CHERRY BLOSSOM 10 MILER COURSE SHORT: KEBENEI's 10 MILE RECORD WILL NOT STAND

If they were Joanie's field hockey coach, there would be no sympathy money, and everyone on the cone crew would take a punch.

800 dude wrote:

80 meters. Brutal. Kebenei still might've done it.

Really. That's just bad. How does a major race do this? I've certified courses, it's pain but getting it wrong is not an option.

cone placement wrote:

ironic alley wrote:

You have just GOT to love the dozen+ people who REFUSED to believe the truth even when it was jammed in their faces and patiently explained to them by an adult. Hilarious. Blame the GPS watches!! Wonder if a single one of them will reflect on themselves and their behavior now?

Eggxactly. They mocked me when I said it was short on the ohio drive OAB.

Well, they mocked Jesus, too, so you're in good company.

Good!

runn wrote:

Really. That's just bad. How does a major race do this? I've certified courses, it's pain but getting it wrong is not an option.

There was nothing wrong with the course measurement or certification. The mistake was that the race organizers did not put the turn-around where the certification map said it should go.

This happened one year I ran the Annapolis 10 miler, but as far as I know they never corrected it. They put the turnaround cone in the wrong place and I knew it at the time because I'd run it several times before.

Shout out to the 2006 race that was like 1.8 miles too long when they had to reroute mid race.

what course is really withing 100m of it's stated distance?

do they really have a proper handle on the distance measuring process in reality.

where is the data? of precision and accuracy?

i'd like to see three or better yet five certified teams measure a half marathon course, and see what the error is.

you want to complete this process for a variety of courses, hilly, curvy.

do it.

if you don't have the above data, you're not certified.

end of story.

Imagine flying out there to race a 10 miler and set a PR. Only to have it set up wrong and either short or way long.

Most courses are certified just a touch long to guarantee the stated distance for the variety you mention. Never short. Never 80m short.

Hardloper wrote:

LR message board analysts FTW again. According to that thread the old course's average measurement on strava was ~10.07 and this year ~10.01. Almost spot on precision in terms of the difference

In case anyone was wondering, "LR" doesn't get credit for exposing the reality of the Cherry Blossom course, and more than people here deserve credit for uniquely figuring out anything. Outside this bubble, various others were arriving at the same conclusion independently, and without the burden of stupidity and noise that accompanies most visits to Letsrun.

devastating still wrote:

Imagine flying out there to race a 10 miler and set a PR. Only to have it set up wrong and either short or way long.

Let me call the wambulance for ya...

longjack wrote:

what course is really withing 100m of it's stated distance?

do they really have a proper handle on the distance measuring process in reality.

where is the data? of precision and accuracy?

i'd like to see three or better yet five certified teams measure a half marathon course, and see what the error is.

you want to complete this process for a variety of courses, hilly, curvy.

do it.

if you don't have the above data, you're not certified.

end of story.

Most reputable races are, otherwise records wouldn’t be ratified you fool.

Huh ? Their main objective is to set up a 10 mile ( 9.95) course. The Brojos must be getting soft in their old age . What makes up for it ? ? % polyester t shirts ?

Ham over fist wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

LR message board analysts FTW again. According to that thread the old course's average measurement on strava was ~10.07 and this year ~10.01. Almost spot on precision in terms of the difference

In case anyone was wondering, "LR" doesn't get credit for exposing the reality of the Cherry Blossom course, and more than people here deserve credit for uniquely figuring out anything. Outside this bubble, various others were arriving at the same conclusion independently, and without the burden of stupidity and noise that accompanies most visits to Letsrun.

As the person who posted the original thread, I agree with this. It seemed so obvious and so many of my friends and co-workers raised it that I was surprised it took five days to confirm - I was standing at the awards ceremony post-race waiting to see if they were going to announce it there since it already seemed so clear. I couldn't believe they were handing out checks for the American Record.

Also worth noting that the brojos didn't conclude that the course was short even after being presented with the evidence - it took them multiple days to engage on the conversation despite the fact that an American Record was set and a lot was at stake, and when they did Rojo basically said he wasn't sure what happened.

longjack wrote:

what course is really withing 100m of it's stated distance?

do they really have a proper handle on the distance measuring process in reality.

where is the data? of precision and accuracy?

i'd like to see three or better yet five certified teams measure a half marathon course, and see what the error is.

you want to complete this process for a variety of courses, hilly, curvy.

do it.

if you don't have the above data, you're not certified.

end of story.

You're full of yourself. The method used to certify courses is the most accurate available. If there was a better method, course certifiers would use. it. While it'd be interesting to compare independent measurements of a certified course, past experience would likely prove the original measurement was good enough. Regarding the .01 SCPF....a measurer has no way of knowing if they're actually adding that much because it's impossible to ride the 'perfect' shortest course. In fact, that's why the 5.28' is added to calculations per mile, to ensure it's long enough. I could show you reams of data & course comparisons. They'll all back what I say. Been there, done that for over 35 years. As 'dukerdog' said, course length was fine, cones were set in the wrong place which was noted in the first post.

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion.

If several top measurers, measure a marathon and they all come up within a few meters of each other -let's say 5 meters), then why do they need to add the 42 meters (short course prevention factor)?

240 = 73 meters, not 80 (it also equals 80 YARDS). Likely would take 12-13 seconds to cover that distance, but less if kicking for the CR.

D.Katz wrote:

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion.

If several top measurers, measure a marathon and they all come up within a few meters of each other -let's say 5 meters), then why do they need to add the 42 meters (short course prevention factor)?

Because it's the standard. Tracks are shorter than 400 meters if you measure along the curb line. But the standard is for them to be 400 meters following a path 30cm outside the curb. In that sense they are all slightly short, but they are all slightly short by the same amount.

In a similar way, marathons (and courses of all lengths) are measured to be slightly long, but they are measured to be slightly long by the same amount. You wouldn't want one marathon course to be slightly shorter than another simply because more people have measured it.