USA National 15 km Championships in Jacksonville, Florida, March 15th: http://members.jacksonville.co...new-finish-line-gate
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
To me it appears that the photo is mis-captioned - the "runners" look more like "walkers"!
I had appointed two IAAF measurer's to check the accuracy of the course One was Doug Leoffler(an "A" IAAF measurer) and the other was Toni Youngman( an "B" IAAF measurer). Since the original Measurers were not IAAF measurers it was necessary to have the above IAAF people. According to Doug and Toni the course has passed the test. Hence, it's it is Certified/Verified.
A special thanks goes to Richard Fannin who has been most helpful with making the measurers job easy. He provided a police escort and many other things that went above and beyond the call of duty.
A special thanks goes to Richard Fannin who has been most helpful with making the measurers job easy. He provided a police escort and many other things that went above and beyond the call of duty.
So it was an accurate 9.3 miles then? 
mark,
Not sure what you mean with your comment. First it was checked to be a 15 km, not 9.3 miles. It was basically certified as a new course. Since we had an "A" and a "B" IAAF measurers doing the work, it will also be verified.
Not sure what you mean with your comment. First it was checked to be a 15 km, not 9.3 miles. It was basically certified as a new course. Since we had an "A" and a "B" IAAF measurers doing the work, it will also be verified.
Gene,
The article Kevin posted said the course was measured to make sure it was the correct distance, 9.3 miles. Of course we all know it was measured to be 15k.
It's understandable that people state the distance of the marathon in miles since it isn't an even number of kilometers either, but I don't understand the need to convert (incorrectly) an even number of kilometers to miles. Not sure that's ever going to change though.
The article Kevin posted said the course was measured to make sure it was the correct distance, 9.3 miles. Of course we all know it was measured to be 15k.
It's understandable that people state the distance of the marathon in miles since it isn't an even number of kilometers either, but I don't understand the need to convert (incorrectly) an even number of kilometers to miles. Not sure that's ever going to change though.
yes, you are correct. We have a race in my area in which they call the 2 km exactly 1.5 miles.
The public will never get it.
The public will never get it.
Was that scream I heard from Oklahoma Bob Baumel slitting his wrists?
This may not be the sport for you if you are looking for even numbers - 42195m/21097.5
After 35 years of doing this stuff I can say with great confidence that the general running populations only knows 3.1, 6.2, 9.3, 13.1 & 26.2
As far as 25 & 30k - they don't have a clue (at least on this side of the pond)
After 35 years of doing this stuff I can say with great confidence that the general running populations only knows 3.1, 6.2, 9.3, 13.1 & 26.2
As far as 25 & 30k - they don't have a clue (at least on this side of the pond)
Au contraire! If you're looking for even numbers look at how neat the numbers are IF you will think in the metric system! Except for those delicious exceptions, the marathon and half marathon of course.
Are folks sure we need to be so passive about this massive (ignorance or stubbornness, not sure which)? Science, engineering, medicine have made the transition; are we sure that runners can't deal with it?
I have really enjoyed having kilometer points marked (when I was still able to run!) because you can get more feedback and you can more easily project your pace to a target finishing time. I used to talk RD's into marking just kilometers but usually they would come back and want miles marked for the next year.
But I still think there must be a good strategy out there.
Are folks sure we need to be so passive about this massive (ignorance or stubbornness, not sure which)? Science, engineering, medicine have made the transition; are we sure that runners can't deal with it?
I have really enjoyed having kilometer points marked (when I was still able to run!) because you can get more feedback and you can more easily project your pace to a target finishing time. I used to talk RD's into marking just kilometers but usually they would come back and want miles marked for the next year.
But I still think there must be a good strategy out there.
Mark, I will take the position of Devil's Advocate: Since many Americans don't know how to convert km to miles, I think the author of the article did an almost good job of informing the low-information runner. Should have said "about 9.3 miles", but I do understand why it was put into the article. The headline said "15K", so that was stated.
Mentioning 9.3 miles, though, may have been good, so people don't think it is a short race. Just my thoughts.
Mentioning 9.3 miles, though, may have been good, so people don't think it is a short race. Just my thoughts.
Duane, look at the quote:
"...the new course had to be measured to ensure it was the correct distance (9.3 miles)."
I have no problem with him mentioning in passing that the course is 9.3 miles long, but don't put "correct distance" and "9.3 miles" in the same sentence.
"...the new course had to be measured to ensure it was the correct distance (9.3 miles)."
I have no problem with him mentioning in passing that the course is 9.3 miles long, but don't put "correct distance" and "9.3 miles" in the same sentence.
Isn’t great to see that the pre-race validation and race course monitoring work paid off? Shalane Flanagan set a new American 15 km record in 47:03! http://www.news4jax.com/sports...dges-of-jax/24979834