why do you say these things wrote:
When did Jennings run a 2:20 marathon?
12/4/05 2:19:39
why do you say these things wrote:
When did Jennings run a 2:20 marathon?
12/4/05 2:19:39
Runnster wrote:
Like most canny race directors the man in charge at CIM has a very compressed course profile on his website making it look like CIM is a screaming fast downhill course from start to finish. In reality its mostly flat and rolling with 90% of the small elevation drop in the first 2-3 miles a bit like Boston.
Wrong. CIM has a net drop of 15% in the first 2 miles. From 2.5 to 4 miles, 28% drop. Rolling hils from 4 to 10, a net drop of zero. From the 10 mile mark all the way to the finish, 57% of the elevation drop is spread out evenly.
why do you say these things wrote:
When did Jennings run a 2:20 marathon?
December, 2005.
http://www.runnersworld.com/cda/daily_news/0,5039,0-0-0-0----12-05-2005,00.htmlGabe Jenning's Marathon Debut
Sunday's California International Marathon was a lesson in running hard through the finish for seasoned runner Violetta Kryza of Poland who led from mile 3 to 500m before the finish line, only to be passed by Elena Orlova of Russia who won in 2:37:38. In the men's race Sergey Fedotov of Russia used his experience to pass first-time marathoner, the flamboyant Gabe Jennings, at the 24-mile mark, beating the trackster 2:18:30 to 2:19:32.
Troy Papas wrote:
I imagine gabe didn't focus all his time on the 800 either.
Most people don't focus on the National Championships do they?
1998 USATFF
New Orleans, June 21
1. Mark Everett (PBar) 1:45.28
2. Johnny Gray (SMTC) 1:45.47
3. Trinity Townsend (AATC) 1:45.75
4. Trinity Gray (Brown) 1:46.04
5. Khadevis Robinson (TCU) 1:46.10
6. Gabe Jennings (Stan) 1:46.99
7. Bryan Woodward (ReebE) 1:47.73
8. Brandon Rock (Nik) 1:50.81
BTW, Jennings PR is 1:46.83, in 2001.
Avocado's Number wrote:
Bryce wrote:Didn't he do it at CIM? I thought course was just relatively flat, not net down hill? You are saying it was "wind-aided"?
It's a pretty significant net downhill. Not as crazy downhill as Austin, Steamtown, St. George, or Tucson, but nowhere close to the standards for a record-quality course. What's it worth in time? Who knows? I'd guess something over one minute, but probably less than two minutes, assuming that there are no strong tailwinds or headwinds.
It has less of a net downhill than Boston. Do you consider Boston an unfair course?
Urban Legend wrote:
Wrong. CIM has a net drop of 15% in the first 2 miles. From 2.5 to 4 miles, 28% drop. Rolling hils from 4 to 10, a net drop of zero. From the 10 mile mark all the way to the finish, 57% of the elevation drop is spread out evenly.
Figure your own percentages or did you get this from a source?
You Are Lost wrote:
Figure your own percentages or did you get this from a source?
Hello Mc, Fly?
Urban Legend wrote:
Runnster wrote:Like most canny race directors the man in charge at CIM has a very compressed course profile on his website making it look like CIM is a screaming fast downhill course from start to finish. In reality its mostly flat and rolling with 90% of the small elevation drop in the first 2-3 miles a bit like Boston.
Wrong. CIM has a net drop of 15% in the first 2 miles. From 2.5 to 4 miles, 28% drop. Rolling hils from 4 to 10, a net drop of zero. From the 10 mile mark all the way to the finish, 57% of the elevation drop is spread out evenly.
that profile is not accurate...as already stated. I've run CIM 3 times, I've run Chicago, Boston, Napa, Los Angeles, and London. Its a fair course.
Runnster wrote:
that profile is not accurate...as already stated.
You go girl.
It looks exactly like the course that I remember it being.
Urban Legend wrote:
Runnster wrote:that profile is not accurate...as already stated.
You go girl.
It looks exactly like the course that I remember it being.
Then you have a shitty memory.
You Are Lost wrote:
Then you have a shitty memory.
You have a creative memory. Thanks for the kind words.
No creativity here. CIM is a more difficult course then say Chicago without question.
Runnster wrote:
It has less of a net downhill than Boston. Do you consider Boston an unfair course?
Unfair to whom? If you're asking if it's a legitimate course for setting records, of course it isn't. If you're asking if you can run faster times at Boston than you can on a record-quality course, then it depends on the weather. When the temps are low and there's a strong tailwind, then -- contrary to what a lot of people (including at least a few pretty good runners) believe -- a reasonably well-trained runner (that is, someone who has trained his quads sufficiently to handle short downhill sections early in the race) will generally be able to run faster times on the Boston course than he can on a loop course.
If I were looking for a fast time, and I didn't care whether I ran it on a record-quality course, I still wouldn't ordinarily select Boston, because the weather is too unpredictable, and the course is quirky. CIM would be a better choice for reliably fast times, as would Austin or Steamtown. But I wouldn't ordinarily run any of those races if I were concerned about putting up a legitimate marathon mark. And when I look at times from any of those courses, I'll mentally adjust them. As I mentioned, I might ordinary add about one to two minutes to times recorded at CIM to get an approximation of an equivalent time on a fast record-quality course. I'd add more for times at Austin or Steamtown. For times recorded at Boston, it all depends on the weather. The times at Boston in 1975 were at least two minutes faster than equivalent performances on a fast record-quality course, whereas the times at Boston in 1976 were at least a few minutes slower than equivalent performances on a fast record-quality course.
To return to the topic of the thread, the guy who pointed out that Gabe ran his 2:20 (or whatever it was) on a downhill course was correct. Nobody should criticize him for pointing that out, especially where people are being sticklers about 800-meter times. What could Gabe do on a record-quality course? Who knows? Probably close to 2:20.
I have ran Chicago and CIM in 2:20 or quicker and I can 100% assure you that CIM was much harder than Chicago. If you can run good on a uphill/downhill course than CIM is the course for you. I am not a good down hill runner and that might have been most of my problem but if I want a fast time I will take Chicago over CIM, without a doubt. Not every runner is the same. I am a shuffler and the flatness of Chicago would allow me to do my thing. The up and down of CIM did not allow this.
Gabe is a freak of nature.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with me about.
Just out of curiosity, which course did you run a faster time on -- Chicago or CIM?
No sir wrote:
Gabe is a freak of nature.
Not quite, Gabe is a freak.
Urban Legend wrote:
Wrong. CIM has a net drop of 15% in the first 2 miles. From 2.5 to 4 miles, 28% drop. Rolling hils from 4 to 10, a net drop of zero. From the 10 mile mark all the way to the finish, 57% of the elevation drop is spread out evenly.
wow... you need to learn how to write...
i'm assuming you're trying to say that 15% of the total drop on the course occurs in the first 2 miles, etc.; NOT that the first two miles has a 15% elevation drop (in fact, looking at the graph, it's safe to say that the net drop in the first two miles is less than 1%)...
anyone that can go sub-2:20 at CIM can go sub-2:20 at chicago...
keep on hatin'...
haterade, anyone? wrote:
wow... you need to learn how to write...
i'm assuming you're trying to say that 15% of the total drop on the course occurs in the first 2 miles, etc.; NOT that the first two miles has a 15% elevation drop (in fact, looking at the graph, it's safe to say that the net drop in the first two miles is less than 1%)...
anyone that can go sub-2:20 at CIM can go sub-2:20 at chicago...
keep on hatin'...
Hating what? You need to learn to read. I was responding directly to another poster who said that In reality its mostly flat and rolling with 90% of the small elevation drop in the first 2-3 miles a bit like Boston.
The elevation drop was 50' out of 360' or 14.29%, not 90%. Sorry I was so sloppy with rounding.
If you promise to work on your reading and anger management, I'll promise to work on my rounding.
I believe that the weather was also not ideal for Gabe's run at CIM. I understand it was 32-33F at the start, up to about 40-42F by the time he finished. Not as bad as 85F, maybe, but definitely not ideal like 55F.
I'm not debating the fact that CIM is downhill, or that it should be counted for record purposes, but I would call his time that day very close to what he might run on a flat record-worthy course on a decent day.
I don't give a hoot what that hippie did. He is an idiot and a disgrace to Americans.