Lots of OT qualifiers at CIM today

Running in the Rain wrote:

I have never ran it but it looks like it is point to point with a net drop of about 345 feet, and no major hills.

http://cdn.ngin.com/attachments/photo/0589/2778/courseelev.jpg

Very good course for a PR, but a person must run conservative for the first 13.1 or so as there are some rolling hills that take a toll if a person does not run smart. The weather for this years CIM was perfect.

East Coaster wrote:

That's a very impressive number! What makes this marathon such a great place to run these times? What is the course like and what were the conditions?

Perfect weather, and a overall down hill grade and pancake flat over those last most difficult miles.

I thought the weather was PERFECT. It's not as fast a course as most think. It can be fast but, as others have said, you have to be patient on this course and not destroy yourself early on. CIM has LESS net elevation drop than Boston but also less ascent/descent than Boston but otherwise, to me, it's real similar to Boston. If anyone's interested here are some photos of some of the top finishers (probably most of the OT qualifiers):

http://primages.smugmug.com/Sports/CIM-2011

Impala Racing Team had 6 qualifiers...Madeline Kramer, Michelle Meyer, Ashley Carroll, Megan Daly, Sarah Lee, and Rachel Niehuus. They'll have 13 women on the starting line in Houston.

Flatulus wrote:

It's not as fast a course as most think.

It's statistically the fastest course in North America.

This is what happens when you get over 100 women who have trained their butts off for this one last chance of obtaining their dreams. And when you have that mentality going into a race it brings positive karma and the fight to finsih. That's what working together for 1 common goal can achieve!

That may be true, but it's not like the other gender wasn't training for this last chance. The women's standard is weaker, and that helps just as much as any positive karma. When you look at the difference in depth (by gender) at the NCAA XC championships, and the disparity in OT marathon qualifiers (also by gender); the two are negatively correlated.That said, the standard is what it is, but a faster standard will produce faster times. Women will run to that standard, so it is time to take the "kit" (sp?) gloves off.My bias is that there are too many people in the men's race too. However, I do see the opposite point of having field fillers; with smaller fields, a "Jenny Spangler" moment could not happen.

OTQ wrote:

This is what happens when you get over 100 women who have trained their butts off for this one last chance of obtaining their dreams. And when you have that mentality going into a race it brings positive karma and the fight to finsih. That's what working together for 1 common goal can achieve!

Yes, I agree flavor is the right word...http://irunforbeer.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/born-to-run/

113 wrote:

say wha? wrote:

How is a 2:45er going to add anything at all to the trials?

Read Born to Run. Flavor is probably the right word.

East Coaster wrote:

That's a very impressive number! What makes this marathon such a great place to run these times? What is the course like and what were the conditions?

First of all, obviously the women's standard is not as tough as the men's standard.

Second of all, CIM actually had a 2:46 male pacer to specifically pace the women to qualify for the olympic trials. This was advertised on the race website. There was no pacer for a 2:19 though.

John Kellogg ripped the B standard for women into pieces. It is equal to a men's 2:28.

THIS IS WHY wrote:

East Coaster wrote:

That's a very impressive number! What makes this marathon such a great place to run these times? What is the course like and what were the conditions?

First of all, obviously the women's standard is not as tough as the men's standard.

Second of all, CIM actually had a 2:46 male pacer to specifically pace the women to qualify for the olympic trials. This was advertised on the race website. There was no pacer for a 2:19 though.