• Poppa
      • Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/14/2018 8:09PM
      • Poppa
      • Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible?
    • coach
      registered
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/14/2018 8:13PM - in reply to Poppa
      • coach
        registered
      • Is it because of elevation changes or a wind advantage?
    • Straight line courses
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/14/2018 8:15PM - in reply to coach
      • Straight line courses
      • coach wrote:

        Is it because of elevation changes or a wind advantage?

        Well then, course with curves where corners can be cut should not be record eligible.
    • Poppa
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/14/2018 8:17PM - in reply to coach
      • Poppa
      • Clarification: I am asking about "point-to-point" courses with no net elevation drop.
    • Everyone knows it's windy
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/14/2018 8:27PM - in reply to Seriously mate?
      • Everyone knows it's windy
      • Seriously mate? wrote:

        Wind. /thread

        Ahem, it is near impossible for wind to remain steady over a long course. It can come from any direction, even if predominantly from one direction -- current eddies. And, on the track winds under 2 meters/sec are okay for record purposes. Rather than a silly ban on point-to-point, make it a not record eligible if the average wind speed along the course is greater than X meters/sec in the direction of travel. Actually, a wind speed rule should be applied to all courses, yes, even the loopy courses.
    • Cottonshirt
      registered
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/14/2018 10:04PM - in reply to Poppa
      • Cottonshirt
        registered
      • Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible?

        well, er, actually, they are not.

        at least, not just because they are a point-to-point course.

        the rule (IAAF Rule 260.28) says that the start and finish cannot be separated by more than 50% of the race distance. AND the elevation change must not be more than 1 metre per kilometre. in other words, the finish of a marathon cannot be more than 13.1 miles from the start, and, it mustn't be more than 42 metres higher or lower than the start.

        obviously, point-to-point races are more likely to fit that description than loops, but it doesn't mean that any point-to-point race is not record eligible.

        IAAF Rule 260.28

        For a performance to be eligible for ratification as a world record:

        d. The start and finish points on the course, measured along a straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance.

        e. The decrease in elevation between start and finish shall not exceed an average of 1m per km.

        cheers.
    • Flounder
      registered
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 2:34AM - in reply to Cottonshirt
      • Flounder
        registered
      • Cottonshirt wrote:

        Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible?

        well, er, actually, they are not.

        at least, not just because they are a point-to-point course.

        the rule (IAAF Rule 260.28) says that the start and finish cannot be separated by more than 50% of the race distance. AND the elevation change must not be more than 1 metre per kilometre. in other words, the finish of a marathon cannot be more than 13.1 miles from the start, and, it mustn't be more than 42 metres higher or lower than the start.

        obviously, point-to-point races are more likely to fit that description than loops, but it doesn't mean that any point-to-point race is not record eligible.

        IAAF Rule 260.28

        For a performance to be eligible for ratification as a world record:

        d. The start and finish points on the course, measured along a straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance.

        e. The decrease in elevation between start and finish shall not exceed an average of 1m per km.

        cheers.

        Rule is on page 19.
        https://www.iaaf.org/download/download?filename=1d445793-24b4-4821-98e4-38fc55b9f8ef.pdf&urlslug=IAAF+Road+Running+Manual
    • Stupeed
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 5:26AM - in reply to Straight line courses
      • Stupeed
      • Straight line courses wrote:

        Well then, course with curves where corners can be cut should not be record eligible.

        All courses are measured along the shortest possible line, curves or not. So if you "cut" curves (while staying on the road), you run at least 26.2 miles. If you don't, you run more.

        So, if anything, curved courses are disadvantageous because you can run more distance than on a straight one if you don't pay attention.
    • Flounder
      registered
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 5:53AM - in reply to Stupeed
      • Flounder
        registered
      • When you run an Olympic Marathon course there is a blue line to follow that runs the tangents of the curves. All courses are supposed to be measured by following the tangents.
    • D.Katz
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 6:57AM - in reply to Flounder
      • D.Katz
      • OMG - someone actually read the document I help write!!
    • Raddison
      registered
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 7:27AM - in reply to Everyone knows it's windy
      • Raddison
        registered
      • Everyone knows it's windy wrote:

        Ahem, it is near impossible for wind to remain steady over a long course. It can come from any direction, even if predominantly from one direction -- current eddies. And, on the track winds under 2 meters/sec are okay for record purposes. Rather than a silly ban on point-to-point, make it a not record eligible if the average wind speed along the course is greater than X meters/sec in the direction of travel. Actually, a wind speed rule should be applied to all courses, yes, even the loopy courses.

        You have kind of answered your own question. It is near impossible for the wind to remain steady over a long course. So how do you determine the average wind speed? Is it the average at the start? The average at the finish? Or do you have wind stations every mile, kilometer? Does the average of each station need to be below 2 m/s or is it the cumulative average. What about standard deviation. Must the average be less then 2 m/s but with no station recording a measurement of greater then 3 m/s?

        What about wind direction and direction of travel. Is it the free field wind direction, i.e. that measures above the building skyline then vectored for direction of travel or the wind direction at street level? They will definitely be different. What about the location of the measurement? In a city with large buildings and a free field wind at 45 deg to the street grid I could get very different readings depending on whether I measure on the left hand side of the street or the right hand side. Do you put measuring stations on each side of the road and use their average for that station? If you do that and put stations every kilometer of a marathon then you could have 86 stations in total. What if one or two of those stations malfunction and give garbage data, how do you handle that?

        To define all this will probably add several pages to the IAAF rule book and still result in several challenges.
    • It's Egun
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 7:54AM - in reply to D.Katz
      • It's Egun
      • When we raced in the metro NY area back in the day, after figuring out the prize structure, you'd ask is this a Katz course?

        Because if it was, it was a legit distance down to the inch....
    • Run Wild
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/15/2018 11:38AM - in reply to It's Egun
      • Run Wild
      • Is the OP joking? Trolling? He's clearly making this post in the discussion about the Boston Marathon, where for some reason LRC has conveniently forgotten how the wind made 2011 a much faster race than it usually is. That year it wasn't just the weather, but also how Ryan Hall went for a serious PR in that race. The result of this was that Mutai/Mosop ran the fastest time ever recorded in a marathon.
    • 30:45X-C1978
      registered
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/16/2018 6:16AM - in reply to Everyone knows it's windy
      • 30:45X-C1978
        registered
      • Everyone knows it's windy wrote:

        Seriously mate? wrote:

        Wind. /thread

        Ahem, it is near impossible for wind to remain steady over a long course. It can come from any direction, even if predominantly from one direction -- current eddies. And, on the track winds under 2 meters/sec are okay for record purposes. Rather than a silly ban on point-to-point, make it a not record eligible if the average wind speed along the course is greater than X meters/sec in the direction of travel. Actually, a wind speed rule should be applied to all courses, yes, even the loopy courses.

        Impossible. You have bends, running in different directions for major segments of most marathons. Boston is one of the few that runs straight in one direction for the large majority of the race. Then you have to calculate during/after the race to determine course eligibility year after year? There are marathons which start and end in different places but close enough in direction, elevation etc to be / are still eligible (ex: NY).
        If you run 100M in 1 direction it can be calculated in real time.
    • are any courses loops?
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/16/2018 8:12AM - in reply to Poppa
      • are any courses loops?
      • Aren't pretty much all courses actually point-to-point? I can't think of a single road or XC race I've ever run where the start line and finish line where one in the same, which would seem to be necessary to truly call a course a loop.
    • D.Katz
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/16/2018 8:23AM - in reply to are any courses loops?
      • D.Katz
      • I agree. The terminology - "point to point" & "loop" is not totally accurate and confusing to nearly everyone.
        Technically, within the sport a "point to point" course has the start and finish 50% or greater of the total distance when measured in a straight line. And a "loop" course is less then 50%
        Boston is over 90%
        New York is approximately 48%
        Regardless, it would be a good idea to change the terminology.
    • Easy Peasy
      • RE: Why are "point-to-point" courses not record eligible? 4/16/2018 2:40PM - in reply to Run Wild
      • Easy Peasy
      • Run Wild wrote:

        Is the OP joking? Trolling? He's clearly making this post in the discussion about the [i]Boston Marathon, where for some reason LRC has conveniently forgotten how the wind made 2011 a much faster race than it usually is[/u]. That year it wasn't just the weather, but also how Ryan Hall went for a serious PR in that race. The result of this was that Mutai/Mosop ran the fastest time ever recorded in a marathon.

        I do love seeing that he is still out there measuring. I always check non-NYRR races and if he measured them, I'm willing to run them. Otherwise, no thanks.