Read the certification notes. The start line is “81’ north of fork to Rockland Lake Rd”. if it were 80 METERS (~262.5 feet) ahead of where it should have been, your imagined, terribly incorrect start line would be way back before the fork, close to where the few tables on the right of the path were. The start line was where it always has been, right where it’s certified to be. This is where insane rumors come from, yikes
Start detail: "On lake pedestrian path, 81' north of fork to Rockland Lake Rd, 270' south of bench on right side of path"
Are the 81' and 270' figures in feet or meters? Certainly not trying to start any rumors, just want to understand what could account for what I noticed. I'm used to my watch being imprecise, but it almost always picks up extra distance, and this was the opposite.
Using ' and " is the universal signifier for feet and inches
Start detail: "On lake pedestrian path, 81' north of fork to Rockland Lake Rd, 270' south of bench on right side of path"
Are the 81' and 270' figures in feet or meters? Certainly not trying to start any rumors, just want to understand what could account for what I noticed. I'm used to my watch being imprecise, but it almost always picks up extra distance, and this was the opposite.
Using ' and " is the universal signifier for feet and inches
Okay so:
-81 feet = 24 meters north of the fork
-The straightaway is about 290 meters until the path starts to curve again (rough estimate using an online mapper)
-Looking at my own strava as well as everyone I'm tagged with, we all started about one third up the straightaway, so slightly under 100 meters north give or take
It is. I always feel like I'm the only one who finds these "races" kind of lame. I get that it was originally designed to support those on the OTQ bubble by giving them a no-fuss shot at getting theirs (at least in their case you know they're going to have to slug it out on a real course in the actual trials), but for everyone else it's just sort of turned into a cheap way to churn out PRs without the challenges that normal amateurs *should* have to face (choosing to stick with a slower pack, risk trying to catch a faster one, staying alone, no bottle support, etc). I would much rather my PR come from a true race situation than a breaking-2-esque time trial where I am coddled like a wannabe pro.
Events like this are good in theory, but are bad for the sport. Like it will help several athletes heading into 2028 but next thing you know there are 500 athletes in the Olympic Trials again and it turns into a joke.
Being able to qualify for the Trials should be an elite accomplishment. I think the top 70 per gender should race.
Fake and doesn’t count? It’s a record eligible course, it counts in every way that matters. Unless you think the opinions of internet weirdos with inferiority complexes count I guess.
The main argument against it here seems to be that the athletes aren’t treated poorly enough, which is hilarious. I’d get saying that down hill point to point courses shouldn’t count, but you legit just get bottles here. That’s the advantage. As a sub 2:20 dude you can get bottles at many races. You guys are just salty
Next year, you will be required to start at Grand Central Terminal, take the Metro North up the Hudson Line, transfer to a ferry to cross the river and then get bussed to Rockland Lake.
That should legitimize it
We could spray them with cold water each lap and offer cups of coffee at the start/finish instead of water.
Using ' and " is the universal signifier for feet and inches
Okay so:
-81 feet = 24 meters north of the fork
-The straightaway is about 290 meters until the path starts to curve again (rough estimate using an online mapper)
-Looking at my own strava as well as everyone I'm tagged with, we all started about one third up the straightaway, so slightly under 100 meters north give or take
Am I missing something here?
Yes, you’re missing a lot.
To start, you are unaware of the accepted symbols for feet or meters.
Second, you are relying on your watch. There’s an instagram account dedicated to making fun of people who trust their watch over certified, measured courses. You’re a bit of an anomaly though, undercutting others achievements after failing to accomplish your own goals. Also acknowledging you’re used to your watch being imprecise. You also ran in a loop almost 9 times. Do you know how GPS works? It’s notoriously less accurate on curves because it can cut off distance on turns.
Thirdly, you’re trusting whatever third party “online mapper” as if it’s comparable to the physical measuring equipment they used on the course yesterday, the day before, the year before, the year before that…. while using “rough estimations” and “give or take” measurements.
It’s hard to not accomplish your goals, I get it. Doesn’t make it any less weird to go online and start weird rumors about the course to try to bring others down to how you’re feeling. A more productive way to deal with how you’re feeling would be to train harder but hey, what do I know
-The straightaway is about 290 meters until the path starts to curve again (rough estimate using an online mapper)
-Looking at my own strava as well as everyone I'm tagged with, we all started about one third up the straightaway, so slightly under 100 meters north give or take
Am I missing something here?
Yes, you’re missing a lot.
To start, you are unaware of the accepted symbols for feet or meters.
Second, you are relying on your watch. There’s an instagram account dedicated to making fun of people who trust their watch over certified, measured courses. You’re a bit of an anomaly though, undercutting others achievements after failing to accomplish your own goals. Also acknowledging you’re used to your watch being imprecise. You also ran in a loop almost 9 times. Do you know how GPS works? It’s notoriously less accurate on curves because it can cut off distance on turns.
Thirdly, you’re trusting whatever third party “online mapper” as if it’s comparable to the physical measuring equipment they used on the course yesterday, the day before, the year before, the year before that…. while using “rough estimations” and “give or take” measurements.
It’s hard to not accomplish your goals, I get it. Doesn’t make it any less weird to go online and start weird rumors about the course to try to bring others down to how you’re feeling. A more productive way to deal with how you’re feeling would be to train harder but hey, what do I know
Okay so clearly this is James McKirdy replying lol.
I have no interest in cutting anyone down, and I'm not disputing the accuracy of the course certification. There is a discrepancy between where the start line was placed yesterday, and where it was supposed to be. A friend of mine did this race last year and his starting point was clearly further back from where it was yesterday. I'm posting in good faith trying to figure this out and you're resorting to personal attacks. Weird look for a race director to say the least!
To start, you are unaware of the accepted symbols for feet or meters.
Second, you are relying on your watch. There’s an instagram account dedicated to making fun of people who trust their watch over certified, measured courses. You’re a bit of an anomaly though, undercutting others achievements after failing to accomplish your own goals. Also acknowledging you’re used to your watch being imprecise. You also ran in a loop almost 9 times. Do you know how GPS works? It’s notoriously less accurate on curves because it can cut off distance on turns.
Thirdly, you’re trusting whatever third party “online mapper” as if it’s comparable to the physical measuring equipment they used on the course yesterday, the day before, the year before, the year before that…. while using “rough estimations” and “give or take” measurements.
It’s hard to not accomplish your goals, I get it. Doesn’t make it any less weird to go online and start weird rumors about the course to try to bring others down to how you’re feeling. A more productive way to deal with how you’re feeling would be to train harder but hey, what do I know
Okay so clearly this is James McKirdy replying lol.
I have no interest in cutting anyone down, and I'm not disputing the accuracy of the course certification. There is a discrepancy between where the start line was placed yesterday, and where it was supposed to be. A friend of mine did this race last year and his starting point was clearly further back from where it was yesterday. I'm posting in good faith trying to figure this out and you're resorting to personal attacks. Weird look for a race director to say the least!
I’ve run the course multiple times, one of them being yesterday. Start and finish lines were exactly the same every time I’ve been there. Relying on both my memory and pictures my friends took at the start at both.
To start, you are unaware of the accepted symbols for feet or meters.
Second, you are relying on your watch. There’s an instagram account dedicated to making fun of people who trust their watch over certified, measured courses. You’re a bit of an anomaly though, undercutting others achievements after failing to accomplish your own goals. Also acknowledging you’re used to your watch being imprecise. You also ran in a loop almost 9 times. Do you know how GPS works? It’s notoriously less accurate on curves because it can cut off distance on turns.
Thirdly, you’re trusting whatever third party “online mapper” as if it’s comparable to the physical measuring equipment they used on the course yesterday, the day before, the year before, the year before that…. while using “rough estimations” and “give or take” measurements.
It’s hard to not accomplish your goals, I get it. Doesn’t make it any less weird to go online and start weird rumors about the course to try to bring others down to how you’re feeling. A more productive way to deal with how you’re feeling would be to train harder but hey, what do I know
Okay so clearly this is James McKirdy replying lol.
I have no interest in cutting anyone down, and I'm not disputing the accuracy of the course certification. There is a discrepancy between where the start line was placed yesterday, and where it was supposed to be. A friend of mine did this race last year and his starting point was clearly further back from where it was yesterday. I'm posting in good faith trying to figure this out and you're resorting to personal attacks. Weird look for a race director to say the least!
It's 100% McKirdy posting here.
He used to lie and claim he was coaching me in the marathon when in reality I didn't even know he existed. He's a lying, deceptive, mean person.
Well, the actual event is super cool & set up for good times fwiw. Late March/7am start time to try to get good conditions, which they had today in the 30s with some wind but less wind than yesterday. Pancake flat 3 mile loop around a lake. Tangent line around the entire thing. Pacers. Personal fluids for every athletes. Also reasonably priced. This race is phenomenal. Idk what was meant by "given the type of even we're talking about", but this race is responsible for increasing OTQs + helping develop post collegiate athletes/give them something to train for. Can be much easier to have a good day at an event like this compared to a major just from a logistics standpoint.
If I were a 2:09 guy I don’t think I’d choose it tbh. Would be better off at a bigger race with more of a pack imo. Dude probably ran alone a good chunk of it.
Was a great race to run your first OTQ though!
His previous best was a 2:12? A 2:12 or slower isn't getting into WMM elite fields unless you have an agent, and most people running that don't have an agent because you're not making any significant money with a 2:12. So that's why he would do this event, have a chance to run fast, and now his 2:09 can get him into those other races. It's a bummer how that works. A race like Boston will keep accepting a dude who ran 2:09 10 years ago but hasn't broken 2:14 in several years. Meanwhile a fresh 2:12 runner won't be able to get in.
If I were a 2:09 guy I don’t think I’d choose it tbh. Would be better off at a bigger race with more of a pack imo. Dude probably ran alone a good chunk of it.
Was a great race to run your first OTQ though!
His previous best was a 2:12? A 2:12 or slower isn't getting into WMM elite fields unless you have an agent, and most people running that don't have an agent because you're not making any significant money with a 2:12. So that's why he would do this event, have a chance to run fast, and now his 2:09 can get him into those other races. It's a bummer how that works. A race like Boston will keep accepting a dude who ran 2:09 10 years ago but hasn't broken 2:14 in several years. Meanwhile a fresh 2:12 runner won't be able to get in.
Don’t get me wrong, I get it on some level. I personally would rather run with people in a bigger city race and have some competition. Def agree on the WMM struggle for someone like him, I just think there are other options. Either way, super impressive
To start, you are unaware of the accepted symbols for feet or meters.
Second, you are relying on your watch. There’s an instagram account dedicated to making fun of people who trust their watch over certified, measured courses. You’re a bit of an anomaly though, undercutting others achievements after failing to accomplish your own goals. Also acknowledging you’re used to your watch being imprecise. You also ran in a loop almost 9 times. Do you know how GPS works? It’s notoriously less accurate on curves because it can cut off distance on turns.
Thirdly, you’re trusting whatever third party “online mapper” as if it’s comparable to the physical measuring equipment they used on the course yesterday, the day before, the year before, the year before that…. while using “rough estimations” and “give or take” measurements.
It’s hard to not accomplish your goals, I get it. Doesn’t make it any less weird to go online and start weird rumors about the course to try to bring others down to how you’re feeling. A more productive way to deal with how you’re feeling would be to train harder but hey, what do I know
Okay so clearly this is James McKirdy replying lol.
I have no interest in cutting anyone down, and I'm not disputing the accuracy of the course certification. There is a discrepancy between where the start line was placed yesterday, and where it was supposed to be. A friend of mine did this race last year and his starting point was clearly further back from where it was yesterday. I'm posting in good faith trying to figure this out and you're resorting to personal attacks. Weird look for a race director to say the least!
I have no dog in this fight (just enjoying random pointless arguments on LRC, a typical Monday), but are you sure there's no Strava privacy run start radii going on here? Some people have it set for every run to hide the start and finish, and that shows up in races when you look at the map
Okay so clearly this is James McKirdy replying lol.
I have no interest in cutting anyone down, and I'm not disputing the accuracy of the course certification. There is a discrepancy between where the start line was placed yesterday, and where it was supposed to be. A friend of mine did this race last year and his starting point was clearly further back from where it was yesterday. I'm posting in good faith trying to figure this out and you're resorting to personal attacks. Weird look for a race director to say the least!
I have no dog in this fight (just enjoying random pointless arguments on LRC, a typical Monday), but are you sure there's no Strava privacy run start radii going on here? Some people have it set for every run to hide the start and finish, and that shows up in races when you look at the map
The strava privacy radius can be set between 200 meters and a mile, which is much bigger than the disparity I noticed.
Look, this may have been worth 15 or so seconds, at this point I kinda regret even saying anything. I only noticed that anything was off because my pacing strategy was based on the splits for each lap.
I have no dog in this fight (just enjoying random pointless arguments on LRC, a typical Monday), but are you sure there's no Strava privacy run start radii going on here? Some people have it set for every run to hide the start and finish, and that shows up in races when you look at the map
The strava privacy radius can be set between 200 meters and a mile, which is much bigger than the disparity I noticed.
Look, this may have been worth 15 or so seconds, at this point I kinda regret even saying anything. I only noticed that anything was off because my pacing strategy was based on the splits for each lap.
You claimed it was 75-80 meters too far forward, which would have put your start line behind the fork. That is just simple fact and shows your methodology and line of thinking is clearly flawed. You can falsely claim I’m whoever you want to, Ive run the race multiple times and I’m not McKirdy (or coached by him), but none of that changes anything.
I will say it’s pretty easy to tell who you are. Missed goal, prefers metric…. It’s funny you don’t mention any of this on Strava
The strava privacy radius can be set between 200 meters and a mile, which is much bigger than the disparity I noticed.
Look, this may have been worth 15 or so seconds, at this point I kinda regret even saying anything. I only noticed that anything was off because my pacing strategy was based on the splits for each lap.
You claimed it was 75-80 meters too far forward, which would have put your start line behind the fork. That is just simple fact and shows your methodology and line of thinking is clearly flawed. You can falsely claim I’m whoever you want to, Ive run the race multiple times and I’m not McKirdy (or coached by him), but none of that changes anything.
I will say it’s pretty easy to tell who you are. Missed goal, prefers metric…. It’s funny you don’t mention any of this on Strava
I don't agree with the other guy, but this is not right. If the course was short, the start line would have been beyond where it was supposed to be, farther along the straightaway the bottle tables were lined up along.
The strava privacy radius can be set between 200 meters and a mile, which is much bigger than the disparity I noticed.
Look, this may have been worth 15 or so seconds, at this point I kinda regret even saying anything. I only noticed that anything was off because my pacing strategy was based on the splits for each lap.
You claimed it was 75-80 meters too far forward, which would have put your start line behind the fork. That is just simple fact and shows your methodology and line of thinking is clearly flawed. You can falsely claim I’m whoever you want to, Ive run the race multiple times and I’m not McKirdy (or coached by him), but none of that changes anything.
I will say it’s pretty easy to tell who you are. Missed goal, prefers metric…. It’s funny you don’t mention any of this on Strava
No, it was supposed to be 81 feet ahead of the fork, and I'm saying it was 75-80m further up than that.
I don't think you know who I am, but take care either way.
You claimed it was 75-80 meters too far forward, which would have put your start line behind the fork. That is just simple fact and shows your methodology and line of thinking is clearly flawed. You can falsely claim I’m whoever you want to, Ive run the race multiple times and I’m not McKirdy (or coached by him), but none of that changes anything.
I will say it’s pretty easy to tell who you are. Missed goal, prefers metric…. It’s funny you don’t mention any of this on Strava
I don't agree with the other guy, but this is not right. If the course was short, the start line would have been beyond where it was supposed to be, farther along the straightaway the bottle tables were lined up along.
He is claiming the start was 75-80 meters too far forward. So take where the start line was yesterday, and move it back 75-80 meters. The problem is, that would put the line prior to the fork of Rockland lake road. Because the start was not nearly as far forward as he is claiming. It was absolutely not 100 yards away: not even close. it was right where it always is, 81 feet from the fork. Despite what he sees on his Strava, or whatever free measuring tool website he sees online. Anyway, I’m done engaging the nonsense
I don't agree with the other guy, but this is not right. If the course was short, the start line would have been beyond where it was supposed to be, farther along the straightaway the bottle tables were lined up along.
He is claiming the start was 75-80 meters too far forward. So take where the start line was yesterday, and move it back 75-80 meters. The problem is, that would put the line prior to the fork of Rockland lake road. Because the start was not nearly as far forward as he is claiming. It was absolutely not 100 yards away: not even close. it was right where it always is, 81 feet from the fork. Despite what he sees on his Strava, or whatever free measuring tool website he sees online. Anyway, I’m done engaging the nonsense
That would make the course long, not short. This is a very silly argument, but I expect nothing less from these forums.
He is claiming the start was 75-80 meters too far forward. So take where the start line was yesterday, and move it back 75-80 meters. The problem is, that would put the line prior to the fork of Rockland lake road. Because the start was not nearly as far forward as he is claiming. It was absolutely not 100 yards away: not even close. it was right where it always is, 81 feet from the fork. Despite what he sees on his Strava, or whatever free measuring tool website he sees online. Anyway, I’m done engaging the nonsense
That would make the course long, not short. This is a very silly argument, but I expect nothing less from these forums.
Sigh….. He’s saying it was 100 meters short. That means, in his mind, the correct line is 100 meters back from where it was yesterday. 100 meters back from where it was yesterday would be behind the fork. You are correct that if the start line was behind the fork, the course would be long. This is why he is incorrect. lol goodbye now
Time to see if Jason “Kicked out of Flagstaff” Intravaia makes the cut
What's the story behind this?
He was recording other runners workouts without their permission and put them on his YouTube channel. He was warned multiple times to stop but I guess getting youtube clicks was more important than getting banned from lumberjack stadium, kicked off mckirdy, and becoming a pariah amongst the run community.
But his youtube videos average around 3,000 views, which must earn him well over 50 cents. Totally worth it.