Warning: Can of worms to be opened = Little Everglades Course Short?

Topic is locked. No replies allowed.

  • Chris Nickinson
    User
    cnick Edited
    @Coach_Loth MF Athletic actually carries them.

    Funny you mention Canada. In Ontario high school kids run from 3 km (midget girls) up to 7 km (senior boys) but nobody is picky about the race distances as long as they are within a few hundred metres of the prescribed distance. That allows for courses to follow natural terrain and prevent mickey mouse loops, turns, etc to get an exact distance. OFSAA does require a minimum distance for the championship meet. At the end of the day the kids (that care) worry about what place they finished and nobody bickers about time or course length.
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason Edited
    In the grand scheme of things, AS LONG AS IT'S CLOSE, I think I favor consistency over accuracy.

    Though Ryan and I disagree over many things (haha), we both agree that in cross country there is a certain amount of "acceptable variance" so there is no suggestion that Prestate (or flrunners or Spanish River or anything else fast but close) should be discounted in the database. None at all. This is XC. We should all try to be vigilant about measuring our courses and trying to be accurate as possible and try to adhere to standards of close to inner rail, tangents, etc. However, again there is a certain amount of acceptable variance.

    So... my personal opinion is that within those bounds... even if it was found officially to be even as much short as Ryan gets for it, then we should keep it the same for historical purposes.

    Now... the unfortunate BUT here... is that Little Everglades Ranch has not stayed the same over the years. Especially in the early years it changed pretty much each and every time it was run. It has now been consistent for at least 3 years and I think then we should leave it.

    Infield... there are four "holes" in the fence. Hole #1 is the end (by dead tree), Hole #2 is the current cut-in, Hole #3 is a second cut-in that at one time was used to cut back, #4 is the other end at the midway point. See below



    For the record (based on my possibly fuzzy memory)....

    * Flrunners 2005 (Prestate) finish was to the white pole, inside of course. My recollection is fuzzy and I'm not sure if we entered at Hole #2 and exited at Hole #4... or if we entered at Hole #1 and exited at hole #4.


    * State Meet 2005 - The finish was PAST the white pole and on the OUTSIDE... they put it way on the end on the grandstand side so that kids could exit directly out... instead of going to the infield (no overlapping races). I think they also entered at hole #1 and exited at Hole #4 (though it could have been 3). This created a LONG course AND it made the day go longer (no overlapping races) and got hotter later on. Kids were passing out back then in later races.


    * 2006, 2007 - Finish was back to white pole I think and inside and overlapping races (I think)... After complaints of it being long, I think they changed to the current Hole #2 and Hole #4.


    * 2008 - The finish was moved up to its current location (difference of about 135 feet)


    That's what I know and recall... anyone feel free to disagree or add what you recall better. I could be wrong on a few details or dates, but mostly right.

    Here are the different "finishes". #2 has never been used but is where Ryan says his wheel stopped at 5K.

  • Pat Crandall
    Coach
    Insider
    gpc3
    I agree that a CC course can be any length it chooses to be, and one should 'follow the terrain' and begin and end logically, rather than arbitrarily, BUT . . . and this is EXTREMELY important, do NOT say a course is a certain length and then NOT be that. If it's 4.87 KM, say that. DO NOT say it's 5K and then it's not. That's just dishonest or lazy. If you do not know what length it is, or don't care, say THAT. Integrity matters.
  • Coach Raposo
    Site Admin
    Insider
    CoachRaposo Edited
    jason
    In the grand scheme of things, AS LONG AS IT'S CLOSE, I think I favor consistency over accuracy.

    Though Ryan and I disagree over many things (haha), we both agree that in cross country there is a certain amount of "acceptable variance" so there is no suggestion that Prestate (or flrunners or Spanish River or anything else fast but close) should be discounted in the database. None at all. This is XC. We should all try to be vigilant about measuring our courses and trying to be accurate as possible and try to adhere to standards of close to inner rail, tangents, etc. However, again there is a certain amount of acceptable variance.

    State Meet 2005 - The finish was PAST the white pole and on the OUTSIDE... they put it way on the end on the grandstand side so that kids could exit directly out... instead of going to the infield (no overlapping races). I think they also entered at hole #1 and exited at Hole #4 (though it could have been 3). This created a LONG course AND it made the day go longer (no overlapping races) and got hotter later on. Kids were passing out back then in later races.

    2006, 2007 - Finish was back to white pole I think and inside and overlapping races (I think)... After complaints of it being long, I think they changed to the current Hole #2 and Hole #4.


    @jason To the best of my recollection, 2005 / 2006 were the "long" years. In 2005 only Justin Harbor of FPC and Michael Anderson of PK Yonge broke 16, while in 2006 only Robert Saltsman of Lyman and Michael Anderson (again) broke 16 minutes at the State Championship. I believe those courses went from hole #1 to hole #4 and the finish was in the middle of the straightaway and just past the white pole.

    2007- 12 guys broke 16
    2008- 29 guys broke 16
    2009- 24 guys broke 16
    2010- 47 guys broke 16

    Call me critical, but I'd argue that the 47 guys that broke 16 minutes at the state meet last year are NOT in the same caliber as a Justin Harbor or Michael Anderson. 2009 should have arguably been our state's fastest year, but that course was not as short as 2008 or 2010.

    Pre-State 2011- 29 guys broke 16. AT MID-SEASON.
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason Edited
    @CoachRaposo I agree those times can be used as somewhat of an indicator. But let's somewhat also remember that you reminded me prior to flrunners that 2006-2007 were kind of down years for Florida boys. And then there has been a surge of strength since then (peak was last year).
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason
    @CoachRaposo

    This is OVERALL (entire season, not at LER) how many people broke 16 per year. Now part of this could be short vs long years since many may have come at LER but whatever. I think this also illustrates the weakness in the mid 90s that was echoed by no Foot Locker finalists on the boys side. But mainly it's about depth. And we've seen a surge in depth the last few years... no?

    2011 - 35 (so far)
    2010 - 67
    2009 - 39
    2008 - 36
    2007 - 19
    2006 - 21
    2005 - 19
    2004 - 42
    2003 - 30
    2002 - 34
  • Coach Raposo
    Site Admin
    Insider
    CoachRaposo
    Totally agreed. And prior to the Harbor years the state was fairly weak. But last year was just absurd. Sub-15 is the new sub-16 from 5-6 years ago it seems. Ridiculous!
  • Old Man Dey
    Coach
    Insider
    jdpsu Edited
    jason
    But mainly it's about depth. And we've seen a surge in depth the last few years... no?




    @jason YES!!!! I said it last year and I'll say it again-last year's & this year's seniors are the best we've had collectively in Florida in a LONG time! Let's enjoy the races and stop harping on distances! FYI-the #1 team in the country has an avg time of 15:15 per man. I would bet they are NOT focused on how long their courses are!
  • Bill Convey
    User
    Insider
    BConvey
    @jason Jason, I believe the current course goes from hole 1 to hole 3-- just as the map suggests. That is my view having run it on Friday, and since the map is from a 2011 survey, I think that corroborates this. I also pulled the arial photos up from Bing and it suggests the same thing.
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason Edited
    @BConvey I just talked to Cyle on the phone and he confirmed this year it was 1 and 3. In the past 4--the midpoint--has been used as the exit instead at least once (not sure which years/meets that was) and I am pretty sure that at that point 2 was used as the entrance, though I can't swear by it.

    Cyle also recalls that in the first year the fence was not there at all... and that we simply looped around the dead tree... which is why the big map they display indicates as much.
  • Old Man Dey
    Coach
    Insider
    jdpsu
    Just to add to the fact that Florida kids are just simply faster now:

    In Track (where we can't argue distance, right?) for the 3200M, the following # of kids broke 9:38:

    2011: 35
    2008: 16
    2006: 14

    Again, I'm just sayin'....
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason
    @jdpsu @CoachRaposo @BConvey @Coach_Loth @gp3 @cnick @coachmeans

    Or maybe Ryan just wheeled the wrong course. With the clarification on the entrances and exits used this year, G-Map Pedometer just showed me 3.127 for this course. Now Gmap-pedometer.com can't be used as a final or official measure OBVIOUSLY... however, this course has landmarks that are clearly visible from the satellite view (unlike many other courses). So taking that into account... I tried to stick with as many points along the curve as possible. So there will be some variance if it were a true curve instead of a series of straight lines.... but I think you'll see on the lines I drew that I took tangents....

    www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5145273

    Raposo did it wrong! WRONG!
  • Bill Convey
    User
    Insider
    BConvey
    @jason Notice that his shows the first mile ending well before one of the large poles where it is marked for splits. I know its not definitive, but relatively speaking, the first mile as marked on the course is longer according to G-Maps, and according to Ryan, it is almost 100 ft longer than the other "miles" on the course. This coorborates what I have always observed in the splits.
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason
    @coachbutler @BConvey @CoachRaposo

    And to answer your question more seriously...

    I redid the Gmap again, being even tighter on the rail and paying attention to mind the inner lane on the homestretch and it came up with 3.1163 miles

    www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5145365

    Do I trust the accuracy of it? Again YES ABSOLUTELY... TO A DEGREE. Would I recommend using this as a final measure? Of course not! But this is a satellite image with permanent and visible landmarks. It is simply math. The more accurate and more quantity of the points you put on it is going to determine how close to real life it is. It can never replace being there and actually wheeling those tangents. I don't say that. But it is absolutely accurate to a certain degree... and if done well it could be off by 50 or 60 feet... but not 235 feet.

    Unless you can explain something that I don't understand about why it would be off... other than my lack of ability to accurately draw the path along the rail and tangents. And I'd challenge you to come up with anything more than about .01 difference).
  • Coach Raposo
    Site Admin
    Insider
    CoachRaposo
    jason
    www.gmap-pedometer.com/?r=5145365


    @jason Why are the first two loops so wide? The cones are only like 10-15 feet off of the fence and that's where you should measure, not halfway across the length of the straightaway. There's plenty of extra distance going on there in this map.
  • Kyle Butler
    Coach
    KBrnnr
    @jason Did you consider the inaccuracy of the satellites you are using? You could be zooming in to 10 feet and they could still be off. So your theory could be correct but the inaccuracy of the satellite could come up with a huge difference in course length.


    From Google:

    Errors sometimes occur due to the technology used to measure the height of terrain. The "Measure" function shows that the length of equator is about 40,030.24 km, giving an error of −0.112% compared with the actual value of 40,075.02 km Earth; for the meridional circumference, it shows a length of about 39,963.13 km, also giving an error of −0.112% compared with the actual value of 40,007.86 km.
  • Jason Byrne
    Site Admin
    Insider
    jason
    @CoachRaposo Thanks, Ryan. That is the kind of thing that can explain it. All I'm trying to do is reconcile the difference between the two and find some rationale for it. I will draw it again tighter. It is just such a big difference I'm trying to impartially put together the information.

    @coachbutler Oh come on... you know you were just trying to be a jerk to me. And clearly ignoring what I added emphasis to on purpose. Not suggesting it should be used for certification or final measure and you know it. As I'll say again TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.