I started my Garmin as I crossed the start line and my chip time was exactly the same as what was on my Garmin. It read 26.56 miles. Another friend's Garmin read 26.61 miles. Since there really aren't THAT many tangents to cut, it would make sense that the course is a bit long ?
Anyone else wear a Garmin or GPS and get a similar reading ?
A garmin, or any other GPS based measuring device, is not 100% accurate. The GPS does not following your each and every movement, and therefore isn't as accurate as the wheel that is used to measure the USATF certified courses.
For more information on the measuring procedure and explanations, visit the usatf site,
Not this again.....
I hope you're not going to record your distance as seen on your Garmin and "upgrade" your pace instead of using the official race time.
It's one of my pet peeves. On some running forums some tools write race reports using their Garmin data which doesn't make any sense for a race. They just want to use the extra distance (it's always longer, right) to make sure their pace appears faster.
It's a race. Use the official race time and pace. Also I wish people could stop being so anal about their Garmin watches. [/end of rant]
How did the race go for you Nikeman ?
mine read 25.86 and i didn't run the tangents that well. must explain the too-good-to-be-true times run by the kenyans, huh?
You raise a good point. Has anyone actually MEASURED Boston!? OFFICIALLY? This is a scandal in the making.
If you want to get some real poor Garmin readings, wear your watch during a trail ultra.
nikeman wrote:
..Since there really aren't THAT many tangents to cut...
There aren't? Haven't run the race, but just watching the race coverage it looked like much of the course was somewhat winding back & forth. It was especially interesting to see how poorly some of the elite athletes/front pack managed the tangents (sometimes completely on the outside (wrong side) of a curving road.
Not to mention, if you're back in the congestion with lots of runners, no way were you running the tangents early in the race.
(Add this to the potential inaccuracies of the Garmin, which others have already mentioned).
Douche handle, douche girlfriend, douche post.
dean moriarty wrote:
You raise a good point. Has anyone actually MEASURED Boston!? OFFICIALLY? This is a scandal in the making.
Dean, the Boston Marathon is over 100+ years old and is one of the most prestigious marathons in the world. It should be grandfathered in at its current 25.86mi distance.
Now someone's making sense
I got 26.36 and you can lose distance after halfway. I know I lost some distance when I went to a water stop on the non-tangent side, etc.
What amazes me, even at the faster paces, how lemming like runners are. They either just follow the person in front of them or just run down the center of the road. I had to tell people to run the feckin tangent a couple of times....
Please post a link to your route on Google Earth.
Boston is probably the hardest course of all to run the tangents. It has so many gradual curves, (especially Comm. Avenue) that you will run close to 26.5 if you aren't careful.
nikeman wrote:
Since there really aren't THAT many tangents to cut, it would make sense that the course is a bit long ?
Anyone else wear a Garmin or GPS and get a similar reading ?
Hi, my name is Geoffrey and I ran the race in Boston too. Since the course was long (thanks for double-checking!), do you think I can take a few second off my race time? 2:02 just sounds better and it's easier to remember.
I am sure this is going to hugely offend you -
When I wear my Garmin in a race, I record the time/distance/pace that my Garmin recorded in my log. My log has a future race predictor, so I feel like accurate data of what I ran (not hostage to race manager measurements or my shitty tangents) is the best data for my training/racing going forward.
I hope I just ruined your day.
tired of coming up with names wrote:
I am sure this is going to hugely offend you -
When I wear my Garmin in a race, I record the time/distance/pace that my Garmin recorded in my log. My log has a future race predictor, so I feel like accurate data of what I ran (not hostage to race manager measurements or my shitty tangents) is the best data for my training/racing going forward.
I hope I just ruined your day.
Those future races will also have tangents and your result will be based not on how far you actually ran, but upon the shorter, certified distance and how long it takes you to cross the finish line.
Your Garmin produced data of coulda/woulda is irrelevant to real-world application of true ability.
I hope I didn't ruin your day.
Sunday 20 wrote:
Those future races will also have tangents and your result will be based not on how far you actually ran, but upon the shorter, certified distance and how long it takes you to cross the finish line.
Your Garmin produced data of coulda/woulda is irrelevant to real-world application of true ability.
I hope I didn't ruin your day.
But if he is pacing his future races off his Garmin in real-time, his strategy makes the most sense.
Also, his training paces would be most accurate based off his Garmin/poor tangent true pace.
For races I stick the actual race distance into the training log. (42195m for marathons). I lost 3 sec/mile, I knew that going in.
I would post a link to my Garmin online, but I guess it didn't fully upload to Garmin Connect.