For the record: Lagat referred to the race as a "5k"

A certified 5k road course is measured to 5,005 meters. Just throwing that out there.

A road course cannot be called 5000 meters because it is unlikely to be that precise, perfectly measured to the meter. A road course has to be 5k.

But I think you can call a track race a 5000 or a 5k. Since we know the 5000 is accurate, we know 5k is also accurate. It would not be right to call a track race 500,000 cm though.

Either way, the convention by the rule making and record keeping bodies is that track races are in meters and road races are in kilometers. My guess is Lagat is aware of this and was simply using shorthand, but even if he has no idea about this, the convention still remains. And with good reason.

Convention wrote:

A road course cannot be called 5000 meters because it is unlikely to be that precise, perfectly measured to the meter. A road course has to be 5k.

But I think you can call a track race a 5000 or a 5k. Since we know the 5000 is accurate, we know 5k is also accurate. It would not be right to call a track race 500,000 cm though.

Why can a track be measured precisely but not a road?

wondering wrote:

Why can a track be measured precisely but not a road?

The length of the course is part of it. Also the fact that you're measuring on a bicycle, that you have to measure tangents, that there may be cars driving or parked on the course that prevent you from riding perfectly on the tangent. There are a lot of reasons.

Convention wrote:

The length of the course is part of it. Also the fact that you're measuring on a bicycle, that you have to measure tangents, that there may be cars driving or parked on the course that prevent you from riding perfectly on the tangent. There are a lot of reasons.

Here, here's a ton of information about measuring road courses:

It's obviously not this hard to measure a track.

X-Runner wrote:

K is for kilometer.

It implies a greater margin of error to measure in kilometers vs meters hence 5K is not as accurate a 5,000 meters. 500,000 centimeters would be even more exact.

Road races, even certified ones, aren't the same exact distance. There are always different tangents and curves involved.

But 5,000 m on the track is always the same.

The measurement on a track is of the rail. If you're outside the rail, you're running farther than the race distance. If you're on someone's outside, you're running farther than the race distance. If you pass or lap someone, you're running farther than the race distance.

How is every 5000 on the track always the same?

On the sig-figs thing: I'm fairly certain that no one would run on an indoor track that was only accurate to the nearest meter. They're much more likely to be accurate to 5 or 10cm. So really we shoudl be calling it the 5000.00m! WE'VE BEEN SAYING IT WRONG ALL THIS TIME!! OMFG OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

Yotogofo wrote:

ra ra ra rawr wrote:

No, kcal is for kilocalorie. K is for kilo-. So, 5k basically means 5000. Why is this an argument? Besides, who f**king cares if "it implies that it is not exact." We all know the difference between a road race and a track race, so what's all the fuss about?

Fail 'k' is for kilo. It's a small 'k'.

'K' is for Kelvin as was previously mentioned.

I had to capitalize it because it was at the beginning of the sentence.

what did you say? wrote:

ra ra ra rawr wrote:

I had never heard of this, but that is one of the most moronic things I've ever heard.

Have you heard of it, or not?

Idiot. I *had not* heard of it before this, but now that I know about it, it turns out it is one of the most moronic things I've ever heard. Get it now?

shut up wrote:

what did you say? wrote:

Have you heard of it, or not?

Idiot. I *had not* heard of it before this, but now that I know about it, it turns out it is one of the most moronic things I've ever heard. Get it now?

No, I still don't get it. I'm Too Stupid.

nice one turds! wrote:

The measurement on a track is of the rail. If you're outside the rail, you're running farther than the race distance. If you're on someone's outside, you're running farther than the race distance. If you pass or lap someone, you're running farther than the race distance.

How is every 5000 on the track always the same?

On the sig-figs thing: I'm fairly certain that no one would run on an indoor track that was only accurate to the nearest meter. They're much more likely to be accurate to 5 or 10cm. So really we shoudl be calling it the 5000.00m! WE'VE BEEN SAYING IT WRONG ALL THIS TIME!! OMFG OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

I think you know that the point is for the minimum possible distance to be 5000 meters. People can run zig zags on the track if they want as long as the race is at least 5000 meters.

You bring up an interesting point on the significant figures though. Per the IAAF it looks like tracks are supposed to be constructed using measurements to the millimeter:

Maybe the correct terminology would be 5000.00 meters. But convention says we leave off the decimal places.

Convention wrote:

I think you know that the point is for the minimum possible distance to be 5000 meters. People can run zig zags on the track if they want as long as the race is at least 5000 meters.

The minimum possible distance is immediately adjacent to the rail. The measurements, I believe, are taken several cm off of the rail. Thus it may be possible to run less than the official distance of track race.

X-Runner wrote:

K is for kilometer.

It implies a greater margin of error to measure in kilometers vs meters hence 5K is not as accurate a 5,000 meters. 500,000 centimeters would be even more exact.

Road races, even certified ones, aren't the same exact distance. There are always different tangents and curves involved.

But 5,000 m on the track is always the same.

Shame on Bernie.

You are wrong. By definition 5 Kilometers is EXACTLY 500,000 centimeters or whatever breakdown you choose. while road races arent necessarily exact, the common vernacular isn't to blame.

I wondered why a thread with such a lame title was still on the front page, so I checked it out. I now have a better understanding of why many distance runners are dismissed as obsessive nuts who only hang out with other such people. Who gives a crap. I think we all know, or can quickly figure out, whether or not a race was on the roads, track, or cross-country, regardless of what it is called.

Other topics to consider for similar pointless obsession:

-Did the saints win super bowl XLIV or super bowl 44?

-Is it the US or the United States?

-Is this a stupid thread or an extremely stupid thread?

dd wrote:

I wondered why a thread with such a lame title was still on the front page, so I checked it out. I now have a better understanding of why many distance runners are dismissed as obsessive nuts who only hang out with other such people...

And yet, here YOU are responding and "hanging out"!!!

dd wrote:

I wondered why a thread with such a lame title was still on the front page, so I checked it out.

Lame title? I actually thought it was a good teaser. Not as good of a teaser as your mom, but a pretty good teaser.

I call it the cinco.

Also, what did they call Cox's 50k record? It started on road and ended on the track. Hmmmmmmmm.

Another Opinion wrote:

You are wrong. By definition 5 Kilometers is EXACTLY 500,000 centimeters or whatever breakdown you choose. while road races arent necessarily exact, the common vernacular isn't to blame.

What is he wrong about? I agree with you that 5 kilometers equals 500,000 centimeters equals 5000 meters. But in the real world courses must be measured and precision is an issue. We talk about road courses in kilometers and track races in meters to reflect a difference in the precision of the measurement. That's just how it's done, look at the record books. What are you arguing about?

Six of one

Half a dozen of another

I like the person that noted certified 5K's are at least 5,005 m in distance.

While the minimum distance you can run for 5,000m on the track is 5,000m.

this is a significant figures thing isnt it