World-x Men's short race

[SQUACKEE]

First , Bekele was really pushed by Songok. I'm not sure if kenny had another gear if Songok would have managed to catch him. But of course he couldn't catch him cause Bek was flying!

Goucher ran just an amazing and smart race. He was right there at the end and didn't seem that tired when he finshed in 6th, 8 ticks back. Should be an interesting summer for Adam if he doesnt get hurt.

Mottram stormed to the into the lead about 1/2 way of the race and was looking good when he fell way back to 11th, 16 seconds back.

GREAT CAMERA WORK ALSO!

[EPelle]

"No victories are ever easy but today was the toughest," Bekele told reporters after collecting his 17th world title in track, indoor and cross country.

"We've never finished this close. The course was very flat and fast, and it was very windy, so it was hard to drop the other competitors."

Reuters

[Jnathletics]

I think the whole US team ran well

5 United States 80
338 Goucher Adam 6
339 Hall Ryan 19
348 Torres Jorge 27
344 Lincoln Daniel 28
333 Dobson Ian (33)
350 Watson Luke (57)

Good job, guys. 8)

[tlb747]

I think the whole US team ran well

5 United States 80
338 Goucher Adam 6
339 Hall Ryan 19
348 Torres Jorge 27
344 Lincoln Daniel 28
333 Dobson Ian (33)
350 Watson Luke (57)

Good job, guys. 8)

Six with the top four scorers, different from the seven with top five scorers I am used to seeing. The WXC just has to be different huh.

[Jnathletics]

Six with the top four scorers, different from the seven with top five scorers I am used to seeing. The WXC just has to be different huh.

I believe they went to the 4 scoring format when they made it two races.

I wonder if they will increase the number of scorers when they go back to one race. Didn't it use to be 6 scorers with 8 runners?

[tlb747]

Six with the top four scorers, different from the seven with top five scorers I am used to seeing. The WXC just has to be different huh.

I believe they went to the 4 scoring format when they made it two races.

I wonder if they will increase the number of scorers when they go back to one race. Didn't it use to be 6 scorers with 8 runners?

I do not know and if it did, this was surely before my time.

[Powell]

Six with the top four scorers, different from the seven with top five scorers I am used to seeing. The WXC just has to be different huh.

Different from what?

[26mi235]

Six with the top four scorers, different from the seven with top five scorers I am used to seeing. The WXC just has to be different huh.

Different from what?

I think that tlb is saying the WC scoring uses six runners, with the first four being the scoring athletes while the other two may displace opponents so that their unners get more points. This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

[Powell]

This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

"Standard" meaning what they use in the NCAA? I've never come across this method of scoring myself.

[tlb747]

Six with the top four scorers, different from the seven with top five scorers I am used to seeing. The WXC just has to be different huh.

Different from what?

I think that tlb is saying the WC scoring uses six runners, with the first four being the scoring athletes while the other two may displace opponents so that their unners get more points. This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say. I have been in cross country races where a team would have fifteen runners in the race. Out of all of them, five were for scoring and the sixth and seventh runners were for displacing. Everyone else was there for a workout. I had never seen a cross country team have over forty runners on it, anywhere. Then again, this was in highschool.

[bad hammy]

This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

"Standard" meaning what they use in the NCAA? I've never come across this method of scoring myself.

Maybe a US thing?? This is what we consider standard.

[26mi235]

This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

"Standard" meaning what they use in the NCAA? I've never come across this method of scoring myself.

When I see your statement I cannot parse it correctly to make it make sense. The "method" is the method used at the WC XC, where the lowest score wins, counting 1 for first, etc. You must have seen this method because have seen the WC XC meet scoring (or have you never paid any attention to the scoring, which seems highly unlikely?). Then, it is only a question of have you seen 4 and 6 instead of the more common (in the US of 5 and 7). So do you mean that you have never seen the method or never seen it with 5 scoring and 2 more displacing?

As stated by others, in many meets they let "extra" runners run the race but only the top seven figure in any manner in the scoring. However, I do not believe that there are many championships where they allow extra runners (league meets not qualifying as "championship" in this sense).

[Powell]

This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

"Standard" meaning what they use in the NCAA? I've never come across this method of scoring myself.

When I see your statement I cannot parse it correctly to make it make sense. The "method" is the method used at the WC XC, where the lowest score wins, counting 1 for first, etc.

By "method" I meant what you said, i.e. 7 team members, 5 scorers. To me, that is not "standard" in any sense of the word.

[26mi235]

This is different than "standard" XC scoring that uses 7 athletes with 5 scoring and 2 only displacing.

"Standard" meaning what they use in the NCAA? I've never come across this method of scoring myself.

When I see your statement I cannot parse it correctly to make it make sense. The "method" is the method used at the WC XC, where the lowest score wins, counting 1 for first, etc.

By "method" I meant what you said, i.e. 7 team members, 5 scorers. To me, that is not "standard" in any sense of the word.

You STILL are not being clear. When you say a different "method" do you mean using EXACTLY the same formula (what I would call method) just slightly different parameters (4 and 6, say, instead of 5 and 7)? If so, what numbers do you think is "standard". I call this method and the 5/7 values standard because it was used in HS in all of the places I knew of and is used in the NCAA and was (is?) used in the NAIA.

For me, a different method is to add up the times of the top X runners, where X is most often 5 but can be any number (sometimes at big "invites" so that comparisons across races can be made).

Funny, a number of people have been saying odd things about my "standard" not being standard but have not said anything at all about any alternative methods, much less put forward any indication that they are used widely enough to be standard.

[Powell]

You STILL are not being clear. When you say a different "method" do you mean using EXACTLY the same formula (what I would call method) just slightly different parameters (4 and 6, say, instead of 5 and 7)?

OK, fine, call it what you want. In this case, your method is pretty much universally used, but what you call "standard" parameters are not.

If so, what numbers do you think is "standard". I call this method and the 5/7 values standard because it was used in HS in all of the places I knew of and is used in the NCAA and was (is?) used in the NAIA.

The two systems commonly used in international competitions are 6 runners, 4 scorers and 5 runners, 3 scorers. All international championships (WXC, World Student Champs, all continental championships) use one of these two schemes (and sometimes both simultaneously - one for men, the other one for women, or one for seniors and the other one for juniors).