It is net dowhnhill but it's rolling hills in the beginning and end. The first part is actually uphill. The last ~6 miles is more like 0.9%-1% descent with lots of tiny uphills (going over bridges and coming up from underpasses). Also a lot of 90 degree turns in the later stages.
-
115
-
Peach Pit wrote:
hi I care! that's a super impressive run, how much is the 1800' of descent worth?
Trump won, cry more
Probably worth a 2:20 marathon
551 -
I know Riley he ran an aau record 9:14 3k at age 12 or 13 nu was running mpw at that age!
100 -
ITS THAT 7220 BABY! HOWS YOUR OXYGEN
111 -
holibka1 wrote:
Between those 3 I would pick San Diego State alll day. Some of the best weather in the world, the ocean, more people, more opportunity, amazing food and shopping, youll earn more money if you enter the job market there.
um, San Diego State hasn't had a Track and Field men's program since 1992...
90 -
Ackley wrote:
Peach Pit wrote:
hi I care! that's a super impressive run, how much is the 1800' of descent worth?
According to info on the website, the net loss is 1912 feet (with no uphills noticable on the elevation profile). The World Athletics limit is about 137 feet (or 42 meters) net loss over a marathon.
So the net drop is about 14 times the legal limit.
That's incorrect. I'm seeing about 1543 of elevation loss from start to finish (starts at 3833 ft and ends at 2290) as shown here:
1543 of elevation loss would benfit you about 4:43 (1.84 seconds per 10 feet of elevation loss accordig to JK) but there is some elevation gain at the start (goes up to 3982) and that is supposed to slow you down 2.4 seconds per 10 ft.
When you do it all together 2.4*(3982-3833)-(1.8*(3982-2290)= you get 268.8 second so just under 4:30. Now the altitude of the race would slow you down a bit. So it's at least equal to a 2:17 marathon.But those elevation formulas were made pre super shoes. I'll have to ask him if he thinks you can run faster downhill in the new shoes.
(I had a typo in here - It's 4:43 not 5:43.
This post was edited 1 day after it was posted.273 -
1800 feet of descent is worth about 10-20 seconds a mile depending on gait/stride length so easily 4-5 minutes
100 -
25:14 sounds more like a D1 800m runner who coach makes run cross country! However, Laramie is the highest D1 school in the nation which definitely must be helping Nedrow who is from Texas. But that 25:xx is definitely not reflective of a 2:12 marathon regardless of the downhill marathon in Tuscon.
He's either had a major breakthrough in Tuscon or hasn't performed well yet in college. Big disparity.
37 -
If you include the altitude of this race (3969) the 2:12:46 equates to 2:07:45 at sea level. The altitude will slow you down a bit. Don't know how to throw the grade adjustments of the downhills (1797 loss) and hills (260 gain) in there, but regardless it seems to be a pretty impressive performance by any means.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.93 -
Guy's he posted his marathon to strava, his GAP pace with hills/downhills was 5:09/mi compared to 5:04/mi without GAP. That makes it 5s/mi * 26.2 = 131s (2 minutes 11 seconds) total added. 2:12:47 + 2:11 = 2:14:58. Like a few others said on here, altitude plays a role as well. Highest altitude of the race per the Tucson Marathon course map is about 3,980 feet, and the lowest is about 2,290 feet. Taking the average of these 2 numbers we get 3,135 feet. Using the tinman altitude calc the 2:14:58 converts to 2:10:47 @ sea level, and using vdot calc it's 2:13:51 @ sea level. Regardless though, time is fast af.
170 -
Needscalcium wrote:
He’s an aerobic monster. Always has been. Has really impressive bike power and swim splits per Strava as well
Get this kid to triathlon then. Someone send him the USA triathlon elite development standards for collegiate athletes who excel at one of the disciplines. Also how is he doing this between seasons? Does he not run indoors?
Fwiw a lot of his race results probably come from altitude. 1800 feet is worth a good bit of time but it's still a strong effort. If you ran MP for 26.2 with a steady 70 ft./mile drop you'd probably be looking at 15-20s/mile. 2:20ish conversion. Dk what the weather was like. Any heat/wind & maybe it's worth a touch faster.
80 -
Screaming downhill wrote:
Super shoes + quads of steel on a super downhill course. This is probably about a 2:20 on a legit record eligible course like Chicago/Houston though.
that's a bit steep of an estimate. I'd say it's closer to 2:16-2:17. the Tucson course is not as downhill as you seem to think it is.
81 -
This quoted post has been removed.
Counterpoint: It's fun to run long for some people
91 -
Looking at his TFRRS it seems that his XC season was very average as was said earlier, though his 14:53 was at 5000’ elevation (14:22 at sea level) and it looks like he ran a 10k at La Verne last track season in 29:51 as a FR. Maybe the road and track is his thing. He may like the long game. Who knows. All runners progress differently to training and different stimulus.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.100 -
If he did this solo and just pacing off his garmin, then I would imagine he could go faster with a good pack? Still very impressive for doing this solo. What did the other times look like?
100 -
I am a 15-year-old who just ran on 129 at the Tucson half is that good?
56 -
yumblid164 wrote:
I am a 15-year-old who just ran on 129 at the Tucson half is that good?
Stay off this message board lol this is where you waste your 20s and 30s, just have fun
270 -
He ran faster than his 8K XC pace in a few of his races this past season. Either he had some terrible races or he's got no fast twitch at all.
His 8K pb at Joe Piane indicates he's more of a 2:27 guy. Obviosuly XC is slower than road, but he literally ran 42K faster than 8K pace for a couple races(Griak and MWCs).
Either he's a high mileage aerobic monster, or he needs a new XC coach.
120
2 posts were removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.