You second point is good and well taken but your first point is way off. I like Jim as I’ve said so many times now. You seem to be ignoring that Jim was a so called “pure” runner. He ran 13:50 5K in college and a 8:4X steeple chase, so of course he can train to run a fast half or full. I simply dislike his fans that don’t understand running.
I’ll try to learn from you as well, but on page 18 it says they measure the shortest possible path for certified courses and runners can’t possibly take the shortest possible path so they will all inevitably run longer, that is why I was saying you can’t simply add the time it would take Jim to get to 13.109 and say he’d run that at Houston. I’m curious where what you mentioned about adding 20 yards or something comes into play? Didn’t see it anywhere.
https://cdn.flipsnack.com/widget/v2/flipsnackwidget.html?hash=fc3l78mug&t=&fullscreen=1
Shunpo wrote:
My intent is to see Jim perform well at the trials but not as well as his uneducated followers think he is going to which is exactly what will happen. My point was correct about certified courses (I just had the info wrong, they measure shortest possible route they dont purposely make the course long), As I said several times, I like Jim, I just know what is going to happen at the trials and I’m glad it’ll silence some time ignorant people.
Your intent is to be an a**hole, and you're succeeding. Congratulations.
Shunpo wrote:
I’ll try to learn from you as well, but on page 18 it says they measure the shortest possible path for certified courses and runners can’t possibly take the shortest possible path so they will all inevitably run longer, that is why I was saying you can’t simply add the time it would take Jim to get to 13.109 and say he’d run that at Houston. I’m curious where what you mentioned about adding 20 yards or something comes into play? Didn’t see it anywhere.
https://cdn.flipsnack.com/widget/v2/flipsnackwidget.html?hash=fc3l78mug&t=&fullscreen=1
All courses have 1% added for error
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
All courses have 1% added for error
0.1%
The correct interpretation is that the course is measured following the shortest possible route (SPR) within 30 cm of cones, curbs, barricades etc. It almost matches the way tracks are measured except the exact measured line on a track is 30 cm from the curb (if the track is made to have one). Theoretically a runner could run within that 30 cm on a course and thereby shaving a little off the measured distance just like a 200 m runner could do by running next to the lane line (fyi- the measured line on a track constructed not to have a curb or those in lanes 2+ is 20 cm from the outer lane line of the lane to the left). For a road event, this is often impractical considering that the edges of the road near curbs are often not in the best condition. But a better example might be race walkers who hug the turns. In that case just like a road running event, the course is measured 30cm from the cones. Some measurers would measure turns virtually rubbing against the turns making it almost impossible to run less then the distance. BUT, there are measurers out there that may not always measured the absolute tangent. This is the critical aspect of course measuring - measuring the SPR.
In regards to the 20 meters - That's the short course prevention factor that is added to the half marathon distance (should be 21 m). All courses have a Short Course Prevention Factor (SCPF) of 0.1% added to ensure that if a record is set, the course is found to be at least the distance upon a verification re-measurement. As previously noted, 5 m in a 5k, 10 m in 10k and for the half marathon (21097.5 m) it comes out to 21 m.- I was rounding.
Shunpo wrote:
I’ll try to learn from you as well, but on page 18 it says they measure the shortest possible path for certified courses and runners can’t possibly take the shortest possible path so they will all inevitably run longer, that is why I was saying you can’t simply add the time it would take Jim to get to 13.109 and say he’d run that at Houston. I’m curious where what you mentioned about adding 20 yards or something comes into play? Didn’t see it anywhere.
https://cdn.flipsnack.com/widget/v2/flipsnackwidget.html?hash=fc3l78mug&t=&fullscreen=1
None of what you just wrote supports your statement that [Katz] "was wrong according to USATF".
RnR events should be fined for that crap. Just a garbage operation when they can't get the MOST IMPORTANT DETAIL right.
GPS is irrelevant in this case. The organizers have said the course is 285.6 meters short...period...from there it is simple math. It DOES NOT matter what GPS devices say. They know for certainty where the error is AND they know exactly how big the error is!! So 285.6/1609.344 (approximate meters in a mile) = .1775 miles. From there multiply the pace Walmsley was carrying at the end of the race (you could use his average pace...which it appears many did...but his last mile pace is probably better estimate of what he would do if he had to run that .1775 miles) would yield 53 seconds. Add that to his 1:02:15 and you get 1:03:08. All this talk of GPS and course measuring is rendered irrelevant by the fact that they know where the error was and how big it is...no guessing required. BUT...yes courses are measured by the shortest possible course...yes there is a small amount added in to ensure the course will be legal. In a half with few turns elite runners would/could run pretty close to the shortest routes. Those of us in hobby jogger territory will probably not run the shortest route.
YMMV wrote:
RnR events should be fined for that crap. Just a garbage operation when they can't get the MOST IMPORTANT DETAIL right.
I think everybody got his t-shirt, medal and a awesome result. That's all what matters.
Simple Math wrote:
GPS is irrelevant in this case. The organizers have said the course is 285.6 meters short...period...from there it is simple math. It DOES NOT matter what GPS devices say. They know for certainty where the error is AND they know exactly how big the error is!! So 285.6/1609.344 (approximate meters in a mile) = .1775 miles. From there multiply the pace Walmsley was carrying at the end of the race (you could use his average pace...which it appears many did...but his last mile pace is probably better estimate of what he would do if he had to run that .1775 miles) would yield 53 seconds. Add that to his 1:02:15 and you get 1:03:08. All this talk of GPS and course measuring is rendered irrelevant by the fact that they know where the error was and how big it is...no guessing required. BUT...yes courses are measured by the shortest possible course...yes there is a small amount added in to ensure the course will be legal. In a half with few turns elite runners would/could run pretty close to the shortest routes. Those of us in hobby jogger territory will probably not run the shortest route.
Walmsley's Strava post showed 12.92 or .18 miles short. Almost exactly what you state above: .1775 short.
Why do seemingly educated people mistake loose for lose?
Well said
Thanks for explaining that in a professional friendly manner, all makes sense to me! The track part helps because I knew and understood that better. Is it fair to say it still varies for different runners though? Someone like say Luke Peskedra isn’t going to be able to run the tangents as well as someone like Meb?
azrunner2 wrote:
]115 mile weeks is no where near the 150 mile week and several 170+ mile weeks the few before that. Jim will be a factor at the trials even if it’s just to destroy people on the hills for the first couple laps. I doubt he’s not too 10. I’d say decent chance for top 5.
So on a single day where 20 Americans ran faster in Hosuston, while doing high mileage and not tapering, he will still be top 5? Pipe dream. He's just not that fast.
leave the GPS at home. Unless you ran with a measuring wheel, you have no idea.
I think height has a lot more to do with being able to run the tangents than ability level, you also have to consider pack size, the pack was much bigger at Houston making it even harder to run perfect tangents, although the pack would probably help him more than hinder.
Shunpo wrote:
I think height has a lot more to do with being able to run the tangents than ability level...
WTF?
I think height it pretty irrelevant as well when it comes to running tangents. That largely comes down to 2 main factors: 1) How well you know/studied the course AND 2) How far you are pushed off the optimal line by other runners
Have you seen Luke Peskedra take a hard turn vs Meb? Lol Height definitely plays a role. Tall guys and gals have to go wider to not lose speed.