Cherry Blossom course short?

GPS watches be crazy sometimes.

Yeah I think you may be right. My Garmin measured 10.00 for the full distance (which is of course unusual) but it went from being slightly in front of the first couple mile markers to being noticeably behind the fourth - I'd guess my watch jumped in the neighborhood of 50-60 meters relative to the mile marker.

Looks like the course that was run today doesn't appear on the USATF certification website for whatever thats worth

I wasn’t at Cherry Blossom but, serious question, do most people’s Garmins measure everything long? Because my Garmin (it’s a 235) always measures shorter than reality. It says 400 meters on the track is 0.23 miles. Since tracks obviously can’t be short, did I somehow manage to end up with a defective watch? Those Cherry Blossom measurements seem a lot more accurate than my watch ever gets. ?‍♀️

LoneStarXC wrote:

I wasn’t at Cherry Blossom but, serious question, do most people’s Garmins measure everything long? Because my Garmin (it’s a 235) always measures shorter than reality. It says 400 meters on the track is 0.23 miles. Since tracks obviously can’t be short, did I somehow manage to end up with a defective watch? Those Cherry Blossom measurements seem a lot more accurate than my watch ever gets. ?‍♀️

People’s Garmins normally measure road races long because they don’t run the shortest possible route - they’ll run wide around a turn or not hug the side of the road.

Tracks are different. Since the watch is taking the tangents around the curve it almost always measures short on the track. I bet your Garmin is fine.

It will be re-measured because a record was set. Not sure how they confirm the cone issue you're talking about though.

From the other thread there's two issues.

1) Cone placement.

2) Bridges on the course. GPS doesn't work well if you go under a bridge or trees. Usually measures short.

The bigger issue is the cone. If the average distance on Strava from 2018 is shorter than 2019 that says something too.

There was a marathon in Vancouver WA where they placed the turn-around cone early. They figured it out and invalidated the results for Boston. They should be able to figure this out.

Is Rojo on it? He did a fantastic job on proving a short marathon earlier this year.

LoneStarXC wrote:

I wasn’t at Cherry Blossom but, serious question, do most people’s Garmins measure everything long? Because my Garmin (it’s a 235) always measures shorter than reality. It says 400 meters on the track is 0.23 miles. Since tracks obviously can’t be short, did I somehow manage to end up with a defective watch? Those Cherry Blossom measurements seem a lot more accurate than my watch ever gets. ?‍♀️

Road courses with fewer turns measure long. Tracks or routes with lots of sharp turns are more likely to measure short

Hains too-short point wrote:

On Strava I am seeing a lot of people with 9.98 - 10.02 on their watches, which is shorter than you usually see in a race like this since people don't run the tangents perfectly. Anecdotally I usually see the people who run them best come in around 10.04 in a race like this.

After digging deeper it's clear the 4th mile was way short - those that split their watch at each mile marker had around 0.93-0.94 for that mile. It also makes sense that this would be the mile where they would mess up since it includes a 180 turn and they could have just placed the cone a bit too early. Hard to say exactly where it was supposed to go, but comparing the course map to people's GPS's it seems reasonable that it was slightly short.

Is this the Ohio Dr SW section? It's way short, IMO. They put the cone too early. Here's proof. Zoom in to the Ohio Dr SW turn-around south of West Basin Dr SW. Compare 2018 to 2019 and it's obvious.

Serafini's 2019 race(9.99 miles):

Izewski's 2018 race(13th place, 10.04 miles):

cone placement wrote:

From the other thread there's two issues.

1) Cone placement.

2) Bridges on the course. GPS doesn't work well if you go under a bridge or trees. Usually measures short.

The bigger issue is the cone. If the average distance on Strava from 2018 is shorter than 2019 that says something too.

There was a marathon in Vancouver WA where they placed the turn-around cone early. They figured it out and invalidated the results for Boston. They should be able to figure this out.

Is Rojo on it? He did a fantastic job on proving a short marathon earlier this year.

+1

I need rojo video on this pronto.

It's even worse. Izewski's 2018 run says 10.12 miles, not 10.04. He was in the top 20 so he ran the tangents. Is Rojo on this? 99% sure this was short.

You can't directly compare 2018 and 2019 because the course is a bit different - look at the third mile each year and you'll notice that they took a right turn this year where last year did a 180 turn at the start of the third mile. That could in theory cause the turnaround to be earlier this year if the route this year takes longer to get to Ohio Drive.

So while I still think it's short, what you showed isn't proof.

It's worth noting that this was a different course from 2019 (they had to reroute due to construction on Rock Creek, which meant they couldn't have the course double back the way it usually does).

Comparisons of Garmin reports or cone placings from 2018 against this year aren't probative.

I do think this was a slightly faster course than last year because they eliminated one of the two 180 degree turns.

I know, go away old man but that was the mantra back in the late 70's / 80's. We had NO strava or GPS, and rarely did we have splits. We raced!!! It didn't matter. What mattered was going as hard as you possibly could and let the chips fall where they may. Most (not all) of you are wimps. RACE! Tell stories to your fellow running mates the next week but, Jesus, just RACE!!!

LoneStarXC wrote:

I wasn’t at Cherry Blossom but, serious question, do most people’s Garmins measure everything long? Because my Garmin (it’s a 235) always measures shorter than reality. It says 400 meters on the track is 0.23 miles. Since tracks obviously can’t be short, did I somehow manage to end up with a defective watch? Those Cherry Blossom measurements seem a lot more accurate than my watch ever gets. ?‍♀️

You really think that a device that is accurate within 10meters 65 percent of the time is a measuring device?

darkwave wrote:

It's worth noting that this was a different course from 2019 (they had to reroute due to construction on Rock Creek, which meant they couldn't have the course double back the way it usually does).

Comparisons of Garmin reports or cone placings from 2018 against this year aren't probative.

I do think this was a slightly faster course than last year because they eliminated one of the two 180 degree turns.

Disagree with the point about it being faster - the new segment in the third mile had a small climb in it whereas the previous version was all flat. The climb was slower than the turnaround.

I agree. Just race. This is true. Yet a certain runner didn't get a AR at the NYC marathon in 1981 because the course was short. For the record, it matters. Was this a new course from 2017 also? If not, I thought Cherry Blossom was a classic. Why are they changing the course?

AR at stake here wrote:

Was this a new course from 2017 also? If not, I thought Cherry Blossom was a classic. Why are they changing the course?

They had to. The Memorial Bridge is under construction and can't be used for a race (they changed the Army 10 mile course also). And Rock Creek Parkway near the Kennedy Center is also under construction and narrowed - they used to have an out and back there, but now there's only enough space for the race to run one way there.

I got 10.02

Garmins are not acceptable for record distance measurements. Refer to the USATF course measurement guidelines.

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=IcyYpjUzRZ8vwH6C107CE8