12

Logging races that are "short". (Read 259 times)

    What i do is predict where i would have finished at if i had finished the actual distance (as per my watch) and put that in for my race time and still include it in my PR evaluation.

     

    For example, i ran a certified HM in 1:50:02 but the distance according to my garmin was 20.3 kms. So i figured that given how i felt during the run, i could have maintained a tad slower pace (than what i was finishing the race with) for the differential and so logged it as a HM with a timing of 1:53:55 which if you look at my log, shows up as the PR for that distance.

    I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.


    rebuilding r2th v2.0

       

      This.

       

      Plenty of certified courses are not run as certified.

       

      And plenty of uncertified courses are the correct stated distance.

      +1. Always amuses me when people assume that certified courses are ALWAYS the correct distance.


      Pura Vida

        It's only happened to me once so far, but for me it gave me a time to beat the next time I raced.  I needed to run faster than the suspect time so that I could "claim" it, so to speak.  I suppose this doesn't work as well after you're not new anymore.

        PRs: 5K: 25:35 / 10K: 53:03 / 10mi: 1:26:15 / HM: 1:55:02 / FM: 4:50:35

        Upcoming: Rest!

        xor


          After many years of running a whole lot of marathons and halves, I know of lots of cases where certified courses were long or short on race day because they set the damn thing up wrong or a volunteer gave bum info. (or in the very rare case, either shenanigans by the certifier... yes, this happens RARELY... or "we don't know", which happened with the Newport Marathon.  Certified course that came up 3/4ths of a mile short on re-cert 10 years later.)

           

          This is not normal... you should generally trust that a certified course is "close enough" and you should almost never trust your garmin... but it does happen.  So I wouldn't personally buy into cookiemonster's guarantee of perfection.

           

            After many years of running a whole lot of marathons and halves, I know of lots of cases where certified courses were long or short on race day because they set the damn thing up wrong or a volunteer gave bum info. (or in the very rare case, either shenanigans by the certifier... yes, this happens RARELY... or "we don't know", which happened with the Newport Marathon.  Certified course that came up 3/4ths of a mile short on re-cert 10 years later.)

             

            This is not normal... you should generally trust that a certified course is "close enough" and you should almost never trust your garmin... but it does happen.  So I wouldn't personally buy into cookiemonster's guarantee of perfection.

             

            If the below helps:

             

            From http://www.usatf.org/Products-/-Services/Course-Certifications/USATF-Certified-Courses/Procedures-Manual/The-Shortest-Possible-Route.aspx:

            A race course is defined by the shortest possible route that a runner could take and not be disqualified. A given runner might not follow the shortest possible route, just as a runner on a track may be forced to run further to pass another runner. The actual path of any given runner is irrelevant. The shortest possible route is a reasonably well-defined and unambiguous route that ensures all runners will run at least the stated race distance

            I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.

              What SRL is saying is that sometimes the procedures break down. Reality sometimes differs from theory.

              "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
              Julia1971


                 

                If the below helps:

                 

                From http://www.usatf.org/Products-/-Services/Course-Certifications/USATF-Certified-Courses/Procedures-Manual/The-Shortest-Possible-Route.aspx:

                A race course is defined by the shortest possible route that a runner could take and not be disqualified. A given runner might not follow the shortest possible route, just as a runner on a track may be forced to run further to pass another runner. The actual path of any given runner is irrelevant. The shortest possible route is a reasonably well-defined and unambiguous route that ensures all runners will run at least the stated race distance

                 

                I think this accounts for why courses measure long on Garmins, not short which is the OPs complaint.

                 

                Years ago, I ran a 10K that was short and they re-calculated everyone's time based on what the distance should have been similar to what you described above.

                You're too strong not to keep on keepin' on. - The Pips
                Yes, I am! - Gladys Knight

                xor


                  What SRL is saying is that sometimes the procedures break down. Reality sometimes differs from theory.

                   

                  Yes.  And upon re-read, several of us are saying that in this thread.

                   

                  A certified course is not a 100% guarantee of race day correctness.

                   

                  My favorite wtf example besides Newport was Rock N Roll Denver a couple years ago.  Certified course... but they put an out-and-back turnaround cone in the wrong place on race morning and the course was wrong (I don't remember whether it was long or short).  So, rnr being rnr, they adjusted everyones' times to what they theoretically would have been had the course been "correct".  Talk about spookiness.

                   

                  And, yes, BAA allowed BQs from this race with the munged times.

                   


                  HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                    Adjusting to a theoretical time based on estimated distance vs expected distance - that amuses me.

                    It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                    RunAsics


                    Person of Interest

                      Adjusting to a theoretical time based on estimated distance vs expected distance - that amuses me.

                       

                      This has been done, officially, on a number of occasions.

                       

                      A good example is the 2008 Chicago Distance Classic (now Rock'n'Rock HM).  That race kept moving around and ended up on the lakefront.  The new the course certification was documented incorrectly.  The notes stated that the turnaround was south of a marker when it was actually north.  The course was re-measured and found to be  ~200 yards long as a result.

                       

                      Adjusted finish times were accepted by the Chicago marathon for those submitting times for a corral seeding.

                       

                      MTA: fixed typo

                      "Only a few more laps to go and then the action will begin, unless this is the action, which it is."

                        Adjusting to a theoretical time based on estimated distance vs expected distance - that amuses me.

                         

                        As opposed to near-certain erroneous time measurement due to near-certain erroneous distance measurement ?

                        I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.


                        HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                           

                           

                           

                          Adjusting to a theoretical time based on estimated distance vs expected distance - that amuses me.

                           

                           

                          As opposed to near-certain erroneous time measurement due to near-certain erroneous distance measurement ?

                           

                          That's boringly familiar, so not amusing at all.

                           

                          I will note that mile/1600 conversions are traditional practice, as are 2-mile/3200 conversions, but, those are such tiny adjustments, and so accepted, as to not be amusing.

                          It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

                          xor


                            I was going to cut and paste Joe Pesci's "Do I amuse you?" bit from Goodfellas, but he drops the f-bomb about 100 too many times.

                             

                            (and this comes from the guy who says fuck and motherfucker here more than anyone combined.  Maybe I am reforming)

                             

                            12