Late Austin Course Change

bump

I guess I should add (for those of you who have not been following the Austin course change this year already) that the proposed changes they are talking about are for the NEW slower loop course.

Before anyone else can get to it:

How long is it going to be this year?

Are these new changes after complaints on the initial course change?

If so, I would like to know more since I have considered running this time. Any insider input would be great.

Yep, they changed the course earlier this year from the old, fast, pt-to-pt, downhill PR fest. They've been catching a lot of flack about their new, hilly, slower course so now they're scrambling to make the new, more "scenic" course faster to boot.

I would suggest making the 2007 version a half mile shorter than last year's 25.7 course. This way it would be an even mile shorter than the 26.2 that is run on other courses.

I suppose y'all are just trying to be funny but I feel compelled to respond...

I was there in Austin and ran portions with my wife last year. I don't believe the course was short as most people I talked to had well over 26.218 miles on their Garmins (26.2+ is customary as most people don't follow "SPR" perfectly). The course was fast: fairly flat w/ net downhill, cool, and with a tailwind most of the way. You can argue that it is an *aided* course but it's silly to argue it was short.

pumpkin wrote:

You can argue that it is an *aided* course but it's silly to argue it was short.

Actually you can't argue that with any validity. There is no argument. AUSTIN IN 2006 WAS AN AIDED COURSE. The IAAF does not recognize a time on the course because it IS aided.

You can not use a time run on the Austin Course for the Olympic Games because it IS aided. A world record is not accepted on the course either.

Even assuming the Garmins were 100% accurate you're missing the SCPF additonal distance of 42.195 meters for a total of 26.244 miles.

In any case, Garmins are not recognized as accurate course measurmement devices.

Already asked on a previous thread, but not answered: Where does the assertion that the Austin course was short come from? The course was certified accurate was it not?

Who cares about any of this? Go to the USA Development link on the Houston Marathon website and tell me that isn't the race to go to this winter. Austin MAY be fast but we know for SURE it is not the same rocket-ride course it was before. Houston is all but a sure thing (at least we know what the course is FOR SURE) as far as weather and it's flat as hell. Now, they are going to have rabbits for us and nearly a free ride to get there. Austin can't say any of that. GO TO HOUSTON IF YOU WANT TO RUN FAST THIS WINTER. See you there.

-The Killer

A mistake might have been made in placement of the actual finish or start independent of the measured marks.

The assertion started with wejo questioning the course due to the fast times and number of qualifiers.

However, no one questions Chicago, or London. Use the same argument. How many runners over the last 5 years have run much faster at those courses than others? Quite a few. Berlin, Rotterdam. Sammy Korir runs almost 4 minutes faster at Rotterdam- him and Tergat pr big time in setting the worlds best times- but no one questions those courses.

MarathonMind wrote:

A mistake might have been made in placement of the actual finish or start independent of the measured marks.

Is there any evidence of this? A half mile (as some have suggested) seems pretty far off and given where the start and finish were located I don't see how it would have been possible for there to be that much of a discrepency (both the start and finish were on very short sections of street, so unless they were on the wrong streets altogether). I'm not saying the course wasn't short, but is there any real evidence?

Full disclosure: I ran my slowst marathon ever at Austin last year (my own fault for poor pacing, ran a 20 mile PR), but have a friend who qualified for the trials in the race and hate to see his accomplishments attacked if there is no real evidence. If there is evidence put it out there though.

I was 2 minutes off my pr at Austin- the temp was cold, rain didnt help- and I sure as heck noticed wind in my face far more than at my back. Our running group of 4(all 3:20's) had 1 pr, 2 off more than 2 minutes, and one withing 20 seconds.) There was one in the group with gps-measured 26.240 for what its worth.

26.24 is precisely correct (26.244) with SCPF.

26.2187 is the precise and absolute minimum.

Anoter fast marathon run in Chicago today and none of the Austin qualifiers were able to equal their times run in Austin. Meanwhile the entire Hansons team ran faster than they ran at Boston.

My complaint about Austin has always been about the net elevation loss, not the distance. But the times from the 2006 half-marathon -- which I believe was run on the first and less steeply descending half of the 2006 marathon course -- were apparently even further skewed than the marathon times, raising questions about whether the half-marathon (and the first half of the marathon) might have been short. I never really heard much follow-up discussion about that. In light of other short-course fiascos where the race organizers failed to own up to their errors (the U.S. Ten-Mile Championship sponsored by Papa John's being a fairly recent example), I'm not going to assume that this particular race was accurately measured or verified.

A couple of months ago, the Austin race organizers stated that the 2007 course would be a loop. Are they now responding to customer complaints by setting up another downhill course, or are they just fine-tuning the loop course?

The first half of the 2006 Austin Marathon course was considerably faster than the second. The elevation loss in the first half was larger, and more gradual and consistant. There was not one single noticable uphill in the first half, just a long steady downhill (>200ft elevation loss), whereas the second half had several short steep climbs and decents.