They measured it in faws (or falls) and got the conversion to metric wrong.
They measured it in faws (or falls) and got the conversion to metric wrong.
Some of the corners in your mapping out of the course have been cut short. For instance the corner onto and off of harvie st where cut and the corner that takes you off of paisley road west is also cut short when zoomed in.
No they are not.
Switch to satellite map and you will see the line traced stays more than 1 metre from the edge of the road (pavement kerb) In reality runners run way inside of this, and in many cases onto the pavement itself.
You're suggestion that my mapped route "cuts corners" is completely false, and as I explained above my mapped corners are likely long, or at least what an official course measurer would use.
Do you work for Great Run by any chance?
A few people have done similar analysis here
http://www.fetcheveryone.com/forum__58523__43__scottish_runners_2016
Yeah but that idiot just mapped it out following the middle of the streets, ignoring the fact that runners AND official course measurers take the shortest possible line. My understanding is that course measurers leave a minimum distance of 1m from the inside of the corner, whilst obviously runners cut even tighter.
On the plus side they did manage to notice the 200m of difference between the two routes. His method of measuring the distances though is farcical, which is why he thinks the 2015 route was Long and 2016 the right distance. The much more obvious conclusion is that the 2015 route was the correct distance and the 2016 route was short. If you look at my mapping hopefully I can prove that to you.
Other than the fast runners at the front, most runners GPS recordings would be long due to weaving and not taking the quickest lines round corners. The fact that the fastest runners were recording a 200m short course, is not hard evidence in itself, however it is strongly suggestive of a short course. Hopefully my satellite mapping of the route can prove to anyone that this is the case.
This shouldn't be that hard people. If it was short, you'd think your mile split for that mile would be way off.
What were your mile splits. There is no way they intentional made each mile a tiny bit short so no one would notice. It would be on the mile where the course was altered.
When I was racing, if my mile were 5:00. 5:02, 4:57, 4:35, 5:02, I knew the 4th mile was short.
Now one time I was racing and my splits were like 5:00, 5;02, 4:57, 4:35, 5:27. So the course wasn't short - the mile markers were just in the wrong spot.
To be honest i think we have to accept the fact that Great Run have obviously provided the relevant IAAF Course measurement certificate as the results have been accepted and posted by the relevant Governing bodies.
If you take Callum out of the equation and Kipsiro and Thommo had still posted the times they did, would we be speculating the course was short? Probably not.
Time to give this up I think.
Irrelevant wrote:
To be honest i think we have to accept the fact that Great Run have obviously provided the relevant IAAF Course measurement certificate as the results have been accepted and posted by the relevant Governing bodies.
If you take Callum out of the equation and Kipsiro and Thommo had still posted the times they did, would we be speculating the course was short? Probably not.
Time to give this up I think.
I would not be at all surprised if someone official notices the number of PBs here and digs a bit deeper
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=153723You're probably right.
Unfortunately this has detracted from some great racing at the front end irrespective of the race distance.
Looking at the results only 11 people in the top 200 failed to set a seasons best. Not all of these runners had ran half marathons this year, but a 94.5% success rate is outrageous!
DMulvee wrote:
Looking at the results only 11 people in the top 200 failed to set a seasons best. Not all of these runners had ran half marathons this year, but a 94.5% success rate is outrageous!
The season's best numbers are pretty damning on their own but the PBs seal it that at the very least a course remeasurement on the actual course ran is essential. I have seen it that the measured course has been spot on but the course laid out on the day has been different.
Compare and contrast the results for PB and SB from the Cardiff Half on the same day, this course was almost identical to the IAAF course in March other than a railway bridge now back in action.
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=182780
It is flat and fast.
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Irrelevant wrote:To be honest i think we have to accept the fact that Great Run have obviously provided the relevant IAAF Course measurement certificate as the results have been accepted and posted by the relevant Governing bodies.
If you take Callum out of the equation and Kipsiro and Thommo had still posted the times they did, would we be speculating the course was short? Probably not.
Time to give this up I think.
I would not be at all surprised if someone official notices the number of PBs here and digs a bit deeper
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=153723
doubt if much will be done. Although this well short June 5 mile race is listed as such, the race is still counting on each runners Runbritain record some 4 months later.
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=164468I missed this race wrote:
doubt if much will be done. Although this well short June 5 mile race is listed as such, the race is still counting on each runners Runbritain record some 4 months later.
http://www.runbritainrankings.com/results/results.aspx?meetingid=164468
Realistically apart from the people who took part in that, is it on anyone else's radar?
rojo wrote:
There is no way they intentional made each mile a tiny bit short so no one would notice. It would be on the mile where the course was altered. When I was racing, if my miles were 5:00. 5:02, 4:57, 4:35, 5:02, I knew the 4th mile was short.
Based on race reports, the mile splits were consistent, Hawkins' competitors and for Betsy Saina were consistent with past results.
So many people keep rambling about gps data, which means absolutely nothing! Besides not being accurate, gps readings are not consistent. You can not use them to accurate measure a course distance.
The only way is with the calibrated bicycle method with Jones Counter. As the miles were consistent, apparently the only way the course could be off is if the bicycles were not calibrated property, or if the riders were inexperienced and failed to take the shortest route. The only way to verify the course distance is for someone experienced with the calibrated bicycle method to remeasure the course.
Exactly ` wrote:
So many people keep rambling about gps data, which means absolutely nothing! Besides not being accurate, gps readings are not consistent. You can not use them to accurate measure a course distance.
If the issue was just GPS then I agree there would be no issue, the snag being that GPS forms very little of the argument.
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
If the issue was just GPS then I agree there would be no issue, the snag being that GPS forms very little of the argument.
Your argument that a few people got PB's is likewise meaningless.
Exactly ` wrote:
rojo wrote:There is no way they intentional made each mile a tiny bit short so no one would notice. It would be on the mile where the course was altered. When I was racing, if my miles were 5:00. 5:02, 4:57, 4:35, 5:02, I knew the 4th mile was short.
Based on race reports, the mile splits were consistent, Hawkins' competitors and for Betsy Saina were consistent with past results.
So many people keep rambling about gps data, which means absolutely nothing! Besides not being accurate, gps readings are not consistent. You can not use them to accurate measure a course distance.
The only way is with the calibrated bicycle method with Jones Counter. As the miles were consistent, apparently the only way the course could be off is if the bicycles were not calibrated property, or if the riders were inexperienced and failed to take the shortest route. The only way to verify the course distance is for someone experienced with the calibrated bicycle method to remeasure the course.
You are so wrong! The only way to verify the course distance is to have a bunch of Letsrun know-it-alls tell you what the distance is!
Someone here has apparently got it down to be 340m short of a half marathon, an astounding level of accuracy. They really should share their metrology skills with us all!
Actually it does wrote:
Your argument that a few people got PB's is likewise meaningless.
Now you are trolling or haven't looked, of the first 200 finishers 98 got PBs
How old are you to use such a juvenile term as stud.
The term hardly fits a skinny runner anyway.