Stephanie did nyc in hoka's new carbon spring shoes (evo rocket) ask anyone who uses vaporflys how much easier their recovery tends to be
she tried to frontrun nyc for the first half, into the wind, so she was toast at the end, she is obviously trying to break 2:30 with the CIM course which is 90 seconds faster
but it's definitely foolish to race another marathon 28 days later (unless maybe your name is Yuki)
Tat4Tit wrote:
Aussiestatman wrote:
How many of these pb's are on a downhill course? What are the best half marathon times from the debuts? Could any of them translate a 63 half into a 2.10?
downhill courses? where's your pr from boy?
Downhill courses are a thing and times from them are not PBs. You know it yourself even if you say otherwise.
NewtotheSouthSide wrote:
most people that have run the race find it fairly honest. There are rollers in the front half. The nice part about the race is that it's a slight downhill the final 10k.
There is a difference between feeling a race is honest and data. In fact, many downhill courses might feel tougher as it might hurt more. But they are objectively faster and objectively not record eligible.
This board is part of the problem as they get excited by FAST TIMES.
Ken Young's site showed that CIM last year ran 4 min faster than a normal course.
This board got excited because Tim Ritchie ran 2:11 he went on to DNF at Boston and run 2:15 at NY on a perfect weather day but this board still thinks he ran better at CIM. HE DIDN'T.
2nd and third were 2:12. They ran 2:16 and 2:20 since. Why?
CIM course parallels a river so it is obviously downhill and definitely faster than almost any other OTQ/BQ legal course in USA
anyone who watches last year's coverage can easily see all the constant downhill with the cameras panning up (the Parker Stinson coverage in particular) or if you don't have access to that, watch the course tours on youtube
there are tiny lumps of uphill but the net loss is constant - it's a quad burner
Ken Young's site showed that CIM last year ran 4 min faster than a normal course.
RIP Ken (btw what is going to happen to ARRS, is it being updated anymore?)
Race Time Bias - but the problem is it's in seconds, not percentage, and that can't be useful for say a 2:10 vs 2:30 pace
it shows CIM is 75 seconds faster than NYC (but at what pace?)
https://arrs.run/TB_Mara.htmThe link says that weather conditions are included in the research. So the fact that Sacramento usually has low wind and about 50 degrees around 12/1 every year is part of the reason for the finding that it’s a “fast course”.
But that’s not really “the course”- it’s the weather. Before entering last year, I checked the last 15 years of temp and wind at race time on Dec 3 (the date of 2017 CIM). The conditions were good something like 12 or 13 years, such as sub 60 deg and single digit wind.
By the way- my Garmin data from CIM says 681 feet of gain, 1,017 feet of loss. Put that into a running calculator and see what you get.
ah I see, the startlist was attached to the press release from yesterday, I somehow missed that, and it's *still* not on the USATF site, I mean what do they do over there anyway and which year is USATF going to modernize their site and fix all the broken links/data?
https://www.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=471&do=news&news_id=552370
apparently runnerspace has two separate spots for CIM, one regular and the other under the USATF champs which is more active
All these mental contortions, fueled by bias and emotion, to avoid the truth that it's an aided course which yields artificially fast marks for those who are prepared to take advantage.
This race is kind of sad.
CIM is where the Has beens Meet the never will be’s
They will all get a false sense of what they are and be hugely disappointed the following year.
Look at these names that you haven’t heard in the last decade.
am I See wrote:
See I am wrote:
Field is thick with numbers, but no depth whatsoever.
No depth whatsoever? What? It's thick but has no depth. Bro, that ain't right;)
Of course it ain't right, bro. Dude mixed his metaphors. That never works out.
Pathetic Paul wrote:
This race is kind of sad.
CIM is where the Has beens Meet the never will be’s
They will all get a false sense of what they are and be hugely disappointed the following year.
Look at these names that you haven’t heard in the last decade.
These are some hard truths.
Of the entrants, especially the debutantes, how many were collegiate athletes less than 3 or even 4 years ago?
It's almost a poem wrote:
Pathetic Paul wrote:
This race is kind of sad.
CIM is where the Has beens Meet the never will be’s
They will all get a false sense of what they are and be hugely disappointed the following year.
Look at these names that you haven’t heard in the last decade.
These are some hard truths.
Exhibit 1.
Non-contributors like this:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=8566503&id=8567242#8567242Pathetic Paul wrote:
This race is kind of sad.
CIM is where the Has beens Meet the never will be’s
You realize the flip-side of that is to never try.
Give all them credit for trying. It's significant.
If they can OTQ at CIM, it means they might be able to OTQ elsewhere
remember that even B-standard gets their way paid to Atlanta this time
only 200 people every four years, that's a pretty huge achievement for a runner in this country
maybe show them some respect?
Noah droddy
This board is guilty wrote:
This board is part of the problem as they get excited by FAST TIMES.
Ken Young's site showed that CIM last year ran 4 min faster than a normal course.
This board got excited because Tim Ritchie ran 2:11 he went on to DNF at Boston and run 2:15 at NY on a perfect weather day but this board still thinks he ran better at CIM. HE DIDN'T.
2nd and third were 2:12. They ran 2:16 and 2:20 since. Why?
Newsflash FAST TIMES are a huge part of the sport, what runner does not want to see how fast they are, fans like seeing fast times.
JoeRogan wrote:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SfCKIQLefmg/W7ovk_u7zHI/AAAAAAAALb8/W00FkA66nxIJfmhktz8kDufQfGJ5YIyjwCLcBGAs/s1600/%25E3%2582%25B9%25E3%2582%25AF%25E3%2583%25AA%25E3%2583%25BC%25E3%2583%25B3%25E3%2582%25B7%25E3%2583%25A7%25E3%2583%2583%25E3%2583%2588%2B2018-10-07%2B11.04.23.png
Only 5 countries have more sub 2:10 Marathons in their History than Japan has this year
1Kenya
2.Ethiopia
3. Japan 95
4. Morroco 20
5. USA 18
6. tie Great Britain and Spain 16
So Japan will likely have more this year than Spain and Great Britain have in their history after Fukuoka and could maybe pass up the USA and Morroco as well.
