Forums >General Running>Logging races that are "short".
Greetings,
I just wanted to get some input on what folks do when a race is short per a consensus of folks using their watches. I personally had a 5K several years ago that clocked in at a tad under 3 miles. This would have been a PR for me, but I refused to acknowledge it as a 5k, and renamed it in my log as a 3 miler. I always use the official chip times over my watch in either case.
This weekend I ran another 5K that clocked in for me at 3.03 and my girlfriend at 3.05. This was not close to a PR for me so I am considering just using the 'official' results in my log over my GPS data.
I am interested in thoughts as to what others do.
Select option to not include the race as a PR.
If the course is certified, log it as 5k, and include as PR or otherwise.
I don't use a GPS device, but I'd never trust one if I did.
I believe mapping the run here on RA provides a more accurate distance if you are otherwise in doubt.
Ricky —our ability to perform up to our physiological potential in a race is determined by whether or not we truly psychologically believe that what we are attempting is realistic. Anton Krupicka
Dream Maker
If it seems clear the course was short.. (Ran one where EVERYONE had a PR, and while I didn't, I had a much faster time than I was in shape for) I log it as the distance I believe it to be.
If it's just your Garmin running .1 short and time/common sense doesn't make it seem clear, I would log it as a 5K. Especially for not a PR.
Garmin isn't that accurate. It does usually read long so I suspect a course is short if it doesn't read over on any distance, but losing satellite can make it read short.
Greetings, I just wanted to get some input on what folks do when a race is short per a consensus of folks using their watches. I personally had a 5K several years ago that clocked in at a tad under 3 miles. This would have been a PR for me, but I refused to acknowledge it as a 5k, and renamed it in my log as a 3 miler. I always use the official chip times over my watch in either case. This weekend I ran another 5K that clocked in for me at 3.03 and my girlfriend at 3.05. This was not close to a PR for me so I am considering just using the 'official' results in my log over my GPS data. I am interested in thoughts as to what others do.
+1 for excluding it from PRs but logging it as a 5K. It's still a race paced effort and not your fault that someone may have misplaced a cone or something. But, I wouldn't base it on a GPS reading. I would base it on the time being too good to be true and/or comments from other runners after the race. (Thus, my sub-20 5K not appearing as my 5K PR. I had my doubts and another runner who ran it confirmed it.)
My blog is JT Running DC. It's awesome. Guide to Washington DC Area Running Routes. Guide to the New York City Marathon. Guide to the Boston Marathon. Guide to Running Gear. Guide to Running Clothes.
Thanks for all the feedback! I have one more piece of information to add. I have just looked up the results of my last race and my chip time was 1 second from the gun time. I was running with my girlfriend and her chip time was correctly 1:13 from the gun time. I analyzed all the participants and 360 of 1129 somehow managed to have my same starting chip time. In this case, I took the starting chip time from my GF, used my finishing chip time and then the 5K as posted by the race. I also sent an email to the race promoter to let them know their starting chip times are bogus.
an amazing likeness
Give them a few days to sort out the times...If you still feel the course was short, log it as a 5K, but exclude it from your PR like everyone has been saying, and drop a note in your run to remind yourself you think the course was a shorty McShorty.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Is the updated information a different issue? I'm not a numbers person but the fact that the chip times are screwy shouldn't impact the "short"ness of the course, I don't think... But, yeah, I've noticed sometimes the race times from race day are off and it can take the organizers a few days to correct them.
Edited because the update wasn't a question.
Connoisseur of Cookies
If it's a certified course you can be assured the course is the distance being advertised no matter what your Garmin reads. If it isn't a certified course it can be long or short or somewhere in between.
If it's a certified course use the time you run for the distance advertised.
If it's not a certified course, just because your Garmin doesn't read exactly that distance doesn't mean that the course distance was off. There is a margin of error that comes with using a Garmin or similar device. I'd still record the time for the advertised distance.
If the time or distance measured is *way* off and is consistently so for other participants, then consider a mismeasured course and record accordingly.
***************************************************************************************
"C" is for cookie. That's good enough for me.
Assuming they marshalled the course well, and you ran what was certified...it happens.
Chief Unicorn Officer
+1 to cookiemonster.
People put so much stock into a Garmin reading, but they are far from perfect. They map by plotting points and connecting with straight lines so they are not the best way to measure. I don't get too worked up if my Garmin measurement is a little bit off. I count it if it's within .05 of 3.1. especially if its a course with a lot of turns, or pinpoint turns. For my own PR's I don't only use certified courses (about 1% of my local races are actually certified) but I do know if they're put on by a local reputable club or organization the measurement is trustworthy enough.
Mile 5:49 - 5K 19:58 - 10K 43:06 - HM 1:36:54
+1. My sub-5K was a certified course. It was an out and back but I'm guessing someone messed up the cone at the turn around or the start/finish line. Otherwise, I'm on the verge of running a sub-19 5K. W00t!
Good Bad & The Monkey
Assuming they marshalled the course well, and you ran what was certified..
This.
Plenty of certified courses are not run as certified.
And plenty of uncertified courses are the correct stated distance.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Options,Account, Forums
If you want an accurate course, you may like to run track races.Those are generally a lot easier to get right, in terms of distance.
But to the original topic, I'd suggest using your judgment as whether to log it as your best estimate, or as the advertised distance, depending how plausible the advertised distance is. Similarly for times.
I've seen advertised distances be wrong (even for certified courses, occasionally), and I've seen "official" times be wrong (both chip and hand-timed). But usually they seem plausible, and I assume they're correct enough for my purposes (*).
* This is, of course, because I haven't made any world record attempts. Um, yet. When I do that, I'll be a lot more concerned with distance and time accuracy, I'm sure.
It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.
Since trail races aren't certified, and most people don't care about the exact distance, I go with what my GPS says - esp. if everyone else's gps reads 5.5mi for a 10k. (probably got distance from park signs which were rounded) Most of my races are suspect for announced distances. We also do PRs by course rather than distance.
I have had this happen twice. Once because the trails flooded and they moved the flags. Once because somebody really screwed up because the 5k course was certified but they did not certify the 10k course.