Hard in the Paint wrote:
Avocado's Number you are all over any race that is net downhill here.
Not bashing or trolling, just wondering why you are so vocal about (against?) courses with net downhills.
Yes, I am very vocal about downhill courses, but only when times on such courses are accorded some significance that isn't warranted. If a race of undetermined distance happens to be downhill (as was the case for the Boston marathon many years ago), it's not a big deal to me, because people aren't generally comparing times on that course against things like world records, qualifying standards for championship races, or times on other courses. It's the same for uphill races, like the Pikes Peak Ascent or the Mt. Washington road race. Times on those courses aren't generally compared against qualifying standards or times on other courses; people understand that finishing times on those courses generally have little significance except when compared with other finishing times on the same course.
What really bothers me is when a race at a specific distance is placed on a downhill course for the purpose of embellishing performance at that distance. Physiologically and functionally, a downhill course over a specified distance is very similar (although not, of course, identical) to a flat course that is shorter than the specified distance. Yet many people (at least, in the U.S. running community) who would be outraged to discover that a race is shorter than advertised have no problem with a race that, by virtue of its net elevation loss, is very similar to a short course in its effect on finishing time. In fact, many people actually seek out downhill courses, precisely because such courses permit one to record times that are comparable to times on short courses, but without the same stigma.
An extreme case of this is, of course, the St. George Marathon. Although some people have suggested that, when things like elevation and relative energy demands for uphill and downhill running are taken into account, times on the St. George Marathon should be about the same as times on a flat sea-level loop marathon course, it is clear, as an empirical matter, that runners commonly cover the 26.2 miles of that race in an amount of time during which they could cover only about 25 miles on a flat sea-level course. So why do so many people take the long journey across hundreds or thousands of miles to St. George, Utah, when they could just run 25 miles in their home town? We all know the answer.
CIM is a much less extreme case than St. George. But, like St. George, CIM was specifically designed and continues to be marketed as a race on a course that, because of its net downhill layout, is conducive to times that are faster than could be achieved on an unaided course. Why not just shorten the course by a couple hundred meters, or run the race in the opposite direction or on an unaided course? Again, we all know the answer. People ascribe a certain significance to the time that it takes to cover 26 miles plus 385 yards, and for most people, the shorter the time the better.
Although I'm outspoken on this subject, I'm hardly alone in my views. In fact, the idea of seeking out downhill courses to record fast times for specific distances, as well as the marketing of races to satisfy that consumer demand, seems largely (though not exclusively) a phenomenon peculiar to the U.S. running community. And as far as I'm aware, the IAAF has been fairly good about resisting the pressure to accommodate that demand by relaxing course standards for record and qualifying purposes.
Oh, and I do appreciate your comment that you are not "bashing or trolling." Thanks for asking. :)