quote:Originally posted by Pete Riegel:
"show me survey results that show that people even know what a certified course is, or that a course that accurate even matters to most people"
I’m afraid that I agree with the view expressed by the board. I don’t think a certified course matters to most of today’s fields. It does matter to the minority who are really racing, really pushing themselves to do their absolute best.
A certified course matters only to competitive runners bright enough to know that a finish time has meaning only if the distance is accurately known. I think (without evidence) that the number of competitive runners is likely the same or only slightly larger than it was decades ago.
What has changed is field size. We see 5k races with fields of thousands, as well as 5k races with only a few hundred. It’s my belief that the competitive people go to both kinds of races, but that they are greatly obscured, in the larger races, by the fitness runners and the fun-runners.
There are only so many serious, competitive runners in a given area. When a race advertises a fancy goodie bag, a slick t-shirt, and a band and post-race party they can get a lot of entries. The competitive people will come, but will be rendered invisible in the statistics by those runners whose goals are more socially or fitness oriented.
My view is unapologetically elitist. When I ran, I ran to do my measured best, which was in the upper-mediocre range, and I didn’t have to be Einstein to know that a solid measurement standard was necessary for me to get what I wanted. Timing of the race was never a problem, as I had my own watch. A small race with a certified course was always my choice. I ran a few huge, big-city marathons, but always felt myself slowed by the huge crowds. The event was satisfying, but always tinged with regret because I wasted a competitive effort by having to fight the crowd. My bests were always achieved on certified courses where I had room to run.
I don’t know whether any stats exist to estimate the number of serious competitive runners, but those are the people I’m measuring for. I think there are enough to justify the effort of measuring courses to an accurate standard.
Thanks Pete--I agree with you wholeheartedly. That describes my running career pretty accurately as well. I never understood beyond the hype why people wanted to travel so far to run a race where they would be boxed in by thousands of people when they were trying to improve their times.
What is your position on the expired course? They are advertising an expired course as cerified where at present all that they would have to do is perhaps write Mr. Newman for a copy of the map for $2 then answer a few questions on a form to qualify for a 10 year extension.
I did not expect to disprove the assertion that that certification of courses is mainstream to recreational runners: I am with you, but, I want to make sure that ANYONE who is trying to compare their time accurately to a similar distance run can do so in our area--Having met Ted Corbett briefly, read his story and learned about him on this forum inspires me. When I was introduced to him as the measurer for an event, he said, "good, someone who has done something useful"
To me--it is not the number of people that notice or care--it is the principle, and as you say, for the however competitive runners in the field: novice to elite.