who cares
Obviously not you because you don’t do those distances so why comment? Don’t be a moron.
does not matter what the race distance is, who cares. As long as we all race the same, who cares.
On purpose i think. Ironman Brazil is a classic example. In 2010: the swin is about 300 meters short. (bike: 188 km 2 km shorter).Was a comemorative race (10o. edition in Floripa). Luckie Mackenzie won and set the race record. 2016: the swin was shorter again. So…
On purpose i think. Ironman Brazil is a classic example. In 2010: the swin is about 300 meters short. (bike: 188 km 2 km shorter).Was a comemorative race (10o. edition in Floripa). Luckie Mackenzie won and set the race record. 2016: the swin was shorter again. So…
This is the joke to call any race distance, let alone any race, having a “record”. No two triathlons, no matter the distances, or locations are NEVER the same twice.
So it really shows stuff when some get so worked up that something was a “record” in our sport. This is why for running events, as an example, to have a “record”, they have very specific criteria, and it is more than just the distance.
. we have already seen multiple threads on how other races this year yielded questionable ‘record’ efforts.
I agree with your sentiment. A lot of comments from IMTX (i.e. the North American Championships) were related to the swim registering 500m long and the bike as 110 miles on GPS. Of all races, that one should have been certified.
I understand that RDs have valid issues making courses exactly as the overall branding advertises and I see valid reasons for designing courses that fit the logistics and the terrain, but I think all RDs, not just WTC, should provide accurate measurements of the course distances in the pre and post race materials including maps, results and news releases. No excuse for that other than what others have written, that they purposely want to allow athletes to brag about PRs that really weren’t PRs.
I understand that RDs have valid issues making courses exactly as the overall branding advertises and I see valid reasons for designing courses that fit the logistics and the terrain, but I think all RDs, not just WTC, should provide accurate measurements of the course distances in the pre and post race materials including maps, results and news releases. No excuse for that other than what others have written, that they purposely want to allow athletes to brag about PRs that really weren’t PRs.
True, but why oh why do work care what others “brag” about? How does it impacted their lifes? Man, if this is truely all they have to worry about, …
I understand your frustration with wanting exact distances, but as someone else posted it is typically safety and permitting issues that cause the problems. You use the example of adding on a short 1 mile out and back and it’s just that easy, well, it isn’t that easy. The race directors for Ironman work hard and do a great job. I personally know a lot of them. And they negotiate with multiple stake holders to get the safest and best possible courses for the athletes racing. I’ve seen how difficult the negotions can be about getting a course approved.
Hope this helps give you a better understanding of what’s involved.
Tim
I understand that RDs have valid issues making courses exactly as the overall branding advertises and I see valid reasons for designing courses that fit the logistics and the terrain, but I think all RDs, not just WTC, should provide accurate measurements of the course distances in the pre and post race materials including maps, results and news releases. No excuse for that other than what others have written, that they purposely want to allow athletes to brag about PRs that really weren’t PRs.[/quote
This
Accuracy matters to many of us.
Or, and this is just a pipe dream here, simply advertise the correct course distances.
Sometimes, there are valid barriers to making the distances exactly perfect. I get that. Just don’t hide it. Be transparent about the race you have organized. If anybody bitches, that’s on them for complaining about doing the race they signed up for.
I understand that RDs have valid issues making courses exactly as the overall branding advertises and I see valid reasons for designing courses that fit the logistics and the terrain, but I think all RDs, not just WTC, should provide accurate measurements of the course distances in the pre and post race materials including maps, results and news releases. No excuse for that other than what others have written, that they purposely want to allow athletes to brag about PRs that really weren’t PRs.
True, but why oh why do work care what others “brag” about? How does it impacted their lifes? Man, if this is truely all they have to worry about, …
because many people race for themselves, not others. also your argument on who cares course distances… well a top level swimmer may want to choose an accurate or longer swim portion race… and to find it was short would be annoying. some people will build their skill for a particular course to excel in that race position wise
Or, and this is just a pipe dream here, simply advertise the correct course distances.
Sometimes, there are valid barriers to making the distances exactly perfect. I get that. Just don’t hide it. Be transparent about the race you have organized. If anybody bitches, that’s on them for complaining about doing the race they signed up for.
yes… at least advertise the distance. correctly.
as for IM choo… the 116 mile bike is valid for that ridiculous down stream water swim. then again… is this IM’s next move… downhill bike course and run courses??
I understand that RDs have valid issues making courses exactly as the overall branding advertises and I see valid reasons for designing courses that fit the logistics and the terrain, but I think all RDs, not just WTC, should provide accurate measurements of the course distances in the pre and post race materials including maps, results and news releases. No excuse for that other than what others have written, that they purposely want to allow athletes to brag about PRs that really weren’t PRs.
True, but why oh why do work care what others “brag” about? How does it impacted their lifes? Man, if this is truely all they have to worry about, …
There seems to be something ironic here, but I just can’t put my finger on it …
Or, and this is just a pipe dream here, simply advertise the correct course distances.
Sometimes, there are valid barriers to making the distances exactly perfect. I get that. Just don’t hide it. Be transparent about the race you have organized. If anybody bitches, that’s on them for complaining about doing the race they signed up for.
+1, just tell us the distance
Ad Muncher
I did 3 70.3s last year and according to my Garmin (and other people’s) all of the runs were short, it doesn’t really bother me because I take it for what it is. In my opinion you can’t really compare triathlon results from one event to another or even the same event from year to year, and it does bug me though when people big themselves up and say they got a half marathon PB etc. when they ran 20.x kilometres.
I don’t why they don’t make more of an effort to make the distances correct. I can understand on some courses that it’s just not practical to have an accurate run, however it I don’t get it when they could have just moved a turn-around cone a few meters down the road to make the distance correct.
Interesting this year that Austria and Roth, the 2 most prolific “world record” courses on the circuit have both sorted out their run courses so that they are no longer a good half mile short. Austria has also extended its bike course so that it’s now only a mile short instead of the 2 miles it was. So it can be done with imagination and hard work - and I doubt whether either of those 2 races will be any less popular because of it.
Interesting this year that Austria and Roth, the 2 most prolific “world record” courses on the circuit have both sorted out their run courses so that they are no longer a good half mile short. Austria has also extended its bike course so that it’s now only a mile short instead of the 2 miles it was. So it can be done with imagination and hard work - and I doubt whether either of those 2 races will be any less popular because of it.
I did Roth this year and I don’t think “fast” was the first priority when designing the course - there’s a decent size hill that you need to climb and descend on both laps.
For sure… I’d also add making a bike course exactly 56 or 112 isn’t as easy as you think on some courses without making some strange course mods… that might create some more turns, odd little out and back, etc.
I think triathletes should work a race or two to get an appreciation for what goes on to make the events function.
For sure… I’d also add making a bike course exactly 56 or 112 isn’t as easy as you think on some courses without making some strange course mods… that might create some more turns, odd little out and back, etc.
I think triathletes should work a race or two to get an appreciation for what goes on to make the events function.
yeah. I’m not sure why some people don’t get that. I’m surprised when a course is pretty close to dead on accurate. It’s not like you can move roads.
Or, and this is just a pipe dream here, simply advertise the correct course distances.
Sometimes, there are valid barriers to making the distances exactly perfect. I get that. Just don’t hide it. Be transparent about the race you have organized. If anybody bitches, that’s on them for complaining about doing the race they signed up for.
I agree. For example, Savageman to my knowledge has never pretended to be a 70.3 race. They have always said 70.0. (Yes, I know it isn’t branded-and thank goodness for that). There are other independent races that say their exact distance as well. It seems that IM is the only one who won’t admit that a race isn’t 140.6 or 70.3. Do they have those trademarked or something?
I raced Boulder on Saturday, and had heard the course was 2 miles short. Honestly started to think they fixed it as my watch was in synch with the mile makers up to mile 50, then the course ended quickly.
This was technically a PR for me, but that is not something I broadcast to the world. When asked about my bike split I have been open in saying it was 2 miles short.
That being said, the run course is about 6-10 minutes “slow”, so I think that makes up for the 2.5-3 minutes you gain with the shorter bike.
I would love the course to be 70.3, but given the difficulty of that run I certainly don’t feel like I was cheated out of a tough test