Skip to main content

10 replies

Further discussion on expired courses.

M mattsonnebornMember
Dear measurement forum-please weigh in:
It has been my effort, and my aim to slowly but surely certify most local courses of significance locally--I amazingly, though I have volunteered this effort, have met resistance from some key board members over the years locally, The argument most recently put forth is "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 forwarded him the survey that Duane Russell posted from his website regarding this issue and let him know that I was not sure how random a survey of only 250 from a website from runmeasure.com would be. I will include it my next post race surveys in the future though.

At the same time, I have reminded him the past 2-3 yrs that one of his events has expired, that all he needed to do was fill out the renewal form since nothing has changed and...done for 10 more yrs. He hasn't done so and consequently, has advertised quite boldly a certified course that has been expired for 2-3 yrs. With that aspect being phased out as of the end of this year he will have to remeasure. I think truly he lost the certificate or map of the course.

I was particularly proud of a course I just measured in Immokalee for a new race. It was the 1st time I actually charged them and I must say, I was as professional as I have ever been. I worked together with the contact from the charity. She followed me in her vehicle and knows the course intimately now and loves it. I gave her all kinds of marketing ideas, saved her a butt load with contacts for shirts and got her to think deeply about the message she was trying to convey from her event and how to achieve it creatively. I also got her some terrific ideas for sponsorship that she is implementing. In short, I more than made up for my fee that she invested in the measurement 10X over.

Before I left, this same board member said "why do they need to certify that course?" My argument was simple. Why would you ever want to discourage someone from advertising the correct distance for an event? Why not get the time AND the distance right for every course--it's all we have got!

I followed that logic later with a discussion for the board to have all of our courses certified. "I believe if you advertise a distance, that is what the race should be PERIOD. If our club stands for excellence and professionalism why would we EVER not want people to trust that the distance is correct-"

Though this course that has expired is still the correct distance--this is a touchy issue with sensitive egos. What are the issues? Should I just go re-certify it, put it on their counter and say you are welcome? I did let them know that they are advertising a record would stand when it will not now. They do not realize however that in a few months they will have to re cert. no matter what. Should I walk away from this completely and let them keep advertising the expired course as legit and keep my mouth shut? I really wouldn't want a record to get set and then have our club's name sullied.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

peteriegelpeteriegelRCMBB Founder
"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.
M mattsonnebornMember
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.
guidobrothersguidobrothersMember
Good issue! We've had this argument many times over the past 20 odd years and agree that certifying the course probably won't increase the field.

The best response we been able to develop is that in addition to the hand-full of competitive runners who really care about distance accuracy, the race director should be interested in putting forth a quality product, regardless of the quality of the end-user. A certified course is one feature of a quality road race.

Certifying is also the best defense against complaints about the course distance. Race directors are disturbed by these complaints and without a certified course there is no defense.

We all know experienced runners who, after finishing a short 5K, initially assume they've had a miraculous 2-minute improvement in their time after 10-years of racing, only to be let down by someone pointing out that the course is probably short. This same runner will support the race with an entry fee the following year because he or she "had a good run there".

Our motto is "If it's not certified, it's not accurate"
peteriegelpeteriegelRCMBB Founder
My position on the expired course is to let it expire, and don't list it any more. The race director can lie that it's still certified. but one day a stud runner will believe the lie, run a fast time, find out it doesn't count for a record, and raise hell with the race director. If this happened more often there would be fewer bogus claims of certification.
duanerussellduanerussellMeasurer
Matt,

For clarification, the majority of respondents to the RaceMeasure survey were not culled from visitors to the RaceMeasure Website. I asked folks with newsletters to please spread the word about the survey, and some did, most notably in New Mexico an New Jersey. My respondents listed their city and state, and were spread across the country. The majority classified themselves as having run about 15 races per year, with length all over the board. It is a small sample, but most said the certification of the course was important to them.

That said, here in Denver, many runners in the middle of the pack still say they want a certified course. I get calls from race directors who say the runners of their race have asked them to certify their course. Here, anyhow, runners are aware of certification, and its value. Race directors have told me they see an increase in numbers when they start advertising the certification of their course. Anecdotal, yes, but they seek me out to let me know - I don't ask them.

We also have most timing companies in the greater-Denver area that encourage certification, as they don't want to hear that there was "a problem with the timing system, 'cause my time isn't what it should have been". Timing companies can be a great ally in the push for certification.

Maybe your (anyone reading this forum) area currently does not have great awareness of course certification, but once it is noted in the local running clubs (a great place to raise awareness), the runners - whether front-of-the-pack or middle-of-the-pack - will start paying attention. That is why it is so important for any race whose course is certified to advertise the certification.

I yield the soapbox.
Last edited by duanerussell
M mattsonnebornMember
quote:
Originally posted by Duane Russell:
Maybe your (anyone reading this forum) area currently does not have great awareness of course certification, but once it is noted in the local running clubs (a great place to raise awareness), the runners - whether front-of-the-pack or middle-of-the-pack - will start paying attention. That is why it is so important for any race whose course is certified needs to advertise it.

I yield the soapbox.


Great point. I have made a point of doing so on my race websites and raised topics on social media, newsletters, but it is time to do more to educate an bring awareness locally. Thanks for the inspiration to do MORE. This situation described above will be resolved.
I have too much integrity to let it stay as is regardless of whether the race director does.
genenewmangenenewmanRRTC Chairman
I don't know how to deal with a race that states a courses is Certified and it's not. I hope it comes back to haunt them someday when a runner sets a record and they get caught.

As for reasons for getting a course Certified here is my response to this!


• The course will be the length you advertise it to be. Participants will be able to make comparisons of their performance in your event those in other events at the same distance.
•Even if the course itself is over an infrequently raced distance, the intermediate split points will be the right distance from the start, finish, and each other.
•While there are other ways to measure a course, the Calibrated Bicycle method has proven itself to be faster and/or more accurate than the other methods.
•The measurement and certification process requires you to document the course in a way that allows the documentation to be a resource for future years’ events.
•Any records set on a properly measured certified course will be honored by USATF, which is the organization that maintains the record book.
A alanaveryMember
Good responses all. I can only add:

A non-certified course will give some potential customers (who are also arguably the most fit and knowledgeable about the sport) a reason not to run the race.

What businessperson would want to keep potential customers from doing business with them? Why would a board of directors want to encourage that sort of decision making?
pastmemberpastmemberMember
As a long-time member of Montgomery County Road Runners Club in Maryland, I see a high level of interest in accurate, if not certified courses in our club races, including our low-key events. Even for a cross-country race with fewer than 200 participants, the race director fields many questions from participants about how accurate the course is and how it was measured.

I agree that in general, more competitive runners have a keener interest in course accuracy than mid-packers. Yet, interest in course accuracy in MCRRC is high enough among runners of all abilities that we are now launching a project to submit all our road courses for certification, including all the courses for low-key events that have been conducted for 20 years or more on John Sissala - or Phil Quinn - "measured to USATF standards" courses.

Runners in this region surely are more savvy about USATF course certification than some race directors. I recently glanced at the web site of a race whose course I measured for certification. I noticed the words "USATF Certified Race" in the description. The word "Course" was left out of this phrase for reasons that I cannot vouch for. I suppose I will need to start explaining to my measurement clients just what a USATF course certificate is NOT as well as what it IS...

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×