3M half marathon suprising results

I guess world records are not legitimate because they are aided by rabbits. I am accepting my PR at Austin because it is exactly what my track races suggest I should run for a half. If you accept all the WRs you must also accept fast courses. The course is fast and so is stanfords track. Does that negate peoples claim to PR on stanfords track. The answer is no. You are the same people that claim stanfords track is 5m short.

Hey I ran my 5k pr of 12:40 on a hilly course at altitude while pushing a baby jogger and that's going on my resume. I'm hoping to get into Mt SAC with that time.

smarter wrote:

I guess world records are not legitimate because they are aided by rabbits. I am accepting my PR at Austin because it is exactly what my track races suggest I should run for a half. If you accept all the WRs you must also accept fast courses. The course is fast and so is stanfords track. Does that negate peoples claim to PR on stanfords track. The answer is no. You are the same people that claim stanfords track is 5m short.

You're comparing apples with oranges. There's a difference between a fast course like Austin and a fast course that is eligible for a WR. Rabbits have nothing to do with the equation. The bottom line is that Austin is not a legitimate course for world records because of its huge elevation drop and point to point aspect. If you accept it as your PR that's fine, but you're just deluding yourself. A track race does not have an elevation drop and runs in all directions of the wind, so its completely legit. Austin is not.

If you ran Austin and had a 40 mph tailwind the entire way, would you still call it your PR?

WR Track times are aided by rabbits.

Do these WR holders accept these performances? Yes

They were aided by an external force-Rabbits 8-10% less energy in wind shadow.

You apparently have not seen the course. It is not some huge downhill. The first 2.3 miles are uphill. I would venture to say that running austin is the same as running a rabbited time. But I have just recently been made aware that the course was .1 miles short. So I will adjust my time accordingly. Even that was a great time for me. Not everyone has the opportunity to run in oslo,stanford and other "unfair" tracks. I

smarter wrote:

But I have just recently been made aware that the course was .1 miles short. So I will adjust my time accordingly.

Why bother? You obviously don't care whether the course is anything close to record quality. Why would you bother to "adjust" your time to account for several hundred feet of horizontal shortfall while you are willing to overlook the far more significant several hundred feet of vertical drop. Besides, how can you "adjust" your time to claim a PR for a distance that you didn't even run?

1. In the end, what someone counts as his PR is up to him.

2. I have no idea why oldguy keeps harping on this subject time after time.

3. But I'm glad he does, as he is absolutely correct.

4. It is bizarre that someone would count a downhill course, but not a short course, as a PR. Again, it's a personal decision, but I just can't figure that one out.

5. IAAF regulations permit records to be set with the aid of rabbits (though there are specific rules governing just how much they can and can't help -- they can't jump in for the second half of the race, for example). The IAAF does NOT permit records to be set on a downhill course, or a short course, or if the tailwind is too strong on the track.

6. I think it's very strange that two of oldguy's supporters are both from DC.

Conn. Ave. Cruiser wrote:

2. I have no idea why oldguy keeps harping on this subject time after time.

The fans have come to expect it. :)

I have no idea why I have two "supporters" from DC. Maybe there's still some good sense left in that city.

smarter wrote:

WR Track times are aided by rabbits.

Do these WR holders accept these performances? Yes

They were aided by an external force-Rabbits 8-10% less energy in wind shadow.

You apparently have not seen the course. It is not some huge downhill. The first 2.3 miles are uphill. I would venture to say that running austin is the same as running a rabbited time. But I have just recently been made aware that the course was .1 miles short. So I will adjust my time accordingly. Even that was a great time for me. Not everyone has the opportunity to run in oslo,stanford and other "unfair" tracks. I

This rabbit argument is ridiculous.

(1) I don't know where you got this 8-10% value. Even if it is from a reputable study, I would guess that much of the benefit is mental. Rabbits certainly don't constitute an "external force" (although gravity does).

(2) Even if this 8-10% was true, you were running with other people in the race, right? So you had mythical "rabbit external force" AND a downhill.

You can keep calling it your PB if you like -- nobody cares. However, I think traditionalists like oldguy and I miss the days when most races started and finished in the same place (Boston is an obvious exception). There seem to be more and more races like this Austin half, which are set up and marketed as pb courses.

Incidentally, I've never run Boston, but if I ran a fast time there I wouldn't count it as a PB.

LOL what's all this talk about a tailwind? There was MAYBE a 5mph wind on the race day, if there was ANY wind at all I didn't notice it.

OMGz I got wind aided by a 5mph tailwind, my PR obviously doesn't count for teh all tyme rekordZ!

... Gimme a break guys.

oldguy wrote:

smarter wrote:

But I have just recently been made aware that the course was .1 miles short. So I will adjust my time accordingly.

Why bother? You obviously don't care whether the course is anything close to record quality. Why would you bother to "adjust" your time to account for several hundred feet of horizontal shortfall while you are willing to overlook the far more significant several hundred feet of vertical drop. Besides, how can you "adjust" your time to claim a PR for a distance that you didn't even run?

Dude you obviously have some sand in your vagina if you've been going on and on about this for now 6 pages of this thread!

If someone wants to count 3M as their PR GET OVER IT! LOL this is completely crazy this thread has gone on for as long as it has with the same agruments over and over again. If I create another username and post "I'm going to count 3M as my PR" you'd probably agrue with my fake username for another 3 pages.

The point is that you shouldn't pick races where this is an issue. If you stick to certified loop courses, you won't have jerks like me questioning your prs.

clearly wrote:

The point is that you shouldn't pick races where this is an issue. If you stick to certified loop courses, you won't have jerks like me questioning your prs.

Are you saying that certified loop courses can not be inaccurate? I can think of atleast two "certified" races that I've ran that have come up to be longer and shorter than 5K. It happens, if you don't like it don't run that course again, simple...

Austin runners should feel lucky. My last "certified" loop course half marathon was .4 miles short.

You can't certify volunteers to always give runners the correct directions.

I think it is hilarious with all the technology that so many races end up being the wrong distance.

Adam Locked wrote:

If I create another username and post "I'm going to count 3M as my PR" you'd probably agrue with my fake username for another 3 pages.

Why do you keep showing up on this thread? I promise that the fraud police aren't going to prosecute you for logging your 80-minute run as a PR.

oldguy wrote:

[quote]Why do you keep showing up on this thread? I promise that the fraud police aren't going to prosecute you for logging your 80-minute run as a PR.

Bullshit, you've crowned yourself at the "fraud police".

mr cripple wrote:

I think it is hilarious with all the technology that so many races end up being the wrong distance.

Agreed! Google Earth? I ran a local 5K (that was looped mind you) that was 3.4 miles, wtf how did they mess that up?

Yeah, the 3M race simply seemed as a result as someone giving wrong directions during the race, the actual designed course was not messed up. Still, though I agree with all these GPS and Google Earth stuff I wonder how they mess up distances so bad sometimes as well lol.

Whoever started this thread, Mr. "Wonder-why-the-times-were-so-good?", deserved to be mocked for being an idiot (unless he didn't know the course configuration) and his supporters do as well. You've checked your intellected at the door on this one.

No one cares whether you "count" your "official" PR on a course like 3M or Steamtown or Tucson (I wouldn't), as there's no government-overseen registry for such things.

But to listen to some of you try to explain away the times on the basis of great weather, or a nice tight pack, or crowd support, or just the right amount of pussy in the three days beforehand reminds me of the time I saw this genuine Flat Earther interviewed on TV. He had all the answers for everything that could nt possibly be explained by anything other than a spherical (almost) Earth. A more terrestrial example would be a two-pack-a-day smoker with chronic bronchitis blaming pollen, the local nuke plant, or standing out in the cold rain too often for his woes.

Dammit, where was I?

Oh. Yeah, you just keep right pummeling the messenger (oldguy) though. He'd catch heat from the deluded mob even if he seemed nonchalant about his observations, but the fact that you think he enjoys it just runs a nice new cheese grater right across the bottom of all o' yer nuts, doesn't it?

oldguy wrote:

To proclaim a "PR" on a course like 3M is, to my eyes, very similar to proclaiming a "PR" on a course that is known to be short.

I think that the organizers of these fake-PR races deserve some criticism. They pander to their customers' desire to feel better about themselves and their running accomplishments by setting these events up and promoting the courses as "PR-friendly." I think that the organizers of these events degrade the sport.

I realize that my views on this topic aren't real popular, but I can live with that. It's not as though I spend my days and nights fretting about downhill courses. I certainly don't spend as much time fretting about them as others spend seeking them out.

oldguy, I'd noticed others were beating on you for some stance you'd taken so I looked around for the source of their unhappiness. This must be it.

Do you have evidence of Austin's 'pandering' to potential race entrants? Just curious.

Al Timmeter wrote:

Yeah, you just keep right pummeling the messenger (oldguy) though. He'd catch heat from the deluded mob even if he seemed nonchalant about his observations, but the fact that you think he enjoys it just runs a nice new cheese grater right across the bottom of all o' yer nuts, doesn't it?

Actually I just like the back and forth banter. This is the best kind of debate, no real shitty name calling, just a bunch of idiots (myself included) trying to get the last word in.

I have no real issue with oldguy hammering on folks for counting downhill course as PRs. I too think it's wrong (for the record, I believe track PRs are the only true ones) I just like giving him shit.