2013 University of Georgia Invitational 2013
09/02/2013 7:19:09 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
The Mercer coach ran the course with a Garmin and it was 3.41 miles
The Mercer coach ran the course with a Garmin and it was 3.41 miles
09/02/2013 7:31:15 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 677
GPS just isn't accurate and shouldn't be used to measure courses. Here is a good article written by Jason Byrne http://fl.milesplit.com/articles/52499#.UiUe8hY1B68 Near the end of the article "The result is that a consumer-grade GPS device will consistently read significantly longer than the actual distance. GPS is a good place to start. It is a good guide. And it is a good training tool. But when you are trying to do official course measure it is not accurate enough to rely on." Not making a statement on the actual length of the UGA course. I didn't wheel it.
GPS just isn't accurate and shouldn't be used to measure courses. Here is a good article written by Jason Byrne

http://fl.milesplit.com/articles/52499#.UiUe8hY1B68

Near the end of the article
"The result is that a consumer-grade GPS device will consistently read significantly longer than the actual distance. GPS is a good place to start. It is a good guide. And it is a good training tool. But when you are trying to do official course measure it is not accurate enough to rely on."

Not making a statement on the actual length of the UGA course. I didn't wheel it.
09/02/2013 7:45:50 PM
Power User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 495
The debate about courses measured with GPS watches is of great debate ever since the technology was employed. Just so that everyone is completely knowledgeable. GPS techonology in watches is an imperfect science and one should not expect these watches to calculate EXACT distance ever and certainly not under imperfect conditions (buildings, tree cover, less than 5 satellites available, etc). I'd bet, that if the gentleman who ran the UGA course had immediately proceeded to run it 5 more times in a row, his watch would have reported 5 slightly different results. Also please remember that properly designed courses (especially road races that are officially certified) are measured at the tangents of the absolutely shortest course it is possible to run, which is nearly never possible to run during racing conditions. Furthermore, road race courses that are certified, by very strict requirements, actually make their courses a tiny bit LONG to insure the course is AT LEAST the advertised distance or the course is not eligible to be considered for records. I have no knowledge of the UGA course. It could be 5 miles long for all I know, but please don't think, that just because someone with a fancy watch ran the course and found a distance other than 3.10685 miles that the course was measured inaccurately or that its was 3.4 miles long. If very well might have been 3.4 miles in length, but I wouldn't bet a nickel on that distance based upon one GPS measurement.
The debate about courses measured with GPS watches is of great debate ever since the technology was employed. Just so that everyone is completely knowledgeable. GPS techonology in watches is an imperfect science and one should not expect these watches to calculate EXACT distance ever and certainly not under imperfect conditions (buildings, tree cover, less than 5 satellites available, etc). I'd bet, that if the gentleman who ran the UGA course had immediately proceeded to run it 5 more times in a row, his watch would have reported 5 slightly different results.

Also please remember that properly designed courses (especially road races that are officially certified) are measured at the tangents of the absolutely shortest course it is possible to run, which is nearly never possible to run during racing conditions. Furthermore, road race courses that are certified, by very strict requirements, actually make their courses a tiny bit LONG to insure the course is AT LEAST the advertised distance or the course is not eligible to be considered for records.

I have no knowledge of the UGA course. It could be 5 miles long for all I know, but please don't think, that just because someone with a fancy watch ran the course and found a distance other than 3.10685 miles that the course was measured inaccurately or that its was 3.4 miles long. If very well might have been 3.4 miles in length, but I wouldn't bet a nickel on that distance based upon one GPS measurement.
09/02/2013 8:31:26 PM
Power User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 835
Read his username...a troll. 3.4m would make it nearly 2min long for an 18:30 runner. Troll!
Read his username...a troll.

3.4m would make it nearly 2min long for an 18:30 runner. Troll!
09/02/2013 9:10:43 PM
Coach
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
The Mercer Coach did not run the course with a GPS and did not give a distance for the course either. FYI
The Mercer Coach did not run the course with a GPS and did not give a distance for the course either. FYI
09/02/2013 9:58:56 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
@coachb1542 that's just what I heard. Several runners ran significantly slower than usual
@coachb1542 that's just what I heard. Several runners ran significantly slower than usual
09/03/2013 9:42:55 AM
User
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1
Obviously the course was long. I ran it and it felt a lot longer than a regular 3.1 mile race.
Obviously the course was long. I ran it and it felt a lot longer than a regular 3.1 mile race.
09/03/2013 9:51:49 AM
User
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2
@Tharealslimnatey I agree with you. The course felt way longer. Also my time was slower than usual and it felt like I was on pace for a faster time then what I actually ran there.
@Tharealslimnatey I agree with you. The course felt way longer. Also my time was slower than usual and it felt like I was on pace for a faster time then what I actually ran there.
09/03/2013 11:19:04 AM
Coach
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 65
@TheRunningTroll No problem. I just don't want inaccurate info out there. One of my runners did measure with a Garmin (yes, I know that is not reliable) and thought the course was slightly long. disregarding the gps / length of the course issue, I think it is clear that something was awry. It was consistent across my roster that everyone ran from 35 secs to 1 minute slower than I expected. That is unusual and indicates something other than lack of fitness as the culprit.
@TheRunningTroll No problem. I just don't want inaccurate info out there. One of my runners did measure with a Garmin (yes, I know that is not reliable) and thought the course was slightly long. disregarding the gps / length of the course issue, I think it is clear that something was awry. It was consistent across my roster that everyone ran from 35 secs to 1 minute slower than I expected. That is unusual and indicates something other than lack of fitness as the culprit.
09/03/2013 1:51:54 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 31
@coachb1542 I don't think it was actually 3.41.
@coachb1542 I don't think it was actually 3.41.

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.