Hall's 2:08:24 equals Ian Stewart's 45:13 for 10 miles

Living in the Past wrote:

So the course was measured twice, both before and after the event. I haven't seen anything regarding the use of a Jones/Oerth counter. But if the course hadn't been measured that way (but by an odometer, let's say), don't you think word would have gotten around the running community?

The Jones/Oerth counter wasn't even invented until 1990. The course was not measured with a Jones Oerth counter.

Jones had an earlier version of the counter which he first started selling in 1973. Unit sales in the first few years were on the order of 50 to 80 per year making it extremely unlikely that one was used to measure a course across the Atlantic. If one had been used it's just as likely that word about that would have gotten around the running community

-------------------------

Also, do you think Ian Stewart would have had anything to do with a race that was measured by a car?

------------------------------------------

Why would he NOT have anything to do with such a race? He ran races to win, not to get a specific time.

According to the Cabbage Patch website Nerurkar's 46 minutes and 2 seconds is the all-time British record. Why isn't Stewart's time the record?

Roooster wrote:According to the Cabbage Patch website Nerurkar's 46 minutes and 2 seconds is the all-time British record. Why isn't Stewart's time the record?

I assume it was because the race wasn't certified ahead of the event. You can measure after the event is held to confirm its accuracy, but you'll never get certification. Official athletics bodies won't recognize uncertified performances, because that would take away the incentive to get certification.

is it certified now?

who did certifications back then and how were they done

botulism wrote:

who did certifications back then and how were they done

I assume that it was done in Britain similar to the way it was done in the U.S.

The USTFF was the certifying body in the U.S. back then and required three measurements by a Jones Counter (attached to a bicycle). There was no independent verification by the federation. So you could just send in the application for certification without doing the actual measurements.

I don't know the name of the British federation. (It might be the AAA.) Why don't you look it up?

As for whether the same course back then was later certified, that's an interesting question that perhaps someone could answer. Where is Rachael anyway?

the iaaf tables equate my 2 foot wide ass to 4 triple whoppers, what do you think this implies for my 100m scooter dash?

Living in the Past wrote:

I assume that it was done in Britain similar to the way it was done in the U.S.

The USTFF was the certifying body in the U.S. back then and required three measurements by a Jones Counter (attached to a bicycle). There was no independent verification by the federation. So you could just send in the application for certification without doing the actual measurements.

what is your source for this information? how could it have required 3 measurements by a jones counter? if the thing wasnt even being sold until a couple of years earlier and they were only selling handfuls how could they require this? what are the odds they had even had heard of the jones counter

They didn't require three different Jones counters. They required three different measurements with a Jones counter. The counters weren't that hard to come by, as I bought one in 1973.

botulism wrote:

what is your source for this information?[/quote]

Personal experience. I put on a race in 1973, and I got the application papers from the USTFF.

44:46 10 miles = 59:43 half marathon = 2:06:52 marathon

45:13 10 miles = 1:00:20 half marathon = 2:08:12 marathon

45:17 10 miles = 1:00:25 half marathon = 2:08:24 marathon

Based on times alone, the 59:43 half marathon is superior to the 45:13 and 2:08:24 performances, which are basically equal. Based on competition against the best, the 2:08:24 in London is probably more telling as to where Hall really stacks up than his solo 59:43 half was. The half showed he might be able to run with the best in the world today. In the marathon, he did it.

Ian Stewart eventually became even more accomplished relative to his contemporaries, whether running solo efforts or competing in championship 5,000 finals. Maybe Hall can equal or top those accomplishments. He's looking on course so far.

Living in the Past wrote:

Ian Stewart doesn't get the recognition that he deserves. His performance happened 30 years ago, when it was more impressive than a similar performance today.

Ian Stewart doesn't need any help from you in getting recognition.

ok, now living in the past is just getting annoying

historian wrote:

[quote]Living in the Past wrote:

So the course was measured twice, both before and after the event. I haven't seen anything regarding the use of a Jones/Oerth counter. But if the course hadn't been measured that way (but by an odometer, let's say), don't you think word would have gotten around the running community?

The Jones/Oerth counter wasn't even invented until 1990. The course was not measured with a Jones Oerth counter.

Jones had an earlier version of the counter which he first started selling in 1973. Unit sales in the first few years were on the order of 50 to 80 per year making it extremely unlikely that one was used to measure a course across the Atlantic. If one had been used it's just as likely that word about that would have gotten around the running community

-------------------------

Jones counter was invented in 1970, based on work by Ted Corbitt and John Jewell. I personally remember them being using in the early 1980's

Noggin, thanks for your factual contribution regarding the standards for measuring road courses in the UK back in the 1970s. (Unfortunately, some of the other people on this thread contribute only sarcasm and personal attacks.)

In 1961, John Jewell described the "calibrated bicycle method" in his book on the development of course measurement for UK road races. Ted Corbitt introduced Jewell's methods to the U.S. later in the 1960s.

So if this method was widely used in the U.K. at the time of Stewart's performance, it's likely that it was used for the 10-mile course. The course was remeasured after Stewart's performance and was found to be accurate. Given the fact that a world best was at stake, it seems likely that the measuring team used the method widely recognized as being the most reliable. But I'm only speculating.

Perhaps Ian's daughter Rachael, or someone familiar with the actual race, can provide some facts on this question.

There is no possibility that the course was the correct distance, and no it wasnt measured in an acceptable manner before or after the event. The suggestion that it was accurate only comes from those with vested interests - work it out for yourself. It was not accepted by UKA for exactly that reason.

Tiptop 10 wrote:it wasnt measured in an acceptable manner before or after the event.

Ah, now we're dealing in specifics. How was the course measured?

By car and OS map.

UKA looked at it and dismissed it.

The Cabbage Patch 10 course is also an interesting subject and I suspect that the course measurer was Dave Hill who now lives in the USA. Any input he could give would be much appreciated. Question - did Richard N run the course Dave Hill measured ? If not the UK best 10 miles goes down to Gary Staines, until we have good reason to question that performance.

Certainly anything pre Jones counter should be treat with sceptisism.

OK, then. If the measurement was by car, then that means the time has no validity. Thanks for setting the record straight.