Throw Ritz fans in there too.
Throw Ritz fans in there too.
So you are admitting that it is important for you that others "accept" the times. Well in that case you should not object to a measurement to put the isue to rest. Just looking at the number of PRs, sub-15 on the boys side and sub-17 on the girls side, the SRs of the top times, and sorry but it raises some bona fide questions that cannot be glibly answered by people affiliated with the course. No harm in independently having it measured.
hunt the big game wrote:
We just keep circling. This is silly. It only has to be around 5k which is why a steel tape is not required.
Yes, but it would be nice to know what the distance of a course actually is, and by all indications everyone wants us to believe the Alabama course is 5000m. Is 4500 or 4800 or 4980 all "around 5k" and acceptable measurements for a stated 5000m course?
And the rules don't specify how to measure a course which is why this is the unofficial record.
Correct, and in the past courses were to be measured in the middle, which should technically make all courses since the rule changed to SPR, consistently shorter courses in design than we currently are seeing. But how many course have been changed based on the new language?
But if we get into using steel tape and have a specified distance from the borders, then anything less than 5k will be viewed as short and be invalid.
No, they will be just viewed as what they are...whatever that distance is. A super hilly course could be 4800 and no one would care because times would not be fast on such a course. Just because better language and processes are shared on how to measure a course doesn't mean all course would need to be exactly 5000...course length language can stay the same.
Anybody claiming that this course is not around 5k after reading that an independent expert measured it and the race officials measured it and GPS verified it, are jut being difficult.
"Around 5k" is great for a Course Record. "Around 5k" is not acceptable for a National Record claim, and I'm not sure why this is so difficult to grasp?
Replies above in bold
No. Just the opposite. I don't care if not one person who ran in the meet accepts the record. I don't care if I am the only one that considers it a record. But a handful of posters care enough to want to validate the record. If that is what you want, just accept it and move on. It is much easier to do do nothing and just enjoy the declared record. Many posters don't accept world records because they accuse the runners of doping. None of it really matters.
Is it true that it used to specify down the middle? I assumed that it was merely silent until specifying SPR. And most of our courses have one line which hugs the corners so the language doesn't really change the measurement.
hunt the big game wrote:
I agree. The huge Tuohy fans will not accept it as a record if it is short. Heck, they won't accept it if accurate because courses are all different so why again do some people want it certified? It is only for the chance that it is short, not to prove that it is accurate.
I think everyone would love to see that course check out at 5000m but if it ends up as 4981, or 4925, or 4800 it will not change the course records that were set on that course.
blue man wrote:
Is it true that it used to specify down the middle?
Correct, and that left a lot of wiggle room and made true course verification next to impossible based on finding the true center of course with many course not having set boundaries.
I assumed that it was merely silent until specifying SPR. And most of our courses have one line which hugs the corners so the language doesn't really change the measurement.
Sure it would...measuring the center of a course will always be longer than running tight tangents, but how many kids run tight tangents even when leading?
Replies in bold
Yeah. What exactly is the harm? What is amusing is that the same people on here that demand that we just accept the times and accuse others of attaching undue importance to it sure seem to care about the times themselves. The number of PRs on this course are eye-opening. For example, we had a runner who never had a higher SR than 160 all year and who could not get close to 17 at Balboa run 16:03. Sorry but that and a host of other times raises fair questions when they are set on a new course.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
hunt the big game wrote:
I agree. The huge Tuohy fans will not accept it as a record if it is short. Heck, they won't accept it if accurate because courses are all different so why again do some people want it certified? It is only for the chance that it is short, not to prove that it is accurate.
I think everyone would love to see that course check out at 5000m but if it ends up as 4981, or 4925, or 4800 it will not change the course records that were set on that course.
But what if it's 4985? Or 4997.5? If you change the method of measurement then the distance is going to change.
blue man wrote:
No. Just the opposite. I don't care if not one person who ran in the meet accepts the record. I don't care if I am the only one that considers it a record. But a handful of posters care enough to want to validate the record. If that is what you want, just accept it and move on. It is much easier to do do nothing and just enjoy the declared record. Many posters don't accept world records because they accuse the runners of doping. None of it really matters.
How about we just validate it and then move and you can move on now ? Not sure why someone who says they don't care takes the time to post that?
No. The course is just one line which is the SPR.
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
I think everyone would love to see that course check out at 5000m but if it ends up as 4981, or 4925, or 4800 it will not change the course records that were set on that course.
But what if it's 4985? Or 4997.5? If you change the method of measurement then the distance is going to change.
That's why we ALL at least need to understand how a CC Course should be measured. Until that is established we have NOTHING.
Newkirk wrote:
No. The course is just one line which is the SPR.
How close to the inside boundaries is your line?
Newkirk wrote:
No. The course is just one line which is the SPR.
Not sure what course you are talking about? Or, what you were replying to?
Most of them are about 18". It is common in my area. The corners are staked and have rope so fast runners really can't get closer than the line due to leaning. If walking, you could get a bit closer.
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
coachy wrote:
But what if it's 4985? Or 4997.5? If you change the method of measurement then the distance is going to change.
That's why we ALL at least need to understand how a CC Course should be measured. Until that is established we have NOTHING.
and after inventing new measuring rules you would like to retroactively punish courses such as RunningLane's and take away their results if they are short although they followed whatever guidelines were out there.
Newkirk wrote:
Most of them are about 18".
Why are some not at about 18"
It is common in my area. The corners are staked and have rope so fast runners really can't get closer than the line due to leaning. If walking, you could get a bit closer.
Are all the corners staked and roped off? So the slower kids could run a shorter course?
replies in bold
coachy wrote:
Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:
That's why we ALL at least need to understand how a CC Course should be measured. Until that is established we have NOTHING.
and after inventing new measuring rules you would like to retroactively punish courses such as RunningLane's and take away their results if they are short although they followed whatever guidelines were out there.
No punishing of anyone...whatever the distance they will still have their course records.
How do we know that Running Lane "followed whatever guidelines were out there"?
Yes every corner is either staked or has a natural boundary. The slower runners will always be able to run the SPR while the fastest runners would have to run a bit further. That is the case regardless of how a course is measured.
Newkirk wrote:
Yes every corner is either staked or has a natural boundary. The slower runners will always be able to run the SPR while the fastest runners would have to run a bit further. That is the case regardless of how a course is measured.
Is that the case on a track?