Skip to main content

I've seen a lot of courses cross my desk with the description "loop" that also have a significant separation. Most of them are only 2~3 percent, so I can see fudging it a little.

One, however, had a separation of 15%. This is clearly a point-to-point that might turn back toward the start a little.

Technically, a true loop would have 0 separation. But how much leeway do we allow in that definition?

Loops that continue past the start I've seen defined as Loop+, and those that don't quite make it back as Incomplete Loop. These are proper definitions, and I commend those who use them.

So where's the cutoff point for an incomplete or loop+ course?

Not that it matters much, I only ask to satisfy my curiosity.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Nobody has ever come up with a rock-solid way to use a few words to describe all courses. If the course is a pure out-back, with no separation, it’s dead easy. It’s out-back. Everything else combines meandering roads sometimes combined with out-back sections.

Complicating this is the fact that the various certifiers apply their own best judgment when describing the course configuration. There's no common standard here.

Falling back on the definition of a record-quality course, if the drop exceeds 1 m/km and/or the separation exceeds 30 percent, the course is point-to-point. Of course, the definition could change. IAAF uses 50 percent, not 30 percent, a political decision that some decry.

I’ve felt for some time that the “Configuration” blank on the certificate is unneeded and could be removed with no harm done. The map defines the course quite adequately, and does it a lot better than does a few words.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×