Philly RnR Half Short?

devils advocate432 wrote:

this is ridiculous wrote:

I can continue to add to the list if you still doubt it:

Kenneth Foster: PR 65:32 ran 66:09

Gian Paul Caccia: PR 64:46 ran 66:03

Abebe Yimer ran 1:17:43 for a 25K race in 2010 (US champs) that converts to going through the half marathon right around 1:05:30 and he ran 66:37.

Sage Canaday ran 65:51 at disney half ran 66:42 here.

Some people PR'ed, sure. But like I said temps were great and competition was great. Look at the PR's of the top 50 or so, pretty legit.

without knowing much about this thread or course, I can 100% tell you that the above poster is 100% trying to defend their "big pr" by only picking a small set of data. Try being objective jerk.

No sorry I didn't run philly, I just had a lot of friends that ran it, and like I said, most ran slower than their PR's. And I am being objective, I am looking up all the PR's I can find. I can't find your 1:45 minute half so I don't include it in my data.

nationnation wrote:

I smell a Nike conspiracy. I had a buddy who's friend's sister said she heard "someone" (lets say his initials may be Adam Goucher) felt he could run 12.73 mile in under 1:05. Thus Philly RnR was 12.73 miles.

Is this what this thread is really all about?

Makes you wonder how many different individuals have actually posted in this thread.

This thread is quite a solid troll effort.

Jackry wrote:

This thread is quite a solid troll effort.

Well at least it ended all the panty pissing about Solinsky's picture!

Jackry wrote:

This thread is quite a solid troll effort.

I'll call my friend who is a race official tomorrow to see if something really happened out there. He indicated there was an 'issue' on twitter but didn't say what it was..

origninal wrote:

lolz I ran a 5 minute PR and trained less. It was short

Congrats of your PR and discovering a better training method, but I seriously doubt a one of world'd premeir half marathons is short. Also a course that has been used for decades, has been run by the best in the workd and has never produced world record.

20 degrees cooler, and 80 percent less humidity than this normal date on a super flat course that has been run thousands of times. Best day for this run anyone will see in a few decades. Good choice for anyone trying to P.R. in the midatlantic. This is no stansbury track.

If the race was short it wouldn't be like every mile was actually 1550m. there would probably be one turn that was messed up. Post your splits and let's see if one mile was unusually fast for everyone

Maegan Krifchin 1:11:04???

wi|fredo wrote:

If the race was short it wouldn't be like every mile was actually 1550m. there would probably be one turn that was messed up. Post your splits and let's see if one mile was unusually fast for everyone

This is the correct answer. IF the course was short, it's ridiculous to think that EACH MILE was ~20 meters short. Much more likely than just one part of the course was wrong.

If all of these Garminators indeed noted the course to be about 300m short, presumably they also noted one mile split being ONE MINUTE faster than their race pace? They were wearing Garmins, after all?

Which mile was it, Garminators?

Yeah this is definitely a troll attempt, especially if you are basing your thoughts off a garmin.

Go to the facebook page of the RnR half. You will see about 50 posts of people complaining that their garmin read 13.3-13.5.

runnbiker wrote:

Last year, 100th place was 1:15:49, this year it was it was 1:12:08. How many half marathons in the world put 100 people at or under 1:12?

I can think of at least 3 in Japan.

this is ridiculous wrote:

And I am being objective, I am looking up all the PR's I can find.

If you're looking up all the PRs you can find, why are they all coming out slower? At least a few people you're picking should have run PRs. Looks like you're being pretty selective.

You must have missed my first post. Most of the times there were faster at Philly.

noticer of things wrote:

this is ridiculous wrote:

And I am being objective, I am looking up all the PR's I can find.

If you're looking up all the PRs you can find, why are they all coming out slower? At least a few people you're picking should have run PRs. Looks like you're being pretty selective.

clowns, this is not a major race with a lot of history. This is a race that is 2 years old run by a bunch of suits. The race with a lot of history was the Philadelphia Distance Run. That course was different as I pulled an exert of what I read about the new course once ROCK N ROLL DUDE took over. I think if any part got messed up, I would check betwene miles 1 and 2, on the map that looks iffy. (The course: The most noticeable change in the course was the reverse running of Kelly Drive and Martin Luther King Drive. In addition, the finish line was moved to directly in front of the Art Museum, very close to where it is located for the Philadelphia Marathon finish. This finish along with the reverse course allowed for less question marks and curse words in trying to locate the finish in the final half mile. In the past, runners ran up Eakins Oval and made a turn around to finish with the Art Museum directly ahead of them.)

bunch of clowns in this thread wrote:

Is this thread for serious? Is it an import from runnersworld? A couple of things:

-This is a major race with a lot of history. The course is (obviously) USATF certified. Anyone that thinks it is short is a complete ninny.

-You wore your garmin? To a race? Really? Gee, it was off giving readings in the city. How unexpected.

-The weather was perfect. Of course times are going to be faster than usual. Weather plays a huge role in long races. Notice the opposite effect when its 80+ degrees for the Chicago marathon.

Again, to those saying it was short, WHERE was it short? The posts here suggest that it was 300-400 meters short.

So, which of your mile splits was over 1:00 faster than your others? If there is agreement on that, and if it coincides with the above posters' thoughts on the course changes, this is worth discussion. If not, go away.

Or do you really think that the course was just somehow 20-30 meters short in each and every mile?

There was no mile on the course that was significantly faster than the rest. They were all the same for me. The course was not short at all. Garmins are never right!

This:"It is one thing to measure (and certify) a course, and another to set it up exactly as defined on race day."

johnnyb1610 wrote:

Why didn't this end the thread? "USATF certified"

Garmin prone to errors when it's been shoved in your annoying ass