Emma Bates 52:17

American Record in Men's race, 45:58 or so...

cherry blossom wrote:

American Record in Men's race, 45:58 or so...

Just saw that, very cool!

1:08-mid half marathon pace. Are records coming from distance specific races? I would assume Huddle/Sisson both came through 10 miles faster in their 1:07s the last two years at Houston. Same on the men's side -- Hall must have been faster through 10 in 2007.

Really great result though. There aren't a ton of women who was run that fast. Bates has put herself in that Trials top group. This run would give her 1:09/2:25-26.

cherry blossom wrote:

Narrowly misses American Record with 52:17 at Cherry Blossom this morning..

I started this thread and it disappeared...but one of my responses is here. Strange.

cherry blossom wrote:

Narrowly misses American Record with 52:17 at Cherry Blossom this morning..

I saw- did you watch the coverage? I was a little annoyed:

Overall I thought the coverage was well done- split screen, decent commentary, they seemed knowledgeable BUT:

They showed the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th women cross the line. Did NOT show Emma Bates!

What the ... The crew was from Saratoga, NY. someone made the decision to NOT show the top American woman, mixing it up with the top Kenyans, narrowly missing the American Record, as she crossed the line.

Great job Emma!!!

NERunner053 wrote:

1:08-mid half marathon pace. Are records coming from distance specific races? I would assume Huddle/Sisson both came through 10 miles faster in their 1:07s the last two years at Houston. Same on the men's side -- Hall must have been faster through 10 in 2007.

Really great result though. There aren't a ton of women who was run that fast. Bates has put herself in that Trials top group. This run would give her 1:09/2:25-26.

If my math is correct, Radcliffe's WR marathon pace comes to 51:41. With that same pace, she would placed 4th in the girls 3200 at Arcadia.

Anyone else think the course was short? Looking at Strava a lot of people had 9.98-10.00 on their watches, which doesn’t usually happen since people don’t run the tangents perfectly.

The fourth mile also had unrealistically fast splits for a lot of people - did they misplace the cone at that turnaround?

Seems important to validate to make sure the AR in the men’s race is legitimate.

No course records set.

You the same guy that said the 2nd heat at San Fran ran a lap short?

Nxnxn wrote:

No course records set.

You the same guy that said the 2nd heat at San Fran ran a lap short?

Didn’t Kebenei get the AR?

Waiting on official time. Herb Lindsay ran 46:00 and there is news on Twitter that Kebenei has been rounded up to 46:00 as well.

I thought Meyer had it 46:13?

i raised exactly this issue [specifically on mile 4] on my club listserv. respondents had 9.99 to 10.05 on gps. I don't use GPS and haven't kept up with issue of how accurate they are, but fwiw I usually hear they're long.

my best guess is mile 4 was about .08 short, and that this wasn't made up for somewhere else.

--Dave

I had 10.04 on mine. Which is about what I would expect to see. Mine usually measures long, but also loses signal under bridges and short changes me there.

My mile 4 was a bit short, but my mile 3 was a bit long.

The 10K mat was definitely short, though.

Just got my wife's Strava and Garmin files.. she went 10.02 miles. Definitely legit course. She ran in the yellow wave (sub-elite).

kjl wrote:

Just got my wife's Strava and Garmin files.. she went 10.02 miles. Definitely legit course. She ran in the yellow wave (sub-elite).

That just means she didn't run the tangents perfectly. I bet if you look at any other 10 mile race she has run, Garmin/Strava will have at least 10.05 miles. Let me know if I'm wrong.

That also doesn't explain the people with 9.98 miles on their watch. From the Strava leaderboard you can see Willie Milam, Louis Serafini, and others had under 10 miles on their watch, which makes sense since those up front have the most room to run the actual tangents.

kjl wrote:

Just got my wife's Strava and Garmin files.. she went 10.02 miles. Definitely legit course. She ran in the yellow wave (sub-elite).

10.02? It's counter-intuitive, but that could be short. You know how Boston shows up as 26.4 for most runners.

impossible to run the tangents that well wrote:

kjl wrote:

Just got my wife's Strava and Garmin files.. she went 10.02 miles. Definitely legit course. She ran in the yellow wave (sub-elite).

10.02? It's counter-intuitive, but that could be short. You know how Boston shows up as 26.4 for most runners.

0.2 difference on 26 miles due to running the tangents means a 10mile race should show up at 10.07miles. BUT this is well within the accuracy of ANY GPS watch. You cannot possibly try to conclude that a race wasn't long enough based upon some flimsy garmins. The GPS accuracy of those are always +-10m at any given point. You can easily go +-0.3miles on a 10 mile race solely due to accuracy.

runningchick wrote:

impossible to run the tangents that well wrote:

10.02? It's counter-intuitive, but that could be short. You know how Boston shows up as 26.4 for most runners.

0.2 difference on 26 miles due to running the tangents means a 10mile race should show up at 10.07miles. BUT this is well within the accuracy of ANY GPS watch. You cannot possibly try to conclude that a race wasn't long enough based upon some flimsy garmins. The GPS accuracy of those are always +-10m at any given point. You can easily go +-0.3miles on a 10 mile race solely due to accuracy.

Are there trees or buildings on the course? If it's wide open, I have a hard time believing the course wasn't short.

GPS pretty good these days wrote:

runningchick wrote:

0.2 difference on 26 miles due to running the tangents means a 10mile race should show up at 10.07miles. BUT this is well within the accuracy of ANY GPS watch. You cannot possibly try to conclude that a race wasn't long enough based upon some flimsy garmins. The GPS accuracy of those are always +-10m at any given point. You can easily go +-0.3miles on a 10 mile race solely due to accuracy.

Are there trees or buildings on the course? If it's wide open, I have a hard time believing the course wasn't short.

There’s a few cherry trees on the course...