A lot of you haven't ran in northern MI with tree coverage and winding lake shore roads. The GPS cuts the straighter line while the road is more curved and GPS isn't great.
I think we’re beyond the gps argument at this point, that was just a clue in to the course being short for most runners. Runners were not kept to the right side of the road as they should have been
Thank you. Let me preface this by saying that I have no dog in this hunt.
I'm just curious because after looking at the photos linked above it seems that either 1) runners should have been told not to run into the oncoming lane and there would be cones and marshals making sure that happened (and aid stations would be on the side of the road where you intend the runners to be), OR, 2) everyone should have been running on the left side of the road to benefit from the tangent.
So, was it the case here that only a few people ran on the left side or did almost everyone do that?
And if the course was measured around the wide side (staying to the right), why in the world wouldn't the officials announce that and enforce that the course is run that way and indicate that with cones?
Was that road open? Were the people who crossed the road to run the tangent risking oncoming traffic to do so?
When there weren't cones and before the half marathoners were meeting the marathoners in the opposite direction people were running in the full road. And again on the way back once all the back of the packers had passed by people were using the full road again. In fact I ran from the right side of the road to the left to give my husband and friends a high five. There were aid stations both sides because it is an out and back. In one of the spots where there were cones I happened to run outside of them (a longer path) because I just happened to come up on them, they weren't there the whole way and they were on a curve. The road was not open, no traffic. No indication to stay on a particular side of the road, just stay to the right when there were runners running in both directions.
When there weren't cones and before the half marathoners were meeting the marathoners in the opposite direction people were running in the full road. And again on the way back once all the back of the packers had passed by people were using the full road again. In fact I ran from the right side of the road to the left to give my husband and friends a high five. There were aid stations both sides because it is an out and back. In one of the spots where there were cones I happened to run outside of them (a longer path) because I just happened to come up on them, they weren't there the whole way and they were on a curve. The road was not open, no traffic. No indication to stay on a particular side of the road, just stay to the right when there were runners running in both directions.
This race sounds like a logistical disaster haha
It's actually not. The race was very well-organized and, other than some congestion within the final mile where the races converge, the course was very clearly marked and easy to navigate.
It's actually not. The race was very well-organized and, other than some congestion within the final mile where the races converge, the course was very clearly marked and easy to navigate.
Very clearly marked? Meaning you think those who didn’t run the course correctly did so deliberately?
It's actually not. The race was very well-organized and, other than some congestion within the final mile where the races converge, the course was very clearly marked and easy to navigate.
Very clearly marked? Meaning you think those who didn’t run the course correctly did so deliberately?
It hasn’t been established that the people ran incorrectly. There was a slight change to the course this year and the turnaround point was very tight. Maybe that was the issue. Seems like it’s all speculation right now.
Very clearly marked? Meaning you think those who didn’t run the course correctly did so deliberately?
It hasn’t been established that the people ran incorrectly. There was a slight change to the course this year and the turnaround point was very tight. Maybe that was the issue. Seems like it’s all speculation right now.
Pictures of people running the course incorrectly didn’t do it for ya?
If you look at the GPS route on Strava of the runners it shows them going through the water and people's yards at certain points. Safe to say the GPS signal on a tree covered, windy road in Northern Michigan is not going to be the most accurate.
This. Guess what a GPS does when it loses signal along a turn? It makes the shortest route to your current location. Obviously that would mean things could measure short. Just like on a track.
It hasn’t been established that the people ran incorrectly. There was a slight change to the course this year and the turnaround point was very tight. Maybe that was the issue. Seems like it’s all speculation right now.
Pictures of people running the course incorrectly didn’t do it for ya?
At no time were we told to stay on the right side of the road other than when runners were running in both directions. So how exactly are we deciding that the course was being run incorrectly? We don’t know where the course was being measured.
Pictures of people running the course incorrectly didn’t do it for ya?
At no time were we told to stay on the right side of the road other than when runners were running in both directions. So how exactly are we deciding that the course was being run incorrectly? We don’t know where the course was being measured.
If it is a gps thing. Why is the half marathon not short? I’m pretty sure that the marathon course is accurate if ran the way it was measured. I bet most didn’t run it that way.
For what it’s worth, I remember pretty much staying on the right side of the course the entire way (for much of that section between miles 5 and 21 I couldn’t have even ran on the left side if I wanted to because of the oncoming runners) and my GPS still measured 26.15. I’ll admit I’m biased because I want the course I ran to be legit, but based on that experience, the fact that this certified course (which is known as pretty much the top marathon in Michigan) has measured short on GPS for several years, and some other responses in this thread of people more familiar with GPS in northern Michigan I’m inclined to believe it was a GPS issue until proven otherwise.
I honestly just want to know the truth here; I’m the type of person who would hate to have run on a short course and that’s honestly the only reason I’m following this thread. I’m not saying it’s impossible the course is short, but there have been several valid points in this thread about why it could very well simply be a GPS issue and those claiming the course is short or that everyone cut the tangents so everyone ran a short course are simply downvoting and ignoring any reasonable claim to the contrary.
I'm the guy who won the race (if you believe anonymous posters on LRC). Now you can reply to me directly and ask all those questions about which you are assuming answers.
(1) I ran the shortest possible course available to me within the bounds of legitimacy communicated. That's because I race when I run, so I do whatever I can within the rules to win races. Any of you run XC? You get it.
(2) It was very cool that Bayshore decided to pinch their nose and swallow USATF's money grab to sanction the course this year--anyone have a guess how many other marathons in Michigan are sanctioned? As such, some runners did indeed travel to the race for that purpose, but only a handful. Bayshore is a local/regional event that happens to be a fairly fast course. Personally, I ran the race because we were vacationing with family in the area and love the event.
(3) Prior to this year, the course record was 2:19 or so. To some, that will suggest that there was something anomalous about this instance. That makes sense, as the fact remains that many fast runners have run the course over the years. For my part, I ran 2:20 last year in what amounted to a rough closing 10k, so I felt like I left something out there. I also ran 2:18 pre-super shoes in 2015. This race was actually the first time I have run a marathon in the super shoes, and in lab testing, I've demonstrated as much as a 5-7% efficiency improvement with the shoes. So to say I could run a fair bit faster in almost the same conditions with the addition of those shoes makes sense, and to say based on my current training that I could run 2 minutes faster than my 2015 best for no other reason than that I was wearing the shoes also makes sense.
(4) So the question here seems to be fairly simple: Is it acceptable to honor the results of a race where runners (3 total--2 guys, 1 girl) achieved a qualification in circumstances that may have allowed for running a touch under regulated distance? To be exact, at most .5% reduction (0.15 of 26.2). At that point, the need to call into question the integrity of the event or accomplishment based on that possible margin of error is probably unbalanced. I don't drink caffeine. If I would have had caffeine before and during the race, could that have provided a 0.5% performance benefit? This event gave athletes 4 tables for their bottles--miles 7, 10, 16, and 19 ish. Would bottle drops every 3 miles allow for a possible 0.5% improvement?
I applaud the efforts of Noah and Hannah in their races and qualifications and very much hope they are able to take full advantage of this very cool opportunity. I'm not much sure I care whether they had some slight advantage in doing so by running this race vs. others. They both had to do that solo--not like a CIM or something where you can fall asleep in a pack for 26 miles and wake up with an OTQ. It seems to me the effort here is making much of a thing that matters little. Then again, we are on the World Famous Message Boards, after all, so I suppose that's the point.
Still, it was tons of fun! A trip to Orlando doesn't change that either way for me, but I hope Noah and Hannah seeing this thread feel no less about their incredible accomplishment for the words and sentiments shared here... better still, I suppose I hope they don't see it at all. Either way, they were awesome!
No, I never won. I fell apart in 2019 despite being more than fit enough to get the job done. I digress. I just went back and looked and in 2017, I had 26.17. In 2019, I had 26.15. So, it seems it’s about the same as it’s always been.
FWIW - the 2017 run was a 9-minute PR at the time (2:39 down to 2:30) so that tracks with a short course/course that could be easily cut by running tangents. I will say though - I am the type who would absolutely follow course markings and cones if they were setup.
The 2019 run was garbage (2:27). I was easily in shape to run 6-8 mins quicker. I just mentally fell apart, so that doesn’t prove anything about the course.
I had 26.3 in 2019. However, maybe I’m just an idiot at running tangents.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
Hey Zach, first of all great run last weekend and congrats on the win. Secondly, I was looking at your Strava and saw you got 26.06 for this race last year as well. That - combined with several others indicating GPS measurements < 26.2 for this race over the years - is one of the main reasons I’m inclined to believe this is a GPS issue rather than anything else, as if that’s not the explanation than this course has been short for several years running or the runners have always incorrectly run on the wrong side of the road. This, I’m curious if this has been brought up you before/whether you know if the race directors have ever discussed it.
I'm the guy who won the race. Now you can reply to me directly and ask all those questions about which you are assuming answers.
(1) I ran the shortest possible course available to me within the bounds of legitimacy communicated. That's because I race when I run, so I do whatever I can within the rules to win races. Any of you run XC? You get it.
(2) It was very cool that Bayshore decided to pinch their nose and swallow USATF's money grab to sanction the course this year--anyone have a guess how many other marathons in Michigan are sanctioned? As such, some runners did indeed travel to the race for that purpose, but only a handful. Bayshore is a local/regional event that happens to be a fairly fast course. Personally, I ran the race because we were vacationing with family in the area and love the event.
(3) Prior to this year, the course record was 2:19 or so. To some, that will suggest that there was something anomalous about this instance. That makes sense, as the fact remains that many fast runners have run the course over the years. For my part, I ran 2:20 last year in what amounted to a rough closing 10k, so I felt like I left something out there. I also ran 2:18 pre-super shoes in 2015. This race was actually the first time I have run a marathon in the super shoes, and in lab testing, I've demonstrated as much as a 5-7% efficiency improvement with the shoes. So to say I could run a fair bit faster in almost the same conditions with the addition of those shoes makes sense, and to say based on my current training that I could run 2 minutes faster than my 2015 best for no other reason than that I was wearing the shoes also makes sense.
(4) So the question here seems to be fairly simple: Is it acceptable to honor the results of a race where runners (3 total--2 guys, 1 girl) achieved a qualification in circumstances that may have allowed for running a touch under regulated distance? To be exact, at most .5% reduction (0.15 of 26.2). At that point, the need to call into question the integrity of the event or accomplishment based on that possible margin of error is probably unbalanced. I don't drink caffeine. If I would have had caffeine before and during the race, could that have provided a 0.5% performance benefit? This event gave athletes 4 tables for their bottles--miles 7, 10, 16, and 19 ish. Would bottle drops every 3 miles allow for a possible 0.5% improvement?
I applaud the efforts of Noah and Hannah in their races and qualifications and very much hope they are able to take full advantage of this very cool opportunity. I'm not much sure I care whether they had some slight advantage in doing so by running this race vs. others. They both had to do that solo--not like a CIM or something where you can fall asleep in a pack for 26 miles and wake up with an OTQ. It seems to me the effort here is making much of a thing that matters little. Then again, we are on the World Famous Message Boards, after all, so I suppose that's the point.
Still, it was tons of fun! A trip to Orlando doesn't change that either way for me, but I hope Noah and Hannah seeing this thread feel no less about their incredible accomplishment for the words and sentiments shared here... better still, I suppose I hope they don't see it at all. Either way, they were awesome!
This is all the information anyone needed. It’s measured, certified and sanctioned. Who cares what GPS says. Congrats on the win and good luck at the trials!
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.