HRE wrote:
There were some inaccurate courses in the 70s and 80s and there were some accuarte ones. If you ran in a race that was put on by a local Road Runner's Club chapter the course was accurate.
Marathons were accurate unless someone screwed up. I remember Runner's World once took a survey of what marathoners wanted most in a race and the hands down winner was an "accurate course." No one wanted to bust their hump in training for half a year to find that their 2:39 was a 25 and a half mile time. Runner's World would publish lists of certified marathon courses and of those known to be short. Once in a while something would get fouled up, New York was the classic example when Salazar ran his 2:08, but we were pretty insistent about accurate marathon courses.
If you're talking about other distances though, there was not as much attention paid. Like malmo, I can't recall any road 5 km's in those days. Even the road 10k's weren't taken all that seriously for a while. Most of us in the 70's thought the 10k was a track distance and if you wanted an accurate time the place to run one was on the track. A road 10k was sort of a lark at first and I'm sure a lot of them weren't accurate and I don't think a lot of us really cared, but as the distance was taken more seriously that would change.
Agree. I believe that, if anything, even though are measurement tools are a lot better today, the courses back then were likely MORE accurate because that is what people cared about. Whereas that is definitely not the case today.
You can certify a course today, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is accurate (just more likely - and I am not against certification by any stretch). But people believe this to be the case.
Lastly, the track times / depth of 70s & 80s support the road racing times.