 4 sub-13:00s and that was one time in 2002. This year the Easterns race had 23 and the E race had 9, in 2007 the D race had 10 and the F race had 12, 2006 E, 11.

I have to go back and look at sub-12:40s now. If you want to believe that this is just runners getting faster, okay but it sure seems sudden.

[GeorgieTheK]

And with few exceptions there had been guys on that course at those levels of track performances in the past and they didn't go under 12:20. 12:27 for BRD? 1 second slower than Kevin Byrne? Adjust it by 5 seconds and BRD runs 12:32 on the old course, still only 6 seconds slower than Byrne, and faster than a bunch of nobodies like Mike Keogh, Mike Stahr, John Coyle, Jeff Van Wie, Paul Vandergrift and a lot more. Makes no sense to me.


I think what you're seeing is a "perfect storm" type picture with a lot of the old, historical courses, not just VCP.

First, I agree with King that you're seeing, on average, better runners going over the courses. The track PRs of these guys are much better than previously. However, I don't think it accounts for ALL, or even MOST of it. Hudson might not have had the track times of Forys, but I think that was a bit misleading. And a guy like DiJoseph ran under 9:00 with Coyle right behind...as sophs. We could go on and on, but there seems to be a lot more depth at the top end positions.

Which brings us to the second point - competition. Not just seeing fast guys, but seeing LOTS of fast guys. Putting a fast guy on a course certainly raises your chances of seeing fast times. But putting a dozen fast guys on the course basically guaranttees that you'll be getting fast times out of some of them...and the rest will rig up and look ordinary. And the more fast guys that get on the course, the higher the odds that enough guys will be in the same race. Teams are often travelling more, and we're seeing more "stud" kids (and teams) show up for each bit meet. The great benefit of Great American was that it sowed the seeds for teams and individuals to start travelling and racing each other in season.

Next is the "time-chasing" attitude that many of today's runners are driven by. And it's not a bad thing, either. Guys today are more willing to go out and hammer, come hell or high water. If they rig, they rig. Place no longer matters as much, except in a few select races. Lace 'em up and let 'er rip. And one of the reasons kids today can do this is...

...the courses have changed. 20 or 30 years ago if you let yourself fly down the back hills of VCP chances of you snapping your tibia were much higher than you shaving 5 seconds off your time. You HAD to run a bit conservative, especially when running in a pack. Now, you don't have to worry about footing at all. Some of it has to do with the surface itself, but some also has to do with mental knowledge that your career won't end because you went for it.

Finally, we're been getting some great days for running the past couple years. Blame it global warming, but we're seeing some great days to run. The day Hudson ran 12:15, there was a high of 52 degrees in the Bronx, and it was probably closer to 42-45 when the race went off, which means they were warming up in sub-40 degree weather. Pretty different than high 50s/low 60s.

[king99]

GTK,,I agree and that is not a bad thing either:D

hahaha, hope all is well.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Here are the sub-12:40 numbers by year:

2008 16
2007 9
2006 11
2005 2
2004 4
2003 7
2002 1
2001 2
2000 3
1999 0

Here Rich Gonzalez' analysis after the 2006 edition of the meet:

What's With the Crazy Fast Times at Vanny?
Do Gruenewald, Forys, and Shen's boys really rank with all-time best?
The answers to these questions may surprise you.

By Rich Gonzalez
DyeStat.com
BRONX, NY -- So what's with all the crazy-fast times at Van Cortlandt Park??
Is New York running really that much better than the rest of the nation?
Based on their separated-by-a-few-minutes historic runs at Vanny, are Fay-Man's Tommy Gruenewald, Colts Neck's Craig Forys and Shenendehowa's Steve Murdock truly the very best high school runners ever to lace them up in the Northeast?
With Shenendehowa High's 12:56.6 time average for its scoring five, is this truly among the strongest teams in meet history, trailing only the acclaimed quintets of F-M's 2004 squad and the great ones from decades ago?
Brace yourselves, folks. The answers to the last three questions are not what some of you want to hear: "No, no, and no."
And the answer to the opening question above? Stay tuned for one explanation. But first, a little background...
When Forys blitzed the Van Cortlandt Park layout in a sizzling 12:10.7 clocking at Saturday's 34th annual Manhattan Invitational, it registered as the all-time course record, obviously claiming the record by a New Jersey athlete on the course as well.
When Gruenewald torched the trails in a stunning 12:10.6 effort, it became the course record, as well as the all-time best for a New York state athlete, bettering the all-time 12:15.5 achieved by Shen's Steve Murdock just minutes earlier.
But did you also notice....

When California's Mikel Thomas ran third to Forys in the "E" race in 12:21.4, it was an all-time record on the Vanny course by a Golden State athlete.
When Unionville's Paul Springer won the "G" race in 12:28.6, it registered as a Pennsylvania state record on the course.
When Crested Butte Academy's Adam Lenz took fourth in the "E" race in 12:26.2, it was the fastest ever at Van Cortlandt by a Colorado athlete (although it should be noted in Lenz's case, very few Coloradoans have competed at Vanny in years past).That's three kids under the all-time course record, all-time individual records for six different states, and an addition to the ultra-exclusive "sub-13:00" team-time average club. All on the same day.
"But the course/weather conditions were great!" you say.
Indeed, as temperatures topped out in the low 60's, with clear and sunny skies and the occasional wind felt along the start of the final home stretch (in contrast to the oppressive rains which pelted competitors a year ago). Those conditions help to partly explain the bizarre depth of quality over the weekend on the renowned course.
Since he began recording data four decades ago, course historian Larry Byrne has detailed all of the top prep performances at Van Cortlandt Park, with most of those efforts coming in various editions of the Manhattan Invitational. On average, nearly 15.7 boys athletes per year dip under the 13:00 barrier at Vanny. This year, that number was nearly tripled as 46 runners turned the feat, exactly doubling the previous single-year record of 23 established two years ago.
"The course had to have been shortened!" you exclaim.
Nope. Both the start and finish locations were the same, and the meandering paved path through the woods leaves no real chance for cutting the course.
"The course runs faster now than in the 'old days,'" you insist.
You'd have a point. Course maintenance upgrades at the turn of the century has resulted in far better traction and feel than in prior years, according to those local historians and coaches who've witnessed the changes and their effects.
But those upgrades have been in place for several years now, with the performances only reaching a crescendo within the last 25 months (sans last years weather downpour).
Is New York running really that much better than the rest of the nation?
Not at all. New York teams dominate the NTN Northeast Region rankings, with 7 of this past week's Top 10, but that's partly due to a known down year in New Jersey. In the two recent weekends alone, out-of-state teams not close to the top 10 in their own neck of the woods (see California teams Clovis and Santa Margarita as just two of several examples) have outperformed teams on the fringe of the New York State Top 10.
Based on their separated-by-a-few-minutes record runs at Vanny, are Fay-Man's Tommy Gruenewald, Colts Neck's Craig Forys and Shenendehowa's Steve Murdock truly the very best high school runners ever in the Northeast?
Nope. Just the fastest ever on this course for the time being. And it's a layout that will yield a slew of fast times from here onward.
Also, keep in mind that Murdock lost to Georgia's Ben Hubers by 11 seconds just three weeks ago at the Great American Cross-Country Festival. If Hubers was at this meet and beat Murdock by 11 seconds, that would have been a 12:04.
Hubers beat New Yorker Brian Rhodes-Devey by 29 seconds at Great American. Making a slight adjustment for the shorter 2.5-mile distance at Vanny (all other factors being equal), that projects to a 23-second advantage for Hubers over Rhodes-Devey here. BRD ran 12:27, once again projecting to a 12:04 for Hubers.
In the eyes of several, neither Hubers, Gruenewald, Forys nor Murdock are the favorite to win FootLocker Nationals this year. So are you prepared to accept the fact that maybe an Evan Jager (Illinois) or a Matt Tebo (New Mexico) are very capable of breaking 12:00 at Van Cortlandt right now?
With Shenendehowa High's 12:56.6 time average for its scoring five, is this truly a lengendary lineup along the likes of the acclaimed quintet from Fayetteville-Manlius in 2004?
That's also a clouded question and dealing specifically with the Manhattan meet only. But good data suggests that this weekend's effort was not even Shenendehowa's best meet of the year... and they got trounced by in-state rival Collegiate by 34 points at the Great American. And how about Ferris of Washington and Royal of California -- two teams racing clearly superior to Shenendehowa at this point. As insane as it sounds, exhaustive research on relative data shows that both Ferris and Royal could average 12:50 or better at Van Cortlandt right now, which would shatter the team-time course record.
So once again, the leading questions: What gives? Why all the fast cross-country times?
For the past decade, one big reason for the resurgence of prep running on the track and field and cross-country scene was the emergence of DyeStat, as excited athletes logged on to compare themselves against their peers, getting inspired and motivated to improve. For years, this filled the need, especially in track and field as athletes could compare times and gauge their competitive efforts toward a culmination of their season with participation at the Nike Outdoor Nationals.
But those wave after wave of excellent marks were not carrying over onto the cross-country courses.
That is, not until now. And why are they now?
The answer might reveal itself via three simple letters. ... N-T-N.
Times are a changin', folks. Gone are the days when powerhouse teams run quite well at limited-importance, mid-season invitationals but really gear themselves up for the big peak at the state meet. No longer are leading teams "saving themselves" solely for that one statewide clash at the end.
With the advent of the Nike Team Nationals, the stakes have changed; the bar has been raised much higher. All the top teams want to get to Portland in December and they know it takes being ranked highly to get there. More often than not, this means performing exceptionally during in-season regional showdowns.
The most savvy coaches are now using this carrot to motivate their teams in workouts and heading into major meets. More than ever, athlete focus and coaching preparation are geared toward the Great Americans, the Manhattans, the Bob Firmans, the Mt. SACs, the Nike Souths, the Stanfords, the Griaks and the Jim Danners of the competitive calendar.
It's all part of a synergistic cycle:
Excited athletes are training with more intensity and focus, leading to the great showings by the likes of Forys, Gruenewald and Murdock over the weekend. Top coaches refine their training and mental approach a tad, as the Bill Arises and Walt Langes of the national scene aim for both the mid-season showdowns and state meet clashes. Meet directors strive to create attractive matchups, leading to course records. Media and the public soak in the rankings, continuing the cycle.
The combination of these factors has created the ultra-environment for never-before-seen rates of cross-country progress, improvement, and achievement -- just like we saw at Manhattan over the weekend.
As a result, course records and all-time lists are being re-written at alarming rates all across the national landscape. The occasional course record and historical performances at major meets came here and there. Now they come in waves nearly every weekend.
Yes indeed, everyone. Times are a changin'... they are getting a whole lot faster.
And there's no sign of letting up.
Hold on tight and enjoy for the ride!!!

[10mexicans]

I guess the answer is clear...

Down with Dyestat.

[king99]

Murdock and BRD lost to Hubers, when:

It was prbably 80 degrees

It was hot as heck and humid in NC, Hubers is from Ga. the other sguys from upper NY State


Hubers was probably 6-8 weeks into his school year already


Hubers was good enough anyway,to beat both of them easy at that point in the season, he had tons of ability he was/became a 4:0x miler and sub 9:00

a Fully capable talent of running 12:15-20 himself at Vanny,no doubt


Murdock smacked Hubers at FL, interesting as that is left out, by SAME margin he lost to him in a meaningless meet in Sept.??

To claim NTN is responsible for any of this is a bit serving to those powers that be in my opinion.How about FL Nats importance

The 3 of top 4 fastest guys all ran FL or will as well

Gruenwald is also in top 15 I believe all time on 5K,it was hardly a fluke that he caught it right at Vanny 2.5, he was/became a 8:58/4:12 relay guy himself.

I have a lot of issues with that piece,Joe,do not stick up for him!! hahah:D

[Kalaby]

does 26+6=1 have to do with the counties of Ireland?


Yes.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

I have a lot of issues with that piece,Joe,do not stick up for him!! hahah:D

You telling me to not stick up for him will make me do exactly that!:D You guys should have taken it up with Rich when he wrote the piece two years ago.

I don't buy it either but will agree that the advent of a team nationals would make the end of season goal more compelling to a larger number of athletes than if FL was the only championship. I still don't think that would be enough to result in the numbers that I posted above where I see clear changes in the results from 2002 - 2003 and 2005 - 2006. While George presents a good case for the perfect storm, it still makes me wonder.

[king99]

Joe, I think again, when gheir senior years are done, go back and look at every sub 12:30 guy that runs it, sub 13:00? very very good but not nearly the same , I attribute that as much to just guys getting better and knowing what 13:00 is as anything else.

Also the fact that bottom line, many do not think vanny is that hard to begin with, NOR anymore and 13:00 is what? 5:12 ish pace, this can be run for 2.5 by lots of kids in monstrous fields today.

Look at the guys Rich had brought up?

Springer? 12:28, why is that a big deal, he ran 4:10 yards and sub 9 yards, totally within the realm.

My point stands, I will not waiver.

Anyone who runs under 12:30 is VERY VERY good and their other XC and Track, for those who think me too track focused will indicate it.

a Guy like Murdock? heck he ran 14:36 Indoors on the track, and didn;t he win NTN and THIRD at FL and run 15:21 on big course?

This guy was a GREAT XC runner, not just good to very good.

[HoriconAve]

Also should remember that the Manhattan race between Forys and Murdock was tactical... Murdock didn't take the lead until the bridge at 2 Miles (after which Forys outkicked him handily.) This is the opposite of what happened at FLNats, where Murdock was ahead of Forys until the final 40 meters.

I think it's safe to say that Forys had better than 12:10 in him... how much is anybody's guess.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Joe, I think again, when gheir senior years are done, go back and look at every sub 12:30 guy that runs it, sub 13:00? very very good but not nearly the same , I attribute that as much to just guys getting better and knowing what 13:00 is as anything else.

Also the fact that bottom line, many do not think vanny is that hard to begin with, NOR anymore and 13:00 is what? 5:12 ish pace, this can be run for 2.5 by lots of kids in monstrous fields today.

Look at the guys Rich had brought up?

Springer? 12:28, why is that a big deal, he ran 4:10 yards and sub 9 yards, totally within the realm.

My point stands, I will not waiver.

Anyone who runs under 12:30 is VERY VERY good and their other XC and Track, for those who think me too track focused will indicate it.

a Guy like Murdock? heck he ran 14:36 Indoors on the track, and didn;t he win NTN and THIRD at FL and run 15:21 on big course?

This guy was a GREAT XC runner, not just good to very good.

While all of this may be true, none of it explains the sudden improvement in times that is shown in the numbers above.

[king99]

Joe, every year it is billed as the biggest and the best, it IS bigger, and guys happen to be better.

This year in particular, when you take a ton of guys like that were in Easterns which was too big a race anyway, and put them all in, 23 of the 45 that broke 13 came in the same race, to me this is just not that surprising.

When I looked at size of the field and saw 32 teams in a seeded race? Roughly 224 guys? The fact that 23 would run under. or top 10%, it makes sense to me in a race this deep.

Guys are better, weather has been great, fields are deeper and came from all around this year, high quality higher Quantities.

This is what you will get in my view.

This year we will get more guys than ever under 16 at Holmdel, and we all know that layout is now unchanged for years , what say we then?

It is the same thing, guys learn how to run a course, they train harder, they are way MORE focused on XC than ever before, this is almost indisputable, you have MORE guys in BETTER fitness focused on XC in the fall now, that just is, even more NOw, that like 4-5 years ago.

Guys are very much aware of their opposition today more than ever and how low they will have to go, just to get a medal these days, that matters and adds up to something.

All things that you know, I am just re iterating them.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

You're making my hair hurt. All of what you said is true, but you would expect improvements in the level of the athletes to be gradual, not sudden. Weather for that meet has not always been bad. If fact, looking back to 1999, I found only two years where the weather wasn't good. Putting a lot of guys in the field is not going to suddenly cause 10% of them to do something very different than in prior years.

And again, the step changes I am talking about occurred from 2002 to 2003 and 2005 to 2006, not this year. This year the number of sub-13:00 guys was actually less (45) than 2007 (56), although the number of sub-12:40 guys was up (16 versus 9).

Maybe George is right - it was just the perfect storm.

[Kalaby]

You're making my hair hurt. All of what you said is true, but you would expect improvements in the level of the athletes to be gradual, not sudden. Weather for that meet has not always been bad. If fact, looking back to 1999, I found only two years where the weather wasn't good. Putting a lot of guys in the field is not going to suddenly cause 10% of them to do something very different than in prior years.

And again, the step changes I am talking about occurred from 2002 to 2003 and 2005 to 2006, not this year. This year the number of sub-13:00 guys was actually less (45) than 2007 (56), although the number of sub-12:40 guys was up (16 versus 9).

Maybe George is right - it was just the perfect storm.

It's all of what's being said. The year to year numbers can swing for many reasons. For example, was Great American on a different weekend in some years than Manhattan (siphoning talent away in one year but not another?), did some years see a conflict with the SATs, etc. Also, you have certain years that are simply more stacked than other years based on age demographics, etc. We see that a lot with the fluctuating talent pools in the NFL and NBA drafts. Some years will just stand out more than others as being "great years". I think we all agree though that for a meet like Manhattan, the overall trend is definitely one of faster guys at the top end and deeper levels of quality performances. No reason to expect that general trend to stop anytime soon.

[king99]

Exactly Mike.

Well said, I had forgotten about the Great American year or two, in there.

Also Shore is a different focus for some than others, if Pohorence had gone to the wall last week instead of this? Would he still have run 12:27.1?

Mike Franklin skipped Shore as did Galasso due to comitts, they both ran very well.

Still would have broken 13 and by a bit, but quite as fast? Who knows, it did not quite work as well with Brett Johnson who I thought would surely go very low, but did work out well for Udland etc.

[SEAURCHIN]

I'm glad you gentlemen have all had your say. I'm kind of sorry that I started this thread. It went in a completely different direction then I had originally intended. With that being said, I will conclude with this: "I'll take the top 50 runners from the 1970's over the top 50 runners of today, anyday of the week".

[king99]

I know you would and you might lose. is all I am saying!!:D

I liek the discussions, I really do, in the end it gets old I guess and nothing is resolved, because rarely will peoples mind get changed.

Although I will say on an almost same Holmdel NJ discussion I totally flipped my view, the guys running faster ove past few years have demonstrated it was not just course improvements as their Track times more than held up.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

I'm glad you gentlemen have all had your say. I'm kind of sorry that I started this thread. It went in a completely different direction then I had originally intended. With that being said, I will conclude with this: "I'll take the top 50 runners from the 1970's over the top 50 runners of today, anyday of the week".

I'm older than you are and I differ with this. I believe that the top guys today would be the top and vice versa. Champions rise to the top.

It's all of what's being said. The year to year numbers can swing for many reasons. For example, was Great American on a different weekend in some years than Manhattan (siphoning talent away in one year but not another?), did some years see a conflict with the SATs, etc. Also, you have certain years that are simply more stacked than other years based on age demographics, etc. We see that a lot with the fluctuating talent pools in the NFL and NBA drafts. Some years will just stand out more than others as being "great years". I think we all agree though that for a meet like Manhattan, the overall trend is definitely one of faster guys at the top end and deeper levels of quality performances. No reason to expect that general trend to stop anytime soon.

That does not explain the period from 1999 to 2008. Even if I bought that those are the reasons for more sub-13:00s and more sub-12:40s (and I do think the reasons that you, George and King have cited are contributory) that doesn't explain how a record that was almost 25 years old and never been threatened get broken 3 times in one day. Why wasn't it broken before then? Are we saying that Craig, Murdock and Gruenwald are the best that ever ran there?

Seaurchin, we LOVE this stuff. Sorry if we hijacked your thread.

[SEAURCHIN]

I'm older than you are and I differ with this. I believe that the top guys today would be the top and vice versa. Champions rise to the top.



That does not explain the period from 1999 to 2008. Even if I bought that those are the reasons for more sub-13:00s and more sub-12:40s (and I do think the reasons that you, George and King have cited are contributory) that doesn't explain how a record that was almost 25 years old and never been threatened get broken 3 times in one day. Why wasn't it broken before then? Are we saying that Craig, Murdock and Gruenwald are the best that ever ran there?

Seaurchin, we LOVE this stuff. Sorry if we hijacked your thread.

It's quite ok Joe-I don't mind feeling like Jack Lemmon did in "The Out of Towners"...lol...:rolleyes:

[king99]

Joe and folks considerone more thing about the speed here and I willlet it go, almost, I promise.

Go to front page of Dyestat, a guy like Bazell, 9:13 I believe,just became first guy ever to run under 16:00 at Hereford,Md. I would guess that to be equiv.to a 15:10-12 time on 5K at least at Vanny.Look at some of these other results around the country.

Now look at guys who ran fast this past weekend:Guys I know

Haile: who knows but won 5K and doubled back in 9:0x two mile at NON

Udland: 9:04 3200

Pohorence: 4:17.x relay, had he been healthy,would have run under 9:15 in my opinion

Andrews: 4:12 mile 16:0x as junior at Holmdel

Brett Johnson: 4:08 mile, 15:44 at Holmdel

Galssso: 4:17 as a SOPH, TWO years ago

Molke ran 12:48 ish, and ran 9:11 last year? totally makes sense

Franklin 12:46? 9:18 at 3200 as a Junior, kind of works,may wind up as a 9:10-12 HS'er

I guess my last beaten into the ground point, is that the guys running fast? Are really good,not marginal, when you put themall out on a dry course, same day, a lot in the same race,you will get pretty big results.

Searchun? For you, go back and look at NJ list start at 12:50 and look at the profiles of the guys,some of us know them well. This makes perfect sensetome that the guys today run this fast.


That's allI think really, is that a while ago,good guys may or may not have run fast,today, they just all do. personally I do not think it can be over emphasized, how BIG a season XC has become, it was always great, but ask any old time coach, the focus was NEVER as huge as it is now.

[Kalaby]

I'm older than you are and I differ with this. I believe that the top guys today would be the top and vice versa. Champions rise to the top.



That does not explain the period from 1999 to 2008. Even if I bought that those are the reasons for more sub-13:00s and more sub-12:40s (and I do think the reasons that you, George and King have cited are contributory) that doesn't explain how a record that was almost 25 years old and never been threatened get broken 3 times in one day. Why wasn't it broken before then? Are we saying that Craig, Murdock and Gruenwald are the best that ever ran there?

Seaurchin, we LOVE this stuff. Sorry if we hijacked your thread.

Joe - As I've stated a few times, given the surface improvements at VCP, I don't see Forys' and Gruenewald's times as anything but about equal with Hudson's and Murdock's would be worth about a 12:20-12:21. As we saw, 2006 was one of the all-time best years for the Northeast since the Kinney/Foot Locker series began in 1979. Not a surprise to me at all that those guys could run that well given what they did on other courses throughout that season and given the fact that we had started to see a real uptick in overall running performances since the late 1990s - i.e. this was something of a crescendo to that general trend of improving performances we'd been seeing for the prior 5-7 years. IMO, there's no need to go beyond that; as we know the course itself wasn't different in '06 than any year since the early 60s (i.e. in terms of the layout, not the running surface), so I think we can all eliminate that as a possible explanation. Bottom line to me is that they ran what they ran and given the context of everything that's been discussed, I don't see anything peculiar or wildly unexplainable about any of those particular VCP performances.

[SEAURCHIN]

[QUOTE=Joe Lanzalotto;2745706]I'm older than you are and I differ with this. I believe that the top guys today would be the top and vice versa. Champions rise to the top.


Just curious guys-Don't you honestly believe that if the runners from yesteryear were the recipient's of the same shoe technology, and had the same conciousness about being hydrated before races, as today's runners, that they would have run the same times, if not faster, than today's runners? I definitely think so. ;)

[Kalaby]

I've always thought that in sports, a great performer is a great performer. IMO. the top runners of this era would do just fine against all-timers from previous eras and vice versa. I know others have stronger opinions, but when speaking in general terms of "this era" vs. "that era" I choose to leave it at that and say the greats would be great no matter what era they compete in.

[Joe Lanzalotto]

I've always thought that in sports, a great performer is a great performer. IMO. the top runners of this era would do just fine against all-timers from previous eras and vice versa. I know others have stronger opinions, but when speaking in general terms of "this era" vs. "that era" I choose to leave it at that and say the greats would be great no matter what era they compete in.


Yes, and I believe that it is the same in whatever sport you want to talk about.

[Gaspasser]

I've always thought that in sports, a great performer is a great performer. IMO. the top runners of this era would do just fine against all-timers from previous eras and vice versa. I know others have stronger opinions, but when speaking in general terms of "this era" vs. "that era" I choose to leave it at that and say the greats would be great no matter what era they compete in.

Ditto!!!

[10mexicans]

Wouldnt runners notice if when they didnt drink they would be more tired...
Or...take health.:confused: :confused: :confused: