if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
Short courses will certainly act as bait to those hunting for PRs
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
That’s a you problem, IMO.
Tell your friend to do 70.3 Augusta. Distance is correct. Guaranteed “PR” by 10 min
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
Short courses will certainly act as bait to those hunting for PRs
said person wasnt hunting short courses. but on that note , there are many people always asking what is the easiest course.
i wonder if ironman is doing this on purpose to retain athletes by giving them “PR’s”
who cares
.
who cares
Obviously not you because you don’t do those distances so why comment? Don’t be a moron.
Not familiar with Boulder course, but sometimes it is an infrastructure issue. The bike course at Muskoka was 59 miles because there was nowhere for them to cut off three miles.
That said, the fact that they can’t even get the turnaround point in the energy lab right at the biggest triathlon on earth is an embarrassment and a joke
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
They do what they can do. It’s permit issues. Think of it this way - IM Boulder was 114 miles this year. They put the extra two miles on that course so we could have a 54 mile course yesterday.
But seriously - they try. It’s safety and permitting issues that cause stuff like this.
Not familiar with Boulder course, but sometimes it is an infrastructure issue. The bike course at Muskoka was 59 miles because there was nowhere for them to cut off three miles.
That said, the fact that they can’t even get the turnaround point in the energy lab right at the biggest triathlon on earth is an embarrassment and a joke
I agree. I have posted this many times over the years - get the distances right - have a certifying body actually measure it and certify it. Any current “world record” actually isn’t given the irregularities of course measurement and lack of certification.
Short bike course makes us feel good about ourselves. So we can pretend we are ünerbikes, if only for a single race. 
but on that note , there are many people always asking what is the easiest course.
i wonder if ironman is doing this on purpose to retain athletes by giving them “PR’s”
In fairness to IM, they have tried to put on “harder” races but the people don’t support them. At least in North America (can’t speak for the rest of the world).
IM St. George - gonzo
IM Los Cabos - soon to be gonzo
IM Arizona - people bitched and moaned about it being too hot/windy so they moved it
IM Texas - same thing re too hot
Yet, people fall all over themselves to sign up for “easier” races like Florida, Chattanooga, etc.
but on that note , there are many people always asking what is the easiest course.
i wonder if ironman is doing this on purpose to retain athletes by giving them “PR’s”
In fairness to IM, they have tried to put on “harder” races but the people don’t support them. At least in North America (can’t speak for the rest of the world).
IM St. George - gonzo
IM Los Cabos - soon to be gonzo
IM Arizona - people bitched and moaned about it being too hot/windy so they moved it
IM Texas - same thing re too hot
Yet, people fall all over themselves to sign up for “easier” races like Florida, Chattanooga, etc.
I think Tahoe would have been supported well. Weather and fire did it in.
We still have WI, LP, Whistler and those aren’t “pr” courses. All well supported. I don’t think anyone enjoys hot. But a harder terrain can possibly be supported if the location is right.
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
Short courses will certainly act as bait to those hunting for PRs
And here I thought part of the reason they dropped the 140.6 at NC is because it’s hard to put sharp enough turns in to get 2.4 on the swim! Speaking of which, I wonder just how “long” NC 70.3’s swim will remain this year. My best estimate is that using the same turns, B2B half was at least 1.3 and full was maybe 2.2 miles.
Not familiar with Boulder course, but sometimes it is an infrastructure issue. The bike course at Muskoka was 59 miles because there was nowhere for them to cut off three miles.
That said, the fact that they can’t even get the turnaround point in the energy lab right at the biggest triathlon on earth is an embarrassment and a joke
I agree. I have posted this many times over the years - get the distances right - have a certifying body actually measure it and certify it. Any current “world record” actually isn’t given the irregularities of course measurement and lack of certification.
They don’t even need to have a certifying body do it. They could just, like, you know, measure the course correctly. It’s not like it’s hard to throw a short 1 mile out-n-back somewhere on a bike course to make a 54 mile loop into 56 (just throwing out an example)
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
They do what they can do. It’s permit issues. Think of it this way - IM Boulder was 114 miles this year. They put the extra two miles on that course so we could have a 54 mile course yesterday.
But seriously - they try. It’s safety and permitting issues that cause stuff like this.
dont know if that is a joke or not? in usatf certified races, the course will be always long, to guarantee you do the distance… so 114 is fair
if you are going to trade mark 70.3 and 140.6… the courses better reach that! today ironman boulder bike was 53.7 across the board. I know it has been someone’s goal to crack 5 in a 70.3 , and the only time the person did that was when the courses were short!! (they miss by seconds each time otherwise )
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
When you’re already pushing all the government entities to their wits’ end to get a course approved, shutting down another entire road to put in a 1 mile out and back is likely to get you kicked out of the county manager’s office.
If your friend is that concerned about the legitimacy of an arbitrary time target, what are his altitude, road surface, turns and weather requirements?
Can’t the high elevation and difficult run of the Boulder 70.3 ease his concerns a bit?
I agree that if you are going to call it a distance, it should be that distance. That said, it is sooooooo common to have a course be a different than what it is called that “everybody’s doing it” is a pretty good argument (right or wrong).
If qualifying events in triathlon were like qualifying for Boston it would be a much bigger deal. The reality is that tri qualifying events don’t look to a time cut off (wouldn’t that make things interesting…), they are % of field racing that day.
I’d prefer to see more courses that compliment the terrain that it is in rather than these rigmaroles that they go to in order to hit a number exactly. We’d have a lot more distance options - like the 3/4 distance instead of just half and full. I think my annual race calendar would be much more interesting if there were more distance options. But no. Four choices. Sprint, Oly, Half, Full. There are those odd balls out there… I like the oddballs. It fits my personality.
This is not a far-fetched idea. To this point, there is precedent for this in other sports, most notably baseball. Every 10 years or so there are theories about “juiced balls” that fly farther, create more home runs and thereby generate more interest from fans, especially the casual viewer. We are in one of those discussions right now in fact. Baseball is also apropos of this discussion for another reason, that being every major league park is of different dimensions. So there is no “standard”. Therefore pitching in some parks is easier and hitting in some is easier. But then again, baseball is not advertising races of set distances.
As far as 70.3 and 140.6, I would personally prefer to have distances certified so that know what to expect. I’m totally fine with my local sprint or “intermediate” having random distances for whatever reason, but I like the certainty of knowing how far it is from point A to point B in an Ironman branded races whether I do one in Canada, Australia or Europe.
This is not a far-fetched idea. To this point, there is precedent for this in other sports, most notably baseball. Every 10 years or so there are theories about “juiced balls” that fly farther, create more home runs and thereby generate more interest from fans, especially the casual viewer. We are in one of those discussions right now in fact. Baseball is also apropos of this discussion for another reason, that being every major league park is of different dimensions. So there is no “standard”. Therefore pitching in some parks is easier and hitting in some is easier. But then again, baseball is not advertising races of set distances.
As far as 70.3 and 140.6, I would personally prefer to have distances certified so that know what to expect. I’m totally fine with my local sprint or “intermediate” having random distances for whatever reason, but I like the certainty of knowing how far it is from point A to point B in an Ironman branded races whether I do one in Canada, Australia or Europe.
To keep giving people PR’s they would have to make the courses shorter and shorter each year. Not all Ironman and 70.3 courses are short. Chatanooga has a 116 mile bike. As Colin said, Boulder 114.
What does a bike course that is long or short by a couple of miles change in your expectations or preparations? It’s not going to change your race execution at all.