All the Garmins were getting different readings, so likely none of them were accurate. I don't know if the course was short or not, but I wont base my decision on a Garmin.
All the Garmins were getting different readings, so likely none of them were accurate. I don't know if the course was short or not, but I wont base my decision on a Garmin.
Garmin? wrote:
All the Garmins were getting different readings, so likely none of them were accurate. I don't know if the course was short or not, but I wont base my decision on a Garmin.
As you see, there is other evidence to suggest a short course other than a garmin or two.
Last year, 100th place was 1:15:49, this year it was it was 1:12:08. How many half marathons in the world put 100 people at or under 1:12?
more data:
2010 results showed 500th place at 1:30.00.
2011 results showed 500th place at 1:27.58.
Both races had roughly the same amount of finishers..
How did the weather compare?
It is one thing to measure a course, and another to set it up exactly as defined on race day.
When comparing year to year, remember that 2010 was warm. 2011 perfect conditions
isn't it the same course they've used for years. It was just a really nice day, good racing weather.
Is this thread for serious? Is it an import from runnersworld? A couple of things:
-This is a major race with a lot of history. The course is (obviously) USATF certified. Anyone that thinks it is short is a complete ninny.
-You wore your garmin? To a race? Really? Gee, it was off giving readings in the city. How unexpected.
-The weather was perfect. Of course times are going to be faster than usual. Weather plays a huge role in long races. Notice the opposite effect when its 80+ degrees for the Chicago marathon.
bunch of clowns in this thread wrote:
Is this thread for serious? Is it an import from runnersworld? A couple of things:
-This is a major race with a lot of history. The course is (obviously) USATF certified. Anyone that thinks it is short is a complete ninny.
-You wore your garmin? To a race? Really? Gee, it was off giving readings in the city. How unexpected.
-The weather was perfect. Of course times are going to be faster than usual. Weather plays a huge role in long races. Notice the opposite effect when its 80+ degrees for the Chicago marathon.
Because 'major races' never make mistakes? I've got a bridge to sell you...
It's easy to run a 2-3 minute PR when your current PR is 1:45. Today was perfect conditions out, of course you're going to get lots of people PRing and records. Rarely is the weather that good.
Shananagins wrote:
It's easy to run a 2-3 minute PR when your current PR is 1:45. Today was perfect conditions out, of course you're going to get lots of people PRing and records. Rarely is the weather that good.
Where in this thread did someone say they went from 1:45 to 1:42? I'm talking 1:18 to 1:14 and two 1:09's to 1:06's
/thread
COURSE SHORT
Are you guys serious?
First of all what caliber runners are you talking about? If your buddy went from 1:40 to 1:35 I can definitely see that happening. If your friend went from 1:06 to 1:03, well then maybe the course was short (or at least that gives you more reason to question it).
I had a few friends run. 1 runner was 1:30 SLOWER than his PR, another was 2 minutes slower, and another was 60 seconds faster.
Kim smith had run 1:07:36 in New Orleans just 7 months ago.
Peter kamais ran 59:53 in NYC half in 2010 only ran 61:06 in philly.
Kisoro is a 12:57/27:15/60:10 guy.
Kitwara has run 58:58.
Goumri is a 2:05:30 marathoner and 12:50/27:02.
If you start going down the results and start randomly picking people it still seems to make sense look at the following:
paul hefferon - PR was 64:55 (run in FL) and he ran 64:53
Tyler McCandless - PR was 65:02 ran 64:59
David Berdan - PR was 66:16 (March 2010) ran 65:53
I don't see how any of these are unreasonable.
I can see how some people that ran 1:15 or 1:10 last year and ran 1:08-1:12 this year are surprised, but the weather was absolutely perfect and the race was ridiculously competitive.
Oh and don't trust a garmin, give me a break.
This is meaningful. People who run 1:18's, 1:14's, 1:09's and 1:06's sure have a sense of the shape they are in. I don't see too many 1:06 guys or 1:14 guys underestimating their fitness by 3-4 minutes.
I know nothing more than what has been reported here. My calculation would put the winners time to more like...60:40. I come to this from looking at Garmin readings from many certified courses over the past two years.
I can continue to add to the list if you still doubt it:
Kenneth Foster: PR 65:32 ran 66:09
Gian Paul Caccia: PR 64:46 ran 66:03
Abebe Yimer ran 1:17:43 for a 25K race in 2010 (US champs) that converts to going through the half marathon right around 1:05:30 and he ran 66:37.
Sage Canaday ran 65:51 at disney half ran 66:42 here.
Some people PR'ed, sure. But like I said temps were great and competition was great. Look at the PR's of the top 50 or so, pretty legit.
cgrunner2007 wrote:
Most the time Garmins read a little longer too since it is very hard to run the exact route point to point.
Actually, Garmins usually read short.
It takes a bunch of points and connects them. Sometimes it will disconnect for a bit and will go a while without taking a point. If you take a turn within this gap, the Garmin will draw a straight line from point to point. We all learned in elementary school that the shortest distance is a straight line, thus the Garmin is cutting off distance.
The summarize...Don't wear a Garmin in a race!
Someone upload the map from their garmin. Then trace it using something like google earth. Pretty simple.
this is ridiculous wrote:
I can continue to add to the list if you still doubt it:
Kenneth Foster: PR 65:32 ran 66:09
Gian Paul Caccia: PR 64:46 ran 66:03
Abebe Yimer ran 1:17:43 for a 25K race in 2010 (US champs) that converts to going through the half marathon right around 1:05:30 and he ran 66:37.
Sage Canaday ran 65:51 at disney half ran 66:42 here.
Some people PR'ed, sure. But like I said temps were great and competition was great. Look at the PR's of the top 50 or so, pretty legit.
without knowing much about this thread or course, I can 100% tell you that the above poster is 100% trying to defend their "big pr" by only picking a small set of data. Try being objective jerk.
bunch of clowns in this thread wrote:
Is this thread for serious? Is it an import from runnersworld? A couple of things:
-This is a major race with a lot of history. The course is (obviously) USATF certified. Anyone that thinks it is short is a complete ninny.
-You wore your garmin? To a race? Really? Gee, it was off giving readings in the city. How unexpected.
-The weather was perfect. Of course times are going to be faster than usual. Weather plays a huge role in long races. Notice the opposite effect when its 80+ degrees for the Chicago marathon.
Why didn't this end the thread? "USATF certified"