• Login
  • |
  • Contact

    LIVE SUPPORT

    SEND US A MESSAGE

    ContactCode

    OTHER

    Email:
    info@trackie.com

    Voicemail:
    1.877.456.5544

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

Event Results >>

TrackieReg - Free Online Registration for pretty much anything!

Marauder Bayfront Open

Hamilton, ON
October 13th, 2017

Open results in new window

 

User Comments

  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #1 

    Anonymous said 1 year ago

    Fairly fast times. How was the course? Any GPS data?

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #2 

    NoWayJose said 1 year ago

    C'mon, 7km? I find that hard to believe unless it was a pure net downhill course.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 10
    Report    REPLY #3 

    Anonymous said 1 year ago

    https://www.strava.com/activities/1228872373

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 0
    Report    REPLY #4 

    Anonymous said 1 year ago

    https://www.strava.com/activities/1228754531 this guy had 6.8k. You can see others that GPS the course.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 5
    Report    REPLY #5 

    Jacky Daniels said 1 year ago

    Using Tweedle (no disrespect intended) as an example purely because he won: Tweedle's 20:45 is equivalent to 14:30 over 5k on that course, if it is 7k (via Jack Daniels). I would propose that 14:30 is within his capabilities, speculating of course because he's never ran a fast 5 on the track, according to all-athletics. However, if Tweedle was to run 14:30 it would happen on the track not on a cross course, even a dead flat one. Cross/road courses are generally ~15 seconds slower than on the track (unless you believe he is a 14:15 guy). Considering also that he won by a significant margin and that he is far better naturally on the track, I would estimate that this course was about 20-25 seconds of running short, or roughly 130-150 meters.

    20:45 is on pace for about 23:40 (and pace wise one more kilometer makes little difference). I would say pretty confidently that Tweedle could not run under 24 minutes for an 8k cross race. The fastest time the Guelph legends of old ran at Paul Short (itself a very fast course and you really do not get much faster course wise), was Proudfoot's 23:48. And comparing these two athletes is absurd.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #6 

    Absurd? said 1 year ago

    Quoting: Jacky Daniels
    "Using Tweedle (no disrespect intended) as an example purely because he won: Tweedle's 20:45 is equivalent to 14:30 over 5k on that course, if it is 7k (via Jack Daniels). I would propose that 14:30 is within his capabilities, speculating of course because he's never ran a fast 5 on the track, according to all-athletics. However, if Tweedle was to run 14:30 it would happen on the track not on a cross course, even a dead flat one. Cross/road courses are generally ~15 seconds slower than on the track (unless you believe he is a 14:15 guy). Considering also that he won by a significant margin and that he is far better naturally on the track, I would estimate that this course was about 20-25 seconds of running short, or roughly 130-150 meters.

    20:45 is on pace for about 23:40 (and pace wise one more kilometer makes little difference). I would say pretty confidently that Tweedle could not run under 24 minutes for an 8k cross race. The fastest time the Guelph legends of old ran at Paul Short (itself a very fast course and you really do not get much faster course wise), was Proudfoot's 23:48. And comparing these two athletes is absurd."


    Is it really a stretch to say that Tweedle could run a 14:15 5km on the track (in the right race w/ good conditions)? Considering some other top guys in the race such as Forbes, Villanueva and Morgan have run mid to low 14:20s, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

    As much as I would love to worship Ross Proudfoot and the former Guelph "Legends of Old", I'm not sure if comparing XC times from course to course is really the most reliable thing to do.

    Quote comment
  • wings-leafs User since:
    Oct 29th, 2014
    Posts: 84
    thumbs_up 35
    Report    REPLY #7 

    Wings>Leafs said 1 year ago

    Quoting: Jacky Daniels
    "Using Tweedle (no disrespect intended) as an example purely because he won: Tweedle's 20:45 is equivalent to 14:30 over 5k on that course, if it is 7k (via Jack Daniels). I would propose that 14:30 is within his capabilities, speculating of course because he's never ran a fast 5 on the track, according to all-athletics. However, if Tweedle was to run 14:30 it would happen on the track not on a cross course, even a dead flat one. Cross/road courses are generally ~15 seconds slower than on the track (unless you believe he is a 14:15 guy). Considering also that he won by a significant margin and that he is far better naturally on the track, I would estimate that this course was about 20-25 seconds of running short, or roughly 130-150 meters.

    20:45 is on pace for about 23:40 (and pace wise one more kilometer makes little difference). I would say pretty confidently that Tweedle could not run under 24 minutes for an 8k cross race. The fastest time the Guelph legends of old ran at Paul Short (itself a very fast course and you really do not get much faster course wise), was Proudfoot's 23:48. And comparing these two athletes is absurd."


    Would you like some pepper to go along with your salt, Ross?

    This post was edited by Wings>Leafs 1 year ago . 
    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 8
    Report    REPLY #8 

    Anonymous said 1 year ago

    I love how people can't accept that Guelph's athletes of the best are not the best athletes to ever grace Canada with their presence. Tweeds is a phenomenal athlete, much like Forbes and Carson who also ran great times. They ran fast because they are fit and had good conditions to do it in, end of story.

    Quote comment
  • anonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #9 

    lazy said 1 year ago

    Quoting: Absurd?
    "Is it really a stretch to say that Tweedle could run a 14:15 5km on the track (in the right race w/ good conditions)? Considering some other top guys in the race such as Forbes, Villanueva and Morgan have run mid to low 14:20s, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

    As much as I would love to worship Ross Proudfoot and the former Guelph "Legends of Old", I'm not sure if comparing XC times from course to course is really the most reliable thing to do."


    Comparing cross-country times isn't always irrelevant; the comparison here is the Lehigh is one of the fastest [legit] courses in the NCAA, and the fastest one that top CIS athletes compete on regularly. Because of that, we have a fair bit of data that what,historically speaking, the "upper limit" for 8k XC is for athletes of a certain caliber. Proudfoot is a former CIS XC champ and has run in the 13:29, so there is some meaning in looking at fast he has run 8k XC in ideal conditions.

    Lehigh in this case represents ideal XC conditions - flat course, few turns/non-technical, high quality field (relative to CIS). It is unlikely that any course in Canada runs faster than this one unless it is short, especially if the competition level is weaker (no one to push top athletes).

    Sure, it's possible that Tweedle has ascended the next level and that he put down unheralded effort, but in the balance of probability I'm guessing the course was slightly short. Does it matter? Not entirely - XC is about racing after all - but being a fan of the sport is awful boring if we all just belligerently walk around saying we can't compare XC performances. You can compare them to make predictions (and god-forbid it have some fun!) if you can get the context of a performance/race... y'know, like maybe talking about whether Tweedle or Sikubwabo was more dominant. There is an answer to this, if you can sift out what the courses were like and look at the times/competition.

    Quote comment
  • buddy User since:
    Jun 8th, 2015
    Posts: 1275
    thumbs_up 3
    Report    REPLY #10 

    Buddy said 1 year ago

    have to agree with troll today

    Quote comment
  • new-post-last-visitanonymous Anonymous
    Posts: 49383
    thumbs_up 1
    Report    REPLY #11 

    Andrew Jones said 1 year ago

    Quoting: lazy
    "Comparing cross-country times isn't always irrelevant; ... if you can sift out what the courses were like and look at the times/competition."


    I would agree that it's fun to speculate on how individuals and teams stack up during the XC season. What I disagree with is the insistence that the data received from disparate sources (IE, race results) is somehow strong data. Even comparing track times within a season is somewhat shakey, given track and (outdoor) weather conditions (not to mention tactics).

    Really the best you can do in XC is use head-to-head results primarily, and cross-referencing secondarily. And even then, bump up that "standard" deviation for XC!

    Quote comment
Anonymous

says…    

Quote Underline Italics Bold
Submit Preview

By posting on our forum you are agreeing to the following guidelines.

To help prevent spammers please
enter the two words below.


image-display1

 

Benefits of creating an account!

  • No need to reveal your real name.
  • Quicker to post (no need to enter the "two words" above each time).
  • Gives you the ability to edit your own comments and subscribe to topics.
  • It's free & quick to create an account!
Submit & Create Account