3M Half Marathon Results

So if you run a PR on Boston's course you would not count it as a PR?

I hope Teddy is planning on running more than just a half come Feb. 7.

= wrote:

So if you run a PR on Boston's course you would not count it as a PR?

Whenever anyone points out the absurdity of these downhill events that are designed solely for the purpose of producing fraudulent PRs, someone brings up Boston. Yes, I have run Boston. Yes, I did run faster at Boston than I had previously run in any other marathon, aided or not, by about six-and-a-half minutes. (I ran faster on loop courses in later years.) And yes, when the temperature is right and the wind is blowing in the right direction, Boston is an aided course that produces times that are faster than what many of those runners could do on a legitimate loop course. Boston is taken seriously on an international level because of its long history, not because of the legitimacy of its times. None of what I have said, by the way, is meant to suggest that good runners never run some of these other downhill events. But it is hard for me to respect any runner who would actually list times from these events as PRs.

Maybe it was put a little harshly by the poster but it's true. Unless a roadrace course of any advertised distance is USATF certified, you can't count it as a legitimate PR. The Vegas half is not certifiable. Nor is the Great Race 10K in Pittsburgh, PA, the St. George (Utah) Marathon, which is at negligible altitude as is Las Vegas.

To the upset of many, even the Boston Marathon doesn't meet the USATF certification criteria (I may have some of the particulars wrong by a wee bit): To be eligible for USATF certification, a course must be an accurately measured loop course that finishes at a point less than 30% of the total race distance from the start, and it must drop no more than one foot per mile.

Personally, Unless it was on a track I wouldn't consider it my PR. Obviously, that can't be done for a marathon & 1/2, so it would need to be what I considered a fair course. Courses with huge elevation drops have an unfair advantage over those without, thus 'I' wouldn't consider a PR from such a course. From my knowledge of courses, which is average, I believe Boston to be fair. That's why I listed it as a course I would run along with NY & Chicago. There are many more that are fair in my eyes, I just listed a few that seemed obvious each way. No need for me to pretend to be something I'm not. I hold, nor have ever held a world record, so I am like so many others, trying to be as fast as possible, fairly. No drugs, no cutting courses, no short courses, no downhill courses, no tag team, no conversions, etc.

I'm just arguing for discussion sake, I totally agree with the downhill courses not counting as PRs.

One Keg wrote:

Maybe it was put a little harshly by the poster but it's true. Unless a roadrace course of any advertised distance is USATF certified, you can't count it as a legitimate PR. The Vegas half is not certifiable. Nor is the Great Race 10K in Pittsburgh, PA, the St. George (Utah) Marathon, which is at negligible altitude as is Las Vegas.

To the upset of many, even the Boston Marathon doesn't meet the USATF certification criteria (I may have some of the particulars wrong by a wee bit): To be eligible for USATF certification, a course must be an accurately measured loop course that finishes at a point less than 30% of the total race distance from the start, and it must drop no more than one foot per mile.

You can't use Boston, net down hill, also, no fluid replacement, no gu, ....just messin with you now!!

training run wrote:

1:04:26? Sounds like a long tempo run for a well trained runner shooting for 2:09 at the trials.

Oh come on now! Teddy won't shoot for 2:09 unless they let him ride a moped or a souped up version one of those supermarket shopping carts for old folks! He might be able to run 30K at that pace but not a single step further! A fine runner and a fine young man, but no worldbeater!

That said, if he's capable of 2:13 or so, 1:04:26 off the 3M cliff mightn't have been a horribly taxing effort!

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAW!

Where is Andrew Letherby from? USA?

a condescending (although not descending) bitch.

Aussie

Letherby is an Aussie who ran for Georgia State and trains in Boulder a fair bit.

One Keg wrote:

To be eligible for USATF certification, a course must be an accurately measured loop course that finishes at a point less than 30% of the total race distance from the start, and it must drop no more than one foot per mile.

I think you have some of the particulars wrong! I think it may drop no more than one meter per kilometer which is right around 5 feet 3 1/2 inches per mile or one Muggsy Bogues! Tough crowd!

HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAW!

Chub - that is just plain ignorant. People travel from all over to run Boston (480 feet net drop) - are they all thinking PR? St. George, Tuscon or Steamtown offer unique courses - but not always a fast time. The second half of Tucson offered almost 80 degree temperatures to its surviving runners this past year - surely not ideal for good times? Do you think the best distance runners in the world travel to Lisbon in March only to run 1/2 PRs. They love to run very fast, but also for the money and good timing in their preparations. 3M is held at such a time in the year when people are gearing up for Motorola as well. They are well prepared and the course gives them the confidence to go for it. Motorola is also a net downhill course - it is very fast, but I think a lot of the runners come because Austin is a cool place to be, it usually offers good weather in February. The course record is still "only" 2:11 and some damn good runners have run it.

For info purposes - the 3M course:

Miles 1-2 - gradual uphill

Mile 3 - downhill then uphill

Miles 4-5 - good downhill stretch, except climb over highway at right at mile 5

Mile 6-8 - flat, but exposed to wind

Mile 9 - slightly uphill

mile 10-10.5 - downhill, especially towards the end

mile 10.5-11 - significant climb (>100 ft)

mile 11-12 - relatively flat

mile 12-12.5 - sharp uphill to final stretch

mile 12.5-13.1 - downhill

Give people credit when they run PRs and encourage them to strive for further improvement, don't question their efforts.

I have a hunch that you're the same person who, in an earlier thread, talked about the stiff headwind at the 2003 Motorola Marathon (which, despite the alleged headwind, still managed to produce a 2:12++ from a runner who has never broken 2:20 on a loop course).

If you want to run downhill courses, fine. But don't delude yourself (or mislead others) about the significance of the times that are recorded in these events.

impressed, We simply disagree. I share your view of Boston. As for the other courses, you sound like many runners I know who are trying to convince themselves. "Hey, there's hill in mile 6" "It was hot last year" "We had a side wind in '97" Why lie? I don't believe the best runners go to aided courses for this reason, and I'm sure many go for reasons you state. However, I feel confident that many wanna-be's go looking to produce a fradulent time in which they will rationalize for themselves. I absolutely give everyone, regardless of their PR, credit for trying, but I also realize 'aided' when I see it.

impressed wrote:

They are well prepared and the course gives them the confidence to go for it. THIS IS MY POINT! Motorola is also a net downhill course - it is very fast, but I think a lot of the runners come because Austin is a cool place to be, it usually offers good weather in February. AGREED! DO YOU THINK IT WOULD DO THE SAME IF RUN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION?

Give people credit when they run PRs and encourage them to strive for further improvement, don't question their efforts.

I ALWAYS DO! I NEVER QUESTION EFFORT. I DO QUESTION AIDED, WHETHER DRUGS, CUTTING THE COURSE, OR OTHER AIDS SUCH AS NET DOWNHILL.

All good points here, with one exception. How can one person sit at a keyboard and call every performance on a particular course "fraudulent"? Net downhill? Yes. Aided course? By definition, yes. But fraudulent (please note this correct spelling)? Takes a lot of nerve to throw such a negative spin on every entrant in a race. Shows disrespect to every runner, volunteer, organizer, and sponsor associated with the event. I feel like saying a lot of mean and nasty things, but again, the course is aided, so the point is well taken. The presentation just leaves very much to be desired.

Teddy will lead the race at 20 miles ,drop back at 22,Like he did at Twin Cities and Grandmas.

2.13 is he the best he can do.

Sorry, I must've skipped over the word fraudulent. Please help me out, but will have to think if it applies. Now I do know for a fact that I worded things so that there was no mistake in thinking that 'Every Entrant' was a negative. Maybe this is defensiveness? I can't answer for you. Those who parade these courses as their PR without qualifying it was on an aided course, probably is potentially fraudulent, in my eyes. Maybe we should run Montgomery and Greene over a 3 meter downhill slope and tell the Brits that they are simply disrespecting us. Sorry for an honest, no sugar opinion. We are all winners! Is that what you desire?