If you negative split at New York, you probably had too much left in the tank, which is why you ran so much faster at CIM.
How big was your negative split?
If you negative split at New York, you probably had too much left in the tank, which is why you ran so much faster at CIM.
How big was your negative split?
It’s a course for racers. If you need 2 million people clapping for you, then stick to New York and having to take three forms of transportation just to wait ankle deep in mud in Staten Island for your corral to get called, then walk a mile after the finish just to get out of there.
New York is a horrible course and the logistics are terrible but that doesn't mean that OPs criticisms are invalid. Sounds like Chicago is much better than both races and I'm sure there are plenty of marathons in the US that are far better than both.
Just Average wrote:
Finally ran CIM today and took 10 minutes off my NYC time despite only 5 weeks difference.
I'd read posts here about all the rolling hills the first 20 miles and how the uphill negates the net downhill- no.
The uphills are so gentle I barely noticed. Only what, 10 turns? It's mostly a downhill straightaway.
And not to be a race snob but the only thing it has going for it is the speedy course. It's not scenic. There's no real crowd support. The aid stations are understaffed -- twice I ran by them and no volunteers had cups. Tried grabbing cups from the table: empty.
Super crowded. Way too many runners for roads that small. The self-seeding system just leads to people in the sub-3 corral running 8-9 min/miles. The expo is tiny and there's nothing going on postrace.
It's fast. Ridiculously fast. But Chicago, NY and some smaller races are way better, IMHO.
you are obvious troll. I ran the race the last two years. It is fast due to weather. The course would be faster if it were flat. There was plenty of crowd support and ample aid stations. It was not too crowded- the roads aren't "that small"- they are wider than any street in NYC.
if the race is understaffed, fine. however, the whole point of CIM is to run a very fast time and try to get the olympic trials qualifying time or qualifying times for the world major marathons. none of the sub 2:30 guys (or women equivalent) don't care about the scenery and if anything, it would be a distraction
stupid person 69 wrote:
if the race is understaffed, fine. however, the whole point of CIM is to run a very fast time and try to get the olympic trials qualifying time or qualifying times for the world major marathons. none of the sub 2:30 guys (or women equivalent) don't care about the scenery and if anything, it would be a distraction
typo. leave out the "don't"
Yeah, ok. Boston drops 480 feet and I was not able to run Boston faster than NYC.
just a jerk wrote:
Yeah, ok. Boston drops 480 feet and I was not able to run Boston faster than NYC.
That simply shows that you don't know how to train for a downhill marathon, which most people don't.
dunes runner wrote:
Apples to Apples wrote:
When I ran CIM my GPS said the grade adjusted pace would have been 17 seconds slower than a perfectly flat course.
Oh come on. That's ridiculous.
CIM drops 340 feet from start to finish. That's a 340 foot drop!!! And the hills are hardly anything.
CIM is much FASTER than a perfectly flat course, for example like the Chicago Marathon.
But if you don't train for the downhills, you're screwed.
I’m pretty sure you did not like science classes or math classes in school. Science is more accurate than your imprecise judgements. Here is how it works: you have to know the amount of uphill and downhill, not just the net change, because you lose more on uphills than you gain on downhills. It is correct and indisputable that CIM is slower than a flat course.
Just Average wrote:
Finally ran CIM today and took 10 minutes off my NYC time despite only 5 weeks difference.
I'd read posts here about all the rolling hills the first 20 miles and how the uphill negates the net downhill- no.
The uphills are so gentle I barely noticed. Only what, 10 turns? It's mostly a downhill straightaway.
And not to be a race snob but the only thing it has going for it is the speedy course. It's not scenic. There's no real crowd support. The aid stations are understaffed -- twice I ran by them and no volunteers had cups. Tried grabbing cups from the table: empty.
Super crowded. Way too many runners for roads that small. The self-seeding system just leads to people in the sub-3 corral running 8-9 min/miles. The expo is tiny and there's nothing going on postrace.
It's fast. Ridiculously fast. But Chicago, NY and some smaller races are way better, IMHO.
I've ran CIM and several different other marathons including Chicago. CIM is a fast course but definitely not the fastest I ran, I think Chicago gets that title. I ran 2:18 at CIM last year, the main benefits were perfect weather and having guys very close or in a pack with me the entire way. That was the first time I've run CIM and it was not my PR. Based on my how race went that day and the shape I came in with I don't think there was a significant difference time wise between it and a few other courses I've run.
New York is one of the slowest couses. But you saying your 10 minute difference between races was related to the course is totally laughable.
I look at the guys in the elite and sub-elite range around me who have run CIM who are veterans of other marathons. Very few have a PR at CIM that is an outlier compared to other performances.
I'm sorry about that stupid statement I just made and I'd like to clarify.
Dunes runner is right, and I was wrong.
An easy course and you complaining. Five weeks since your last marathon, That's not a big deal. There's nothing going on NYC or Boston post race. What do you want for post race love? Didn't enough townsfolk give you admiration for wearing your medal as you strutted around town?
The combination of CIM’s “downhill to downtown” course and the Nike vaporflys is the most repulsive thing in American marathoning. For some reason it is ok but a coach who gives his assistant coach a little too much of legal amino acid is the devil.
SouthernFriedRealist wrote:
It sounds like you used New York as a training run if you were able to come back and run another marathon five weeks later. And the logistics of NYC is a lot more stressful while the race is insanely crowded as well.
And with runners over three hours, sometimes they read an article in Runners World about how smelling peppermint makes them go faster or they had a pretty dope playlist while listening to their AfterShokz headphones.
But every course and race is different. I had a friend race CIM last year (which had better weather) and run nearly three minutes faster on a flat course this year, running an OTQ.
Another friend ran CIM two years ago, was beaten up by the hills and has run seven minutes faster on a flat marathon since then (down to 2:20).
Instead of flying to marathon all over the country, try spending some of your cash on Prozac.
Lololol
Ok, I was wrong. I thought the guy who claimed I was "humble bragging" by talking about my actual race time was max Letsrun poster but no, THIS is it.
Max arrogant + max ignorant = letruns.com "I know everything/nothing" poster.
Do I understand your theory correctly? You had one friend race slower on CIM so it's not a joke course? Wow, that n=1 theory is powerful. Thanks!!!
And another friend was beaten up by the "hills" (lol) and ran a 2:20 so wow it's a totally normal fair course. Good call!!
Yes instead of "flying all over the country" (because flying to one race is "all over the country") I should listen to you, the guy with two friends who've run CIM! WOW!!
Thanks for the advice bud
Negative at NY? wrote:
If you negative split at New York, you probably had too much left in the tank, which is why you ran so much faster at CIM.
How big was your negative split?
25 seconds. So no. The hills on the back half of NYC are murder
NiceGuy wrote:
It’s a course for racers. If you need 2 million people clapping for you, then stick to New York and having to take three forms of transportation just to wait ankle deep in mud in Staten Island for your corral to get called, then walk a mile after the finish just to get out of there.
Lolol. Yes. That's what I need. Because running elbow to elbow on a s***ty, ugly, overcrowded and understaffed course...that's for REAL RACERS like you!!!
u gotta troll alotbettrthanthat wrote:
Just Average wrote:
Finally ran CIM today and took 10 minutes off my NYC time despite only 5 weeks difference.
I'd read posts here about all the rolling hills the first 20 miles and how the uphill negates the net downhill- no.
The uphills are so gentle I barely noticed. Only what, 10 turns? It's mostly a downhill straightaway.
And not to be a race snob but the only thing it has going for it is the speedy course. It's not scenic. There's no real crowd support. The aid stations are understaffed -- twice I ran by them and no volunteers had cups. Tried grabbing cups from the table: empty.
Super crowded. Way too many runners for roads that small. The self-seeding system just leads to people in the sub-3 corral running 8-9 min/miles. The expo is tiny and there's nothing going on postrace.
It's fast. Ridiculously fast. But Chicago, NY and some smaller races are way better, IMHO.
you are obvious troll. I ran the race the last two years. It is fast due to weather. The course would be faster if it were flat. There was plenty of crowd support and ample aid stations. It was not too crowded- the roads aren't "that small"- they are wider than any street in NYC.
OBVIOUS troll. Not like I'm posting under a registered name or anything.
Yep - huge crowds, not overcrowded and ample aid stations. I'm just making it all up! Luckily you are here to clean up the confusion. THANKS !!
ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
New York is a horrible course and the logistics are terrible but that doesn't mean that OPs criticisms are invalid. Sounds like Chicago is much better than both races and I'm sure there are plenty of marathons in the US that are far better than both.
Yes -- this is the real answer. Thank you
Primo Numero Uno wrote:
Just Average wrote:
Finally ran CIM today and took 10 minutes off my NYC time despite only 5 weeks difference.
I'd read posts here about all the rolling hills the first 20 miles and how the uphill negates the net downhill- no.
The uphills are so gentle I barely noticed. Only what, 10 turns? It's mostly a downhill straightaway.
And not to be a race snob but the only thing it has going for it is the speedy course. It's not scenic. There's no real crowd support. The aid stations are understaffed -- twice I ran by them and no volunteers had cups. Tried grabbing cups from the table: empty.
Super crowded. Way too many runners for roads that small. The self-seeding system just leads to people in the sub-3 corral running 8-9 min/miles. The expo is tiny and there's nothing going on postrace.
It's fast. Ridiculously fast. But Chicago, NY and some smaller races are way better, IMHO.
I've ran CIM and several different other marathons including Chicago. CIM is a fast course but definitely not the fastest I ran, I think Chicago gets that title. I ran 2:18 at CIM last year, the main benefits were perfect weather and having guys very close or in a pack with me the entire way. That was the first time I've run CIM and it was not my PR. Based on my how race went that day and the shape I came in with I don't think there was a significant difference time wise between it and a few other courses I've run.
New York is one of the slowest couses. But you saying your 10 minute difference between races was related to the course is totally laughable.
I look at the guys in the elite and sub-elite range around me who have run CIM who are veterans of other marathons. Very few have a PR at CIM that is an outlier compared to other performances.
"Totally laughable" - yes, CIM is a totally legit course with absolutely no advantages over others. Thank you for clearing that up
