I am assuming the course was the same for those years. I remember that prior to the 82 race they did say they added distance to the course but assured everyone that the 81 course was legit.
I am assuming the course was the same for those years. I remember that prior to the 82 race they did say they added distance to the course but assured everyone that the 81 course was legit.
Track Fan wrote:
I am assuming the course was the same for those years. I remember that prior to the 82 race they did say they added distance to the course but assured everyone that the 81 course was legit.
You remember incorrectly. The 1981 course was short.
A bit before my time as a measurer, but I think the rules were changed sometime after '81 but before the '84 Olympics so that the course was measured closer to the curb and/or the Shortest POSSIBLE Route was measured - prior to that the Shortest PROBABLE Course was measured. Under the old rules, the NYCM course was legit, but not under the revised regs.
Personally, I've felt this was kind of like adding games to the regular season in baseball, or moving the fences in a ballpark - would we retroactively throw out home runs that would have been outs in a more spacious park. But hey, I don't make the measurement rules, I just abide by them.
There was a time where the men & women took a different start in NYC Mth. The course the women took was accurate for length I believe.
Unfortunatel this issue was not before my time! And I was in the middle of this.
The "rules" for accuracy where in the process of changing and it is my opinion that the NYCM course fell into a grey area of transistion. The course was accurate for that period of time but not by today's standards.
This topic has been covered extensively in prior threads.
What would that accomplish? It's not like NY was the only marathon course being measured inaccurately by today's standards and it's hardly like Waitz needed the course to be short to set a WR (in multiple attempts she lowered the record by nine minutes).
Should we also remove Joan Benoit's WR from Boston because the course is not valid by today's standards?
So then, was Alberto's debut the year before short as well? Was his 2:09:41 no good?
Just to drive you insane, I've said that many times and get the same response over and over.
To me, Alberto got ripped off, period. Bill Rodgers ran that course, was it short for him? I have the entire race on Beta and the dude ran on the blue line most of the entire race.
After setting a WR, they automatically re-measure and claim it came up short, point to point, which is how it was supposedly measured the first time. How it could suddenly be 184 meters short is beyond me and I don't believe it.
So then, who's right? Many runners on this site flame Alberto for their own personal reasons, but again I think he got ripped off!
I totally agree with this post. Alberto got screwed by the remeasurement. He runs a world record and suddenly it's short. But before then......