Are short courses ok?

NiallG4

Seems to be a lot of discussion about course measurements this weekend. Dune Half Marathon (although considered accurate last year was varying from 12.92m to 13.00m this year.) MSB 5K has varying reports from 3.01m to 3.04m, Balbriggan Half is also being reported as short. Carlingford half was also short. K Club in the past 3 years is also usually c. 6.14m (10K). The coach in my club is an official course measurer for athletics Ireland and I know garmins are not fully accurate (because he does my head in reminding me) but at the same time any race completed on his courses seem to be 3.12m (5K) 6.22m+ (10K) and are never ever below. He normally measures a course 2-3 times using various instruments before he is happy to ratify a course. Please don't hammer me with "garmins are not accurate". I am just wondering should races charging prices from €15 - €35 at least be accurate(ish). Maybe I am being pedantic because on the other end I go mad if a course is long. On most of the races listed above it is PB's all round. Just an observation.

Krusty_Clown

and are never ever below.

Look at the tracklogs from enough watches and you'll find some that are below for his certified courses. Courses that take place in built-up or heavily forested areas, have many bends, or require sharp u-turns are more likely to read inaccurately on a GPS watch. If he carries out course measurements in these circumstances, there will definitely be greater potential for GPS watches to read short.

The only question that should be asked is:
1) Was it measured by a certified AAI course measurer
2) Did the course on the day comply with the official course measurement.

What is reported on a person's GPS watch is irrelevant. Short courses are not ok (outside of XC races, where there's a little more tolerance).

NiallG4

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

This is rubbish.

The only question that should be asked is:
1) Was it measured by a certified AAI course measurer
2) Did the course on the day comply with the official course measurement.

What is reported on a person's GPS watch is irrelevant.

I did say it is not the be all and end all but it is a fact in my experience that none of his courses have ever measured short on my watch. That is all I am saying. GPS watches are his enemy but you are entitled to your opinion.

Krusty_Clown

NiallG4 wrote: »

I did say it is not the be all and end all but it is a fact in my experience that none of his courses have ever measured short on my watch. That is all I am saying. GPS watches are his enemy but you are entitled to your opinion.

Hi Niall, I misread your original mail, which I thought suggested that a GPS watch should never read short, but in fact actually suggested that a GPS watch 'on his course' should never read short.

GPS watches are not reliable. Take one to a 400m track and run a single lap, and that will provide you with all of the evidence you need. If your course measurer is fortunate enough to only have to measure courses that are:
1) In a sweeping loop
2) Don't have many sharp turns
3) Are not surrounded by large buildings or heavy foliage
4) Do not have sections that are not exposed to the sky (like Chicago and New York marathons)
5) Do not in some other way hamper satellite reeception
then it is more likely that a GPS watch will more closely (but not completely accurately) represent the correct length of the race distance.

Nearly everybody's watches in Chicago report a short distance, due to a brief underground section. Same goes for NYC marathon, where running underneath a bridge causes interference. Based on your logic, these courses must be short, where in fact is a limitation of consumer-level GPS technology that creates the inconsistency.

menoscemo

yeah I have ran quite a few courses where I know the course has been measured by an AAI Course measurer (Usually UM1 :eek:) that have turned out short by my GPS. However I would be very confident that they are in fact correct.
For example a few years ago I ran the whole Donadea 50k (10 x 5k laps in a forest) and my Garmin gave 48.5k at the end. You could clearly see where my Garmin lost Signal on the same secition of each lap due to trees and when it regained coverage it drew a straight line through the forest each time cutting out an entire corner of the course. Funnily enough most of the other GPS wathes recorded well above 50k that day...

Condo131

NiallG4 wrote: »

I am just wondering should races charging prices from €15 - €35 at least be accurate(ish).

All road races, with AI Permits, *MUST* be measured by an AI accredited measurer (see page 2 of permit). It's worth clarifying that the purpose of measuring is to ensure that the course distance is not less than the stated distance. A course is measured along the shortest route. If it is possible to take a short cut, that section must be physically barriered, or, as before, measurement must take account of the shortest route. In general, in my experience, 98% () of runners do NOT run the SPR (Shortest Possible Route)...even where they swear blindly that they did!

NiallG4 wrote: »

Maybe I am being pedantic because on the other end I go mad if a course is long.

I expect a course to show up as slightly long when I run ...and I DO try to run the route I would have measured, had I measured that course. But, like you, I get fairly peeved if a course is clearly long (or short).

-AIMS/IAAF Measurer

NiallG4

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Hi Niall, I misread your original mail, which I thought suggested that a GPS watch should never read short, but in fact actually suggested that a GPS watch 'on his course' should never read short.

GPS watches are not reliable. Take one to a 400m track and run a single lap, and that will provide you with all of the evidence you need. If your course measurer is fortunate enough to only have to measure courses that are:
1) In a sweeping loop
2) Don't have many sharp turns
3) Are not surrounded by large buildings or heavy foliage
4) Do not have sections that are not exposed to the sky (like Chicago and New York marathons)
5) Do not in some other way hamper satellite reeception
then it is more likely that a GPS watch will more closely (but not completely accurately) represent the correct length of the race distance.

Nearly everybody's watches in Chicago report a short distance, due to a brief underground section. Same goes for NYC marathon, where running underneath a bridge causes interference. Based on your logic, these courses must be short, where in fact is a limitation of consumer-level GPS technology that creates the inconsistency.

I didn't say it "should never" read short. All I said is that in all the races I ran locally on his courses, they never read short. I accept there are few huge NY sized bridges or tunnels on courses up our way. Not sure how "my logic" deems Chicago and NYC as short but like I said it is all about opinions.

NiallG4

Condo131 wrote: »

All road races, with AI Permits, *MUST* be measured by an AI accredited measurer (see page 2 of permit). It's worth clarifying that the purpose of measuring is to ensure that the course distance is not less than the stated distance. A course is measured along the shortest route. If it is possible to take a short cut, that section must be physically barriered, or, as before, measurement must take account of the shortest route. In general, in my experience, 98% () of runners do NOT run the SPR (Shortest Possible Route)...even where they swear blindly that they did!


I expect a course to show up as slightly long when I run ...and I DO try to run the route I would have measured, had I measured that course. But, like you, I get fairly peeved if a course is clearly long (or short).

-AIMS/IAAF Measurer

Thanks for that. I was just wondering.

Condo131

menoscemo wrote: »

For example a few years ago I ran the whole Donadea 50k (10 x 5k laps in a forest) and my Garmin gave 48.5k at the end. You could clearly see where my Garmin lost Signal on the same secition of each lap due to trees and when it regained coverage it drew a straight line through the forest each time cutting out an entire corner of the course. Funnily enough most of the other GPS wathes recorded well above 50k that day...

Not surprised at all that you lost signal in the forest. In fact I'd be VERY surprised if you didn't.

Wrt the other watches that day......I'd be pretty sure that most/all of those ran mainly in the centre of the road...and you took the SPR (or close to it)

average_runner

K-club was not short last year.

NiallG4

average_runner wrote: »

K-club was not short last year.

I am regretting my post now. I did it in 2011 & 2012 and in my opinion it was short. My club mates did it in 2013 and all got it between 6.14 & 6.16.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/81670985
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/170739882

Just the opinion of a few of us in our club that the race is short. Not knocking the race. I support the BHAA races and think they are great. Probably still have people coming on giving me grief but there you go.

ThePiedPiper

I have been similarly perplexed by a few races I have done over the years, and its particularly annoying when a pb is involved. One 5 miler in particular, where the organisers are good guys and swear blind the course is accurate. I suspect a lot of the short races are maybe measured short due to being measured on open roads without the ability to cut corners..

I have a big question mark over my 5 mile and 10k pbs, which is annoying as hell..

ThePiedPiper

What happened with dune Niall, did they change the course?

NiallG4

RunForestRun wrote: »

What happened with dune Niall, did they change the course?

You might know better than me but apparently last year you did a little loop in Dundalk before you headed to Newry. This year the race started at last years finish and ran straight in and finished at the square. About 40 did it from the club and the longest reading was 12.95M. Not a major difference but annoying for some.

drquirky

Some days you show up to race, the wind is blowing a gale in your face, the course seems all uphill and it measures long on your garmin. Other days (rare but sweet) you have the wind at your back, the course feels all downhill and you read short... It's all part of running- it pretty much all evens out in the end.

In regards MSB race this weekend, I'm confident it was 5k - I do love though how anytime a bunch of people run pbs or quick times someone comes along to take the shine off it w/ the "course is short" charge. I've personally run enough ****ty races where hailstones are smacking me in the face and I've been running into a 30 mph wind in my life that I'll just take the favorable tailwind and quick course as the universe's way of evening things out for me.

rom

I have a Garmin 620 watch and it is measuring everything short. Really annoying, messed me up recently as in a 10 mile race. When it loses GPS it uses accelerometer it gives much shorter distance. I think its due to I have a long stride length.

NiallG4

drquirky wrote: »

Some days you show up to race, the wind is blowing a gale in your face, the course seems all uphill and it measures long on your garmin. Other days (rare but sweet) you have the wind at your back, the course feels all downhill and you read short... It's all part of running- it pretty much all evens out in the end.

In regards MSB race this weekend, I'm confident it was 5k - I do love though how anytime a bunch of people run pbs or quick times someone comes along to take the shine off it w/ the "course is short" charge. I've personally run enough ****ty races where hailstones are smacking me in the face and I've been running into a 30 mph wind in my life that I'll just take the favorable tailwind and quick course as the universe's way of evening things out for me.

I had no intention of trying "to take the shine off" anybodies times. The only PB's I am interested in are my own. A few people I know did it and said it was short that's all. This added to a few local ones all in the one weekend lead to the thread. No offence or malice intended.

pconn062

NiallG4 wrote: »

I had no intention of trying "to take the shine off" anybodies times. The only PB's I am interested in are my own. A few people I know did it and said it was short that's all. This added to a few local ones all in the one weekend lead to the thread. No offence or malice intended.

One thing that did my attention about the MSB race at the weekend was a certain runner from a club near us that we both know who ran a rather spectacular time that I would not have expected (I think you know who I'm on about). This seemed out of whack with any previous results from him that I have seen. That raised my suspicions a little but I didn't run the race so I don't know.

All the races I run now are club races (mostly track and cross-country) and I don't wear a Garmin anymore so I just assume the course is the right length. What I don't know can't hurt me!

ThePiedPiper

Surprised this has been such a controversial thread to be honest.. I totally agree that there is a bad after taste when you finish a race and suspect it short. I'm surprised that happened in Dundalk, there was a loop around the demesne at the start last year, so it should have been very obvious that an extra bit would be required.. You pay your fee, with one of the fundamental expectations being an accurate course.

where do you draw the line though, drquirky? I did a half down in Offaly a few years back that measured 12.6 on mine and everyone else watches, due to the organisers putting the signs on the wrong roads. I ran a 4 minute pb, but it wasn't worth a damn in my head. I entered for and paid for a half marathon, and it was not delivered to me.

TRR

RunForestRun wrote: »

where do you draw the line though, drquirky? I did a half down in Offaly a few years back that measured 12.6 on mine and everyone else watches, due to the organisers putting the signs on the wrong roads. I ran a 4 minute pb, but it wasn't worth a damn in my head. I entered for and paid for a half marathon, and it was not delivered to me.

I don't think that is his quibble. It's the fact people are implying the MSB course was off. Didn't run it myself but have done so in previous years. It was always a fast course and as DQ says they probably got favourable winds etc. The finish was also altered and seems to be an even faster course for it. Times for seem a little faster than one would expect normally but that happens sometimes. If I had of raced Sunday and ran a PB I'd be confident it was legit.

Cona

A course is measured along the shortest route. If it is possible to take a short cut, that section must be physically barriered, or, as before, measurement must take account of the shortest route.

Does this include footpaths?

You know the situation where your running a race following the road, and you turn off you will see many runners follow the road but some will jump up on the footpath and take the shortcut. I always wondered were they 'cheating' or did the course measurer actually measure this route?

Obviously big City marathons will barrier off potential short-cuts but the smaller road races wont be able to.

average_runner

NiallG4 wrote: »

I am regretting my post now. I did it in 2011 & 2012 and in my opinion it was short. My club mates did it in 2013 and all got it between 6.14 & 6.16.
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/81670985
http://connect.garmin.com/activity/170739882

Just the opinion of a few of us in our club that the race is short. Not knocking the race. I support the BHAA races and think they are great. Probably still have people coming on giving me grief but there you go.

They corrected it last year, moved the finished line. Came a bit long on my watch which is expected.

NiallG4

average_runner wrote: »

They corrected it last year, moved the finished line. Came a bit long on my watch which is expected.

Glad to hear that because it is a great race.

drquirky

TRR wrote: »

I don't think that is his quibble. It's the fact people are implying the MSB course was off. Didn't run it myself but have done so in previous years. It was always a fast course and as DQ says they probably got favourable winds etc. The finish was also altered and seems to be an even faster course for it. Times for seem a little faster than one would expect normally but that happens sometimes. If I had of raced Sunday and ran a PB I'd be confident it was legit.

Yeah pretty much what TRR is saying here. I'm not ok w/ courses that are short as a rule (as in not properly measured/certified etc). At some point though, we have to trust a big club like MSB w/ an AAI permit etc to do things properly. It is also a pretty established course w/ only a small alteration that has an explanation that is transparent

TBH lads (and I'm not saying this to wind any of you up as I've met at least 2 of you personally and respect both of you)- it sounds like there is a little bit of local inter club rivalry at play here?

pconn062

drquirky wrote: »

Yeah pretty much what TRR is saying here. I'm not ok w/ courses that are short as a rule (as in not properly measured/certified etc). At some point though, we have to trust a big club like MSB w/ an AAI permit etc to do things properly. It is also a pretty established course w/ only a small alteration that has an explanation that is transparent

TBH lads (and I'm not saying this to wind any of you up as I've met at least 2 of you personally and respect both of you)- it sounds like there is a little bit of local inter club rivalry at play here?

You're onto us!

In fairness I would never doubt a fellow athlete like that by suggesting that a short course is the only thing that could mean they ran such a fast time. In fact I would be like you and agree that a club like MSB would probably get the measuring right. The whole long/short course thing bugs the crap out of me actually, mainly cause I don't wear a Garmin and with the courses I run I usually trust the club to get the measuring right. This is why all races should either be cross country or track races, road racing is for hobby joggers!

drquirky

pconn062 wrote: »

You're onto us!

In fairness I would never doubt a fellow athlete like that by suggesting that a short course is the only thing that could mean they ran such a fast time. In fact I would be like you and agree that a club like MSB would probably get the measuring right. The whole long/short course thing bugs the crap out of me actually, mainly cause I don't wear a Garmin and with the courses I run I usually trust the club to get the measuring right. This is why all races should either be cross country or track races, road racing is for hobby joggers!

Haha I'm with you Pconn- I'm starting to remember why we used to rag on thirty something "road runners" when I was younger lol

Krusty_Clown

I don't think there's any disagreement on this thread. We all abhor short courses. When you pay your money, the very least you should expect is an accurate course. The only thing I'm pointing out is that a Garmin is not an accurate mechanism to determine whether a course is short or not. As someone who is probably the greatest proponent for GPS watches in training around these parts, the fact that I'm also the greatest opponent for using GPS watches for accurately measuring distances should suggest something (other than I'm trying to protect my 5k PB. ).

pconn062 wrote: »

One thing that did my attention about the MSB race at the weekend was a certain runner from a club near us that we both know who ran a rather spectacular time that I would not have expected (I think you know who I'm on about). This seemed out of whack with any previous results from him that I have seen. That raised my suspicions a little but I didn't run the race so I don't know.

Out of curiosity, you mentioned a 'spectacular time'. Would this be within 10 seconds of what you would suspect this person would be capable of? Because comparing the previous course (which nobody has ever questioned) and the current course, the greatest possible difference in distance between the two would be about 80-100m (10-15 seconds), which doesn't really fit in with the spectacular description!

pconn062

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Out of curiosity, you mentioned a 'spectacular time'. Would this be within 10 seconds of what you would suspect this person would be capable of? Because comparing the previous course (which nobody has ever questioned) and the current course, the greatest possible difference in distance between the two would be about 80-100m (10-15 seconds), which doesn't really fit in with the spectacular description!

I don't like commenting on this particular guys race, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it but it was more like 30-40 seconds which at that level (he finished not all that far from you) is a lot. But saying that, that doesn't mean the course was short, maybe he has just been training well and had a really good day. I only commented because I didn't hear any talk of it being short until Niall mentioned it. I certainly don't want to be the one who puts a dampener on the run of your life that you had!

Krusty_Clown

pconn062 wrote: »

I don't like commenting on this particular guys race, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it but it was more like 30-40 seconds which at that level (he finished not all that far from you) is a lot. But saying that, that doesn't mean the course was short, maybe he has just been training well and had a really good day. I only commented because I didn't hear any talk of it being short until Niall mentioned it. I certainly don't want to be the one who puts a dampener on the run of your life that you had!

Well, let me put your mind at rest. There's no way the course was short to the tune of 30-40 seconds. I think the gods may just have aligned to give us the perfect conditions (and possibly a very slightly short course).

pconn062

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Well, let me put your mind at rest. There's no way the course was short to the tune of 30-40 seconds. I think the gods may just have aligned to give us the perfect conditions (and possibly a very slightly short course).

Most probably and if it was me I would absolutely be taking it as accurate and a PB, I wouldn't give a crap if the race was a few meters short.

Cleanman

pconn062 wrote: »

I don't like commenting on this particular guys race, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned it but it was more like 30-40 seconds which at that level (he finished not all that far from you) is a lot. But saying that, that doesn't mean the course was short, maybe he has just been training well and had a really good day. I only commented because I didn't hear any talk of it being short until Niall mentioned it. I certainly don't want to be the one who puts a dampener on the run of your life that you had!

Sure didn't Krusty break his pb by a similar margin?? Maybe this athlete you mention was doing 100 mile-a-week 5k training too:eek::eek:

RuinedEye

I wouldnt trust the GPS watches to measure a course, all measured courses will be measured as per AAI instructions and this is done on the running line. So if you differ from this running line of course you are going to log a different distance due to say traffic on the roads or just the grouping you are in. A Single lane difference over 400m is a 7 meter difference so over a 10km or half marathon the difference in distance adds up in the end.