Forums >Racing>Importance of certified race courses?

12

Importance of certified race courses? (Read 789 times)

Trent


Good Bad & The Monkey

    posted: 3/20/2009 at 5:44 PM
    Quote from TanyaS on 3/20/2009 at 4:15 PM:
    My favorite marathon is proudly uncertified, though the RD is probably certifiable.
    That is a stupid marathon. And the RD really does not even care if it is really the right distance.
    dnephin


      posted: 3/20/2009 at 6:13 PM
      Quote from Trent on 3/20/2009 at 5:44 PM:
      That is a stupid marathon. And the RD really does not even care if it is really the right distance.
      I agree. Good prizes though Smile
      xor


        posted: 3/20/2009 at 7:34 PM
        Quote from Dakota RR on 3/20/2009 at 4:01 PM:
        But how do you know you can trust the race director? I've been to a lot of races where the RD screwed up royally. If it's a race I've never done before, having a certified course gives me a lot more confidence that the race director is on top of his shiz.
        Hmm. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'screwed up royally'. I've probably run in 400ish races of various distances... I only recall a distance-specific royal screw up, maybe, 5-10 times. (I'm not counting screwy mile markers in the middle). It is worth pointing out that a certified course can be set up incorrectly on race day. It is also worth pointing out that it is possible to measure a course incorrectly and get it certified. I'm not saying it is common nor easy. But possible. Ok then. I like certified courses, I like uncertified courses. I also like Dos Equis.

         

        mikeymike


          posted: 3/20/2009 at 9:12 PM
          I know this is one of the many topics that recur again and again but I feel like we just did this one, no? Or maybe it just seems like it. Dos Equis is pretty good. I get a craving for it now and again. It reminds me of my old college buddy and roommate from our ski bum days, Sean. Well Dos Equis and gin. And tequila. And bourbon. And weed. And other stuff.

          Runners run

          dnephin


            posted: 3/20/2009 at 9:15 PM
            weed. huh. this was the first time i recall a cert/noncert discussion. could be the college day weedage.
            RaceMeasure


              posted: 3/21/2009 at 11:03 AM
              modified: 3/21/2009 at 11:04 AM
              Just a quick reminder - everyone reading this thread, please fill out a survey , so we can tabulate opinions, instead of just read about them. Your input is greatly appreciated.
              mikeymike


                posted: 3/21/2009 at 11:44 AM
                I took the survey. It doesn't seem granular enough to gather much useful data, unless all you're interested in are the % of people who know what a certified course is and the % who care. What do you plan to use the data for?

                Runners run

                RaceMeasure


                  posted: 3/21/2009 at 12:59 PM
                  Mikey, If we made it much more granular, fewer people would take the time to complete the survey. So, we sacrifice some opportunity in exchange for an overall view on runners' perceptions. We will use the results to assist race directors in deciding if they want to have their course certified, or not. As some posters have said, they don't really care if the course is certified, as they are only competing against the other runners in that race, and they all run the same course, regardless of length. Also, an odd-distance course doesn't need to be certified, unless it can be used as a qualifier for another race. The big decision race directors have to make is from a marketing standpoint, and the survey will give us good direction in that regard. If the vast majority of runners look for certified courses to run, then it is worth the cost of 10 entries to certify a course if it gains more than 5 entries a year (certifications are good for 10 years). If the vast majority of runners don't care if the course is certified, then it may only make sense to certify if you want your race to be used as a qualifier for another race. For that reason, we don't need more granularity. More would be nice, but would you be more willing to take the time to answer 25 questions, or 7? (Also, we are hoping to get people to sign-up for our newsletter. It is geared towards making runners aware of race techniques or situations that will give them a better time. It is not about training regimen, but overall awareness.)
                  mikeymike


                    posted: 3/21/2009 at 2:08 PM
                    Fair enough. Then to your point Question 3 seems to add no value and can be eliminated, making it only 6 questions. Also, question 4 seems awkwardly worded to try and steer the responses. You ask a yes/no question but the two choices are essentially "yes" and "doesn't matter." "Doesn't matter" is not the opposite of "yes." I answered "doesn't matter" when in fact certification might matter to me, depending on the circumstances. Certification is one of several factors that may or may not influence whether I run a race but that factor alone does not make it unlikely I'll run a race--I run lots of races that are not certified. Hell I'm the race director for two rinky dink little races that are proudly uncertified.

                    Runners run

                    JimHowe


                      posted: 3/21/2009 at 4:00 PM
                      modified: 3/21/2009 at 4:03 PM
                      Even if it only makes a difference to 5% of runners it seems that having a course certified is economically worthwhile. As RaceMeasure pointed out, the certification is good for 10 years. While I agree that the majority of runners don't care, my guess is that more than 5% DO care. I'm sure that it matters to most of the runners I know. In my opinion there are reasons for certifying a course other than if the race is some kind of qualifier. "...they don't really care if the course is certified, as they are only competing against the other runners in that race..." Most runners who like to competitive on the individual level also like to compete against the clock. I'd even go so far as to say that time is more important to the majority than individual battles. The way I see it time doesn't mean much if you don't know how far you ran. Even as much as 1/100th of a mile is more than 22 seconds for a 10k at 6-minute pace, and it can be a lot more as the pace slows. I don't know about most people, but to me 22 seconds is huge. Certification, although far from perfect, is the best way I know of to insure the accuracy of a race course. Thank goodness I live in area where almost all the good races are certified. It doesn't seem like an accident that they are. When directors go to the trouble to certify their courses there's a good chance that they pay closer attention to other important details as well.
                      Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                      RaceMeasure


                        posted: 3/21/2009 at 5:31 PM
                        Question 3 is a gauge of awareness. If time doesn' t matter to someone, they may not have paid attention to a discussion of certification of courses. If time does matter, but they were not aware of certification, they may begin to pay attention to it. Part of the intent of the question is to raise awareness for those who may have not heard about certification. Question 4 was worded that way intentionally. Yes, it seems like a simple yes/no question. But, with the "unlikely", there are many folks who seem to be confused by answering "no" to "are you unilkely...". The wording is intended to make it more clear as to the meaning of their answer. And your "doesn't matter" is the appropriate response for you, from the rest of your explanation. There are some people that I run with, however, that won't run a non-certified race course. They would say "yes" to that question. I definitely appreciate the feedback. It keeps us on our toes, and will make the next survey better. I agree with Jim that there are more reasons to certify than just to be a qualifier. But, the intent of the survey is to see if our opinions are shared by a few, many, or the majority. We shall see.
                        Trent


                        Good Bad & The Monkey

                          posted: 3/21/2009 at 5:38 PM
                          modified: 3/21/2009 at 5:39 PM
                          Quote from JimHowe on 3/21/2009 at 4:00 PM:
                          Even if it only makes a difference to 5% of runners it seems that having a course certified is economically worthwhile
                          A marathon that I put on is proudly uncertified. More than 5% of the runners registering for the race want it to remain so. Registration fills fast, so there is no economic gain to be had through certification.
                          Quote from JimHowe on 3/21/2009 at 4:00 PM:
                          Most runners who like to competitive on the individual level also like to compete against the clock
                          Unless, as with this particular race, the course is not comparable to other races of the same length due to hilliness or other conditions. When the course is not comparable, then all that is left is racing others and racing your own time on the same course from year to year. As it should be.
                          Quote from JimHowe on 3/21/2009 at 4:00 PM:
                          When directors go to the trouble to certify their courses there's a good chance that they pay closer attention to other important details as well.
                          It is true that with this particular race, the organizers ignore most important details. Runners want fluids on course, they best pray for rain.
                          JimHowe


                            posted: 3/21/2009 at 7:04 PM
                            No argument with any of your points. There are exceptions to just about everything. I could have started with a disclaimer stating that certification only matters when it matters, which is most of the time As I was typing my response I thought of cross country races, many of which are first-class events. Course accuracy doesn't mean as much with those or any race run over challenging terrain where times are of less importance. Same goes for odd distances. I've been running a group of courses since 1989 that are both hilly and at odd distances. However the times mean something because we get to run them over and over and we know the competition. It is easy to compare the times we were running on those courses during a specific period with what we were running on accurately measured flat courses.
                            Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                            Ennay


                            A Saucy Wench

                              posted: 3/21/2009 at 7:10 PM
                              Quote from Trent on 3/21/2009 at 5:38 PM:
                              Unless, as with this particular race, the course is not comparable to other races of the same length due to hilliness or other conditions. When the course is not comparable, then all that is left is racing others and racing your own time on the same course from year to year.
                              I think this is mostly why it doesnt matter to me. There are very very few flat courses around here and the best races around here are fairly hilly. Comparing races is fairly meaningless anyway. Although all my PR's except marathon are on hillier courses, I havent gotten a good flat run yet.

                              I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

                               

                              "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

                              12

                              Forums >Racing>Importance of certified race courses?

                              © 2024 RunningAHEAD, LLC. All rights reserved.
                              Terms of Service|Privacy|Feedback|Help