Did Huddersfield on Saturday morning, my 15th different parkrun event. Good little course, 2 laps with a wee bit at the start to stretch the field, light undulations and turns and some criss-crossy under/over bridges and tunnels sections that I haven't encountered anywhere else yet. Good standard too, 19.29 got me 22nd out of 300+, that would be top 5 in some I've run. I'd put it in my top 5 parkrun courses. Going to knock Burnley, Congleton and Delamere off next.
Last edited by sevendaughters; 19-03-2013 at 06:04 PM.
7D, 15 courses in 29 outings, with 10 venues run sub-20, now that's some consistent and dare I say it, destructive, touring! Well done.Originally Posted by sevendaughters
Interesting to see that your Oldham time (dry weather?) is faster than your Platts time (wet Xmas/New Year weather?).
Mine (both dry times) are the reverse, so logic says that you have a sub-19 in the tank on the Flat at Platt in the dry one spring day.
Last edited by OB1; 21-03-2013 at 02:13 AM.
Good time to do Platt Fields is Jul / Aug when the majority of the students are away. It's tricky not to get boxed in at the start on that one!
Amen to this. That said Platt Fields is technically my nearest these days (though not easiest to get to) and it's where I first broke 20 mins so I'll always have an affinity for it.
Interesting - power of 10 now quote parkruns separately, i.e. They don't count as 5k's on po10. This includes past results. Would love to know what the thinking is behind this change.
The Power of 10 does not include ARC affiliated races either John but that is an entirely different issue.
Talking to the organisers of Burnage parkrun a couple of weeks ago it was explained to me that the powers behind the power of ten don't believe that parkruns are suitably rigorously timed or marshalled compared to real races.
From what I have seen at the parkruns I have attended, I disagree entirely with their opinion on this. In my opinion some of the parkruns are organised to a higher degree of accuracy than the supposed 'real' races.
PS - Witton will know more about this but there might be an issue with measured versus certified.
Apparently anything that is measured is said to have an error (for arguement's sake say plus or minus 0.05km). What a certified course does however is add in a correction factor (in this case 0.05km) so that the "real" distance is 5.00km-5.10km rather than 4.95km-5.05km.
A course certifier will use one of those wheel things and ensure that the course is measured via the shortest route. Therefore nobody (in theory) can run the race in anything less than 5.00km. I guess this is why "certified" courses are often called "long" by runners...it is just the nature of certified road races...
God knows how the old Radcliffe 5K was ever certified though
I knew it was coming, but didn't realise they were applying it to certified parkrun courses as well! That's going to upset a lot of people.. although it has put me in the all-time ranking section all of a sudden!
This will certainly put runners off one or both of (a) parkrun and (b) Powerof10
(b) they have already been pursuing with every means available :angry:
It's a bit weird really, 5k is 5k so I don't see what the problem is. I'm not really that bothered these days, they often don't put fell races on easily enough anyway so I don't tend to look at the site that often.
Wonder if its to support UKA insured, non-parkrun 5k's by excluding parkrun results,
Any parkrun that has paid for certification will, as you say, not be happy! Good to see you Saturday John.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote