When officially measured by a governing body such as USAT&F, a marathon is exactly 42.2 (or 42.195) and as I understand that is by the shortest route, which is the tangential measurement through corners, etc.
Even by said standard method of measurement (the tangents to the shortest route through the navigable course) – I would be very willing to bet that Roth measure’s short today. I would guess, based on certain results this year and in other years and on information that I know from having worked for the organization (and no, I am not feeling sour grapes), the distance would not match up to by a measurement wheel, GPS or other said-to-be exacting measure of 225.995 or close to it.
I wonder what it would cost to pay an independent person to go out and follow the course as listed in the official race program/athletes’ guide, and get a distance.
I heard an interview with Stadler where he said the run course was around 500m short. At the speeds those guys are running, that’s only 2-3 minutes, maximum. I think the real question is the bike course. I’ve heard it’s as much as five miles short. I just don’t understand why there needs to be this air of secrecy around it. “Is it short or not?” Couldn’t someone just measure it and end the debate?
He (macca) can break the course record, and that’s if the course hasen’t changed, becuase the course has been different in the past. My guess is that it is not even the same course that it was when all those guys went 7:50+… I measured the bike in the old days there, and it was about 107 to 109 miles…Our sport just doesn’t lend itself to timed world records as it stands right now…
I went and found a quote Monty posted here last week…
I think it’s probably a combination of a few things that make the course short.
When I raced it in 2001 (the last year it was an official IM) they had us leave the road and follow a paved path around a field due to road construction. I don’t know how much the detour added to the regular course, but my bike computer had it at just over 180k total. The winning time that year was around 8:10 though so maybe the crappy weather and an extra couple of kms on the bike had some influence on it.
Every year this discussion comes up and it always has the same result. People who have done the course will say they measured it and it is right on, or at the most the tiniest bit off. And folks on the outside will say that the course is short in various ways.
I have been to Roth a couple times but have never raced it, but even if I had raced it I wouldn’t know how long the race course is. The race is nicely organized and has an amazing atmosphere and is well worth visiting.
Actually, when a marathon course is measured by USATF, there’s usually a correction factor and it’s going to be longer than 26.2 miles.
When officially measured by a governing body such as USAT&F, a marathon is exactly 42.2 (or 42.195) and as I understand that is by the shortest route, which is the tangential measurement through corners, etc.
My personal experience (Roth 5 times) is that it is as accurate as any other course. In fact my times there are always quite similar to my IMC times.
You have several factors including the best crowds in the world, a competitive and very deep field even if we don’t know all the names here, gerenally not harsh weather, running a good part on a forgiving surface, and the organizers put up big bucks, etc.
Since it’s pretty hard to perfectly measure the shortest possible course, especially for longer races, the certifier measures the shortest possible course and then adds a little extra, usually 0.1% of the distance. This helps ensure that the course will absolutely not be short, even if small errors were made in the initial measurement.
is it being questioned because of the amount of time the winners and top five~ten took to complete it? Didn’t Mark Allen try to break 8:00 there one year? I doubt the organizers would go on for years without remeasuring their course, or knowing it’s short and not disclosing it.