The standard stopwatch is better than a gps watch. Change my mind.

I never heard of On The Go Map but I tried it after reading this, and it is a lot easier to measure a route than Google Maps because automatically sticks to the path.

Note however that On The Go Map does not always understand bridges. It measured some crazy changes in elevation (e.g., 35% grade) where the path was basically flat, and then I realized that it was calculating the elevation as if I had run down to the road below and back up instead of going over the bridge that is actually part of the path. This can throw off the total distance if it happens a lot (I was measuring routes on the Central Park bridle path, which has a good deal of tunnels and bridges).

But overall I really liked it so thanks for that tip.

I agree. The fact is, now that I am older, I have more days that feel like crap and the GPS keeps me honest. I think my perceived efforts are not really as tied to reality as they used to be.

And to be fair, in college we always told the coaches that we ran around 6:20 pace on our easy runs but in reality, we had no idea. We were probably WAY off. If we thought and said we were doing 60 miles a week (of 1990s low-mileage/high-intensity training) we were doing even less!

We would have benefited from knowing that we were running our hard runs way too hard and that our total mileage was way too low... I would have loved a Garmin back then.

p.s. I still use my Timex Ironman for when I really, really want the time and splits to be accurate. The high-tech GPS watches have glitched out or failed to connect or run out of battery so many times that I would never trust them with important time/splits the way I do my Timex.

Yo, no problem brother!

I love maps and, really like On The Go Map. It’s not perfect, but neither is my GPS watch. It’s more than all I need though if I run a new route. I just find it easier to operate this way. The gps watch I feel interrupts me, or makes me think too much.

The GPS actually helped keep my easy days in check. When I was still training and competing I valued knowing what my pace was. Without getting live pace and mile splits I feel like I would naturally speed up thinking I was going too slow.

Now that I run for fun and fitness I get a kick out of seeing the pace fluctuations on varying terrain, how fast I covered a segment the last time, where I compare on the KOM rankings etc. As long as you don’t obsess over the data.

False dichotomy detected, it is entirely possible (and it is what I do for 90% of runs) to press start when you start and press stop when you stop and afterwards on your phone or computer look at your automatically logged run with an accurate distance (not a rounded up 10 mile run that was actually 8.8 miles). Where is this mythical "feel" being interfered with?

But what's "reality" here? As a fellow old guy, I'd argue that your perceived effort is the relevant reality (as an index of how much you're stressing your body, and thus what training stimulus you're applying), not the pace.

Because there are days were I feel like crap and think I am having a terrible run but I look down and the pace is much better than expected. That lifts my spirits and reminds me that I might actually be doing better than I thought.

There are also days where I am cruising a long, feeling good, and then I check the pace and see that it is much slower than I thought. This reminds me to get enough rest and sleep, since I might actually be more tired than I thought.

Knowing about reality instead of just going by "feel" has proved to be useful for me.

I feel like OP meant this as an elaborate troll post to get people to bite on the assertion that the late 90s track records were due to the quality of watches they had, but funnily no one’s commented on that

As for watches, maybe I’m old school but on easy days I prefer mapping my run beforehand (to determine mileage) and then using an old Timex. Reason being: I always push myself more/unnecessarily when I’m wearing the GPS. Even if I tell myself not to look at it sometimes I’ll glance down and be annoyed by my pace.

That said, GPS is way better for workout days, of course.

You can't change what is not there

Fair enough. But it's interesting that the two examples you give both involve making no adjustments to your pace *during* the run. I get exactly the same benefits with my Timex, because I run on known routes and time them. I know, after the fact, whether my actual pace differed from my perceptions, and can get the resulting spirit lift or make the appropriate sleep adjustments. (And to be totally honest, I of course have a few intermediate checkpoints on most of routes where I can get a sense of whether my perceptions are matching up to "reality.")

For me personally, running with a GPS watch (and thus having access to continuous pace info on demand, not just at a few intermittent checkpoints) is too distracting. I can't resist the urge to check frequently, and once I've checked I can't unknow what I've seen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say everyone has to have the exact same subjective experiences as me. If GPS makes your running better, that's awesome. For me, I think the downsides outweigh the benefits, particularly for easy runs, and my impression is that a lot of my training partners have turned into pace neurotics without really realizing what's happening.

GP$ 😏 any watch will do, even a watch that is under the G-$hock

Amazing thread. I was thinking I needed to read it as just this week I was moving out of my house and saw an old timex of mine and was wondering if it would work if I found a new battery. It's always blown my mind that the apple watch (which I have) can't take a simple split by pushing a button - it's not possible. Like when I bought, I spent hours trying to figure out how to do it until I learned you can't.

I currently have no watch as my apple watch has been misplaced temporarily as it always has to be charged. BUt I may have done it on purpose as with no watch I don't have to train, right? ;)

A good map side is

Are you saying I shouldn’t get an Apple Watch as I’m thinking of getting one but then I read what you wrote here and now maybe I won’t get one as you made a good point about the watch as what kind of running watch can’t take a split? What about the Garmin can the Garmin take a split as I would also get a Garmin watch bc it’s real good and can also measure pace as I’ll get one if it takes splits. Can you tell me as I’m curious

I was anti-Garmin for a while. Ran by feel and my route was a bike trail with mile markers.

I eventually got the VivoActive4. It connects much faster than an early Garmin I had (I returned that one it was so slow to connect). The VivoActive has the golf course maps and score cards, everything I need for running GPS and it has Spotify which I sync to wireless earbuds. I now hate running without it.

Garmins do splits and people who claim to not be able to simply press start when they start, stop when they stop and not being able to ignore the watch during the run must have very peculiar minds. You can also do manual splits if required although the only time I have used this is to get an exact summit to finish time in a fell race where prizes were given for fastest descent.

Rojo why do you use the word “as” so much?

I love a Timex, you can get them cheap and they're good for a couple years. Yeah, I finally broke down and got an entry-level Garmin, it is handy for the obvious reasons. But...

I especially recommend a basic Timex for racing. Who wants to mess with a wrist computer on the starting line? And why get distracted by too much info when you want to focus on the race? OK, it can be fun to look over your splits later, but a run or a race should not always be subject to all this digital monitoring, it literally redefines the running experience and requires you organize your approach and experience if a very narrow way.

Best is to run by feel and have the gps watch record it, but don’t look at the watch