A marathon is advertised as 42.195 kilometres. A watch may show more at the finish, but that difference alone is not enough to indicate an error in the course measurement. The official distance and a participant’s route answer two separate questions: what is the shortest permitted route, and which route did this runner actually take? Behind the event’s stated distance is a measurement method and a set of precise conditions.
A wheel, a counter and a known distance
The manual published in 2023 by World Athletics and the Association of International Marathons and Distance Races, AIMS, describes the calibrated bicycle method. A counter attached to the wheel records units of rotation. To convert them into distance, the measurer rides over a base of known length and then compares the readings.
The work does not stop after one circuit of the course. It includes calibration before measurement, a further check afterwards, calculation of the length, any necessary adjustments and documentation of the course. The positions of the start and finish, and the limits accessible to runners, are part of this description.
The route used is the shortest possible one within those limits. The manual also provides for a 0.1% short-course prevention factor. This is a precaution built into the measurement, not a promise that every personal device will show exactly the figure given by the organiser.
The runner does not follow a theoretical line
In a technical article published by AIMS in April 2009, Hugh Jones explains the difference between measuring a race and measuring a person’s movement. Taking a bend more widely, going around other participants or changing sides means deviating from the shortest route.
His geometric example is striking: taking a U-turn with a radius five metres greater adds about sixteen metres. This difference comes from the route taken, even before the accuracy of an instrument is considered. On a race with several changes of direction, the official course therefore cannot automatically be equated with the line followed by each runner.
This older explanation remains useful for understanding the geometry of a course. It is not a test of watches sold in 2026. To examine a particular discrepancy, it would be necessary to know the route actually taken, the measuring device and the race layout on that day.
A measured course may not qualify for a record
AIMS’ current technical page adds an essential distinction: accurate measurement is not enough to make every performance eligible as a world record. The course profile and layout also matter.
For a performance to be eligible, the difference in altitude between the start and finish must not represent a drop of more than one metre per kilometre. The straight-line distance between these two points must not exceed half the race distance. These criteria are intended in particular to limit the advantage of a course that is excessively downhill or favourable to a tailwind.
AIMS therefore specifies that all its road races are measured by accredited measurers, but that not all meet the record criteria. An event may have a reliable distance and a geography that places it in a different regulatory category.
Checks may go beyond the certificate
The US federation USA Track & Field also distinguishes between certification and record eligibility. Its outline of the procedures provides for a check to require a further expert measurement, before or after the event. For its road championships, it specifies a pre-race check. These are US procedures, illustrating that there can be several stages of checking.
When reading a result, three pieces of information should therefore be kept separate: the certified distance, the course actually laid out and the eligibility conditions for the record in question. A remarkable time does not lose its interest because the event does not fall into this last category; it simply needs to be presented with the right qualification.
Sources
- World Athletics and AIMS: Road Race Course Measurement Manual, 2023 edition.
- AIMS: Course measurement and record criteria.
- Hugh Jones for AIMS: The Long Run, 1 April 2009.
- USA Track & Field: Course certification and verification.
Sources consulted on 20 October 2026.






