That's not correct for CIM - there is a gain of roughly 650ft and a loss of roughly 1,000ft on this course, for a net loss of ~350ft or so.
That's not correct for CIM - there is a gain of roughly 650ft and a loss of roughly 1,000ft on this course, for a net loss of ~350ft or so.
zs58 wrote:
That's not correct for CIM - there is a gain of roughly 650ft and a loss of roughly 1,000ft on this course, for a net loss of ~350ft or so.
You aren’t correct. CIM has about 340 feet of ascending and 680 feet of descending. Net decline of about 340 feet
I’ve run it the past several years in a row. The elevation gain and loss varies a little year to year on my garmin (I’m sure the elevation measurements aren’t super precise). Across those years, garmin says the average gain was 323 and average loss was 659. Net loss on average of 336.
I ran it in 2018 and 19 as well, with the Garmin 645 (altimeter built in) and in 2018 it showed 620 gain and 1017 loss; in 2019 623 in loss and 994 in gain so those are the numbers I've been going with and I've seen other numbers out there like that. Agree to disagree though, this is a bit of a silly argument. FWIW I was responding to an earlier post that said CIM had 250ft of gain, which from my view is way low. But, maybe my 645 is just wrong.
Sorry - meant that 2019 the Garmin showed 623 in gain and 994 in loss (got those backward in my post above).
Ok, last point - FWIW, Strava (https://www.strava.com/running_races/888) shows 796 feet of gain for CIM's course. Of course, that could be wrong, too.
Hope most people bashing CIM have run it. There are fast marathon courses & more challenging courses. This one is fast, and within the Trials legal limit so take issue with that. I've run CIM once and I thought the first half was pretty honest even though it has more drop than in the second half. You have some climbs thrown into the front half. I really like the last 10k because it is just an ever so slight downhill to the finish. It's a fast course but you're definitely not dropping off of a mountain. Pretty comparable to Boston which we all know can be challenging. The difference is where the hills are in Boston. If the Newton Hills were in the 10k-15k range and you just had some decline from there that'd be closer IMO. The wind can make a point to point course challenging too.
I wouldn't takeaway from anybody with a PR from CIM. It's also where you go to run fast. A lot of people don't feel as nervous in a group think environment like that where you have a pacer and personal bottles if you're a sub elite. They take care of you there. There are a lot of factors that make CIM awesome. Race management should be credited as much as the course.
Just Average wrote:
zs58 wrote:
It's always funny when people try to discount CIM as some super-fast "cheater" course because they look at a chart and see it's a "net downhill".
Boston is a "net downhill", with an even greater overall drop than CIM, does anyone say that Boston is a super fast course?
It's just lazy thinking to equate all net-downhill courses with super-fast courses. You could build a net-downhill course that starts at the top of a mountain, runs to the bottom, and then runs back up to a point 1 foot (or 100, you get the idea) lower than the start that'd be a net-downhill but nobody in their right mind would call that a "fast" course.
Boston has 783 feet of elevation gain, CIM has 250. It's not even close.
Well that’s a fat f*cking lie.
Mygarminsays wrote:
I’ve run it the past several years in a row. The elevation gain and loss varies a little year to year on my garmin (I’m sure the elevation measurements aren’t super precise). Across those years, garmin says the average gain was 323 and average loss was 659. Net loss on average of 336.
Well if your Garmin says it, it must be true. Anthony Randolfi’s Garmin said he went under 9:50 for a 2 mile so it must be true
Hello Yes, I ran under 9:50 for 2 miles , to be exact it was 9:31.2 for the 2 miles. Thank You for showing interest in my running.