Ben Barrows on 4%

John 3:16 wrote:

For the love of God himself, it's not a net downhill of 1000 feet! The race "averages" a drop of just under 13 feet per mile! I'm 6 feet tall, so just over 2 of me spread out over a mile!

Great weather, great competition, etc... Yes it's fast, but it's 26.2 miles and it's not some outrageous amount of net downhill, hardly.

I'm 57 and shooting for a sub 3 hour next year. I'm going there for the weather and competition as I know I'll have company pulling me along. You guys can tell me that I suck and it doesn't count, but it's count to me.

Sage and Ben don't have to count it in their own minds, but I would if I were them.

I have never thought about it like this and I've been running for over 20 years. 13 feet per mile on average is hardly anything, I agree.

Deep Thoughts:

If a course is dead flat, it's too fast and not a true marathon.

Too many hills---it's too tough and just think how fast you could run on a flat course.

Run on a fast course and it's too fast.

I'm not discussing anything about "the shoe", but the course at CIM is fair. If it equates to about 20-30 seconds faster over 26.2 miles, give it rest people. You're being ridiculous.

I haven't run it by I have had athletes that I coach and others I know run it and I seem to see two distinct outcomes:

Those who can handle the early rollers tend to destroy the course and run faster times than I would otherwise expect them to run;

Others get destroyed and take a long ride on the struggle bus starting at 18 to 20 miles.

I don't think it is an automatic home run of a course based on those outcomes. But I would also feel a bit sheepish about claiming it as a PR - something I'd probably feel differently about once I actually ran the course.

Smoove wrote:

I haven't run it by I have had athletes that I coach and others I know run it and I seem to see two distinct outcomes:

Those who can handle the early rollers tend to destroy the course and run faster times than I would otherwise expect them to run;

Others get destroyed and take a long ride on the struggle bus starting at 18 to 20 miles.

I don't think it is an automatic home run of a course based on those outcomes. But I would also feel a bit sheepish about claiming it as a PR - something I'd probably feel differently about once I actually ran the course.

I think that sums it up well. I know two guys that average a 2:11 when you put their PRs together. Both ran the course several years ago and said the hills beat them up a lot more than expected and they hated it. Both of their PRs came from flat courses.

I know a couple of other guys who loved the course.

I think it has a faster upside than a flat course but a smaller margin of error.

And hitting the wall on a course like CIM is a rougher experience than doing it at a Houston or Chicago.

A 2:18 guy I used to coach ran 2:26 there. A :64 half guy I coached DNF'd, as did a 16:35 woman that I coach. Not the course for Floridians.

It seems Smoove is making the point that if you are a twink who has spindly legs, CIM is not the magic bullet it is for others that have at least a passing level of leg strength.

Wow, how many of you on here have actually raced a road marathon before? I'm pretty sure Ben hasn't. The speculation about the energy cost of going up and down certain relative % grades of hills is highly dependent on an individual's Running Economy on those different grades. But of course generally a "net downhill" course is going to be considerably faster than a "net uphill." I've run 2:19:xx at CIM, Houston, Chicago and Boston. I ran 2:21 at Grandma's on a hot day when I was 21 in 2007. I have experience racing all of these courses (many multiple times). In my experience CIM and Grandma's are definitely the fastest courses in regards to the elevation profile. The second half of Houston tends to run slower (part of that has been a 5-8mph headwind in the second half for example) and part of that is that usually you are totally in "no mans land." Heck, when I ran 2:19:51 at CIM in 2015 I got 10th place overall in the race. There was not a lot of "pack running" and drafting going on that year! But obviously factors like wind direction, temperature, humidity, and relative competition (drafting etc) can make a big difference in times (as well as your specific training and nutrition/hydration during the race). It is amazing the kind of speculation on here that comes from people who have never even run a marathon before.

any of you weenies wrote:

Any of you wieners who haven't raced CIM before and think it's a given OTQ (or PR) need to sign up for it next year and enjoy the taste of trashed legs at 20 miles when your wheels come off from the rolling hills and continual undulation. CIM is the most fair fast course I've ever run. The next being grandmas which offers some relief to your legs at least. If you want a baby easy course, do houston, or chicago. CIM is fast, but boy, you still have to earn it there.

Ben is such an overrated runner. Guy can barely break 15 minutes in the 5k. Honestly quite pathetic. Let me know when he's ran 13:40, hot wife and has a $250k yearly income like me.

S. Canaday wrote:

In my experience CIM and Grandma's are definitely the fastest courses in regards to the elevation profile. The second half of Houston tends to run slower (part of that has been a 5-8mph headwind in the second half for example) and part of that is that usually you are totally in "no mans land." Heck, when I ran 2:19:51 at CIM in 2015 I got 10th place overall in the race. There was not a lot of "pack running" and drafting going on that year!

Interesting - I've run Chicago, Grandma's full twice, and CIM twice (plus the Houston Half).

Of those four, if you could guarantee me perfect weather and race management for each, so that the only deciding factor was the course, my personal preference from most to least would be Chicago, Grandma's, CIM, and then Houston (I'm speculating on the last, based on my experience on the half and reports from others on the full). Despite the fact that my last two marathon PRs have been at Grandma's and CIM, I think that Chicago would be a much faster course for me (of course, there's always that pesky weather issue there).

This just may be an example of where we're all different. For myself, I'm a rhythm runner, and not very good at running uphill, so a pancake flat course where I can just lock into a pace has a lot of appeal. I found the never-ending sequence of hills at CIM both mentally and physically draining.

[incidentally, it seems that those with ultrarunning background/experience seem to really thrive at CIM - perhaps it's because they're much more used to constant elevation changes, and can handle the pounding of CIM better?]

Like Smoove, I know a lot of people who struggled at CIM this year and missed their goals. Actually, when I think about it, of the 10 people I knew whose training I was familiar with who ran it, I can think of two really good races (spectacular, even), one spectacular blow-up that was due to bad early race decisions, and the rest all missed their realistic goals by between 2 and 5 minutes.

I think when discussing CIM 2018, there's a bit of confirmation bias, where we focus on the really impressive times that some ran, and disregard the other performances.

What kind of times did you run on these courses/races? The half at Houston runs faster than the full. Part of that has been because it has been a USATF Champs a lot of times and there are a lot of fast guys in packs running 61-65min half pace. Don't underestimate the "drafting effect" at around 12mph and faster. I also got 9th place overall at Houston this year running 2:19:50....you are totally in "no mans land" running that kind of time most years. Too slow to be up with the elite packs and too fast for the 2:22-2:25+ guys. The only exception I would say is the 2012 Olympic Trials course/race in Houston. That thing was fast (despite the U-turn every lap). It was a different course, the weather was perfect and the competition was super deep because it was the Olympic Trials full of a bunch of packs running 2:12-2:18 pace. I think US Marathoning on the 2:12 to 2:18 level has "gotten deeper" in the past decade. However, just look at the data: Show me another race where 40-50 all American guys all run under 2:19:00 in the same race. Doesn't happen at Chicago usually. I've run 2:19:12 at Chicago and I was 17th place overall and 7th American (it was rather warm that year though). I think you have to go all the way back to those 2012 US Olympic Trials in Houston where about 45 guys broke 2:19:00 in a single race. That is a deep race. It probably won't happen at the Trials in Atalanta unless the course is very flat and the temps are cool. I think the USATF champs/competition and perfect weather (and race organization at CIM) was a great for running fast times under OTQ range. Again, I consider CIM perfectly legal. But (like at Boston or Grandma's) if you have a 15-20+mph tailwind that day the times are going to be pretty distorted and you might want to list your PR with a *.

S. Canaday wrote:

What kind of times did you run on these courses/races?

The half at Houston runs faster than the full. Part of that has been because it has been a USATF Champs a lot of times and there are a lot of fast guys in packs running 61-65min half pace. Don't underestimate the "drafting effect" at around 12mph and faster.

Significantly slower than you:

2015: Grandmas - 3:13

2016: Chicago 3:09; CIM 3:11

2018: Grandma's 3:02; CIM 2:57; Houston Half 1:25

(the sample of 10 people I was thinking of included runners with goals between 2:30 and 3:30, including two going for the women's OTQ)

I think what you're getting at with that question is that you can have totally different experiences based on what pace you are at, and I agree. At my level, I'm not going to have any difficulty finding people to run with at any of these races - for you, it's much different, and you may or may not end up by yourself, which makes a huge difference.

I agree that depth and having people to run with makes a huge difference, especially for runners that don't always get that. And CIM this year had a real sense of people working together to hit times, and I've heard that extended even to the men's OTQ level. My personal opinion is that is why you saw so many fast times there, not the course (though the course didn't interfere).

My hypothesis is that if you took that same spirit and depth of competition at the 2:15-2:20 level and weather, and transposed it to the Chicago course, you'd see something even more incredible than CIM.

Point of clarification: darkwave is a female masters runner, so the times should be viewed in that context. She's competitive in her age group in just about any race, which I think adds color to a person's comments sometimes.

I agree with everything you said....except for the Chicago comment. I don't think we've ever had 45 guys or more (all Americans) under 2:19:00 at Chicago. Not even close. Chicago (I think) runs a tad slower than CIM. Maybe for some runners on same days it is the opposite and one runs faster than the other.. However, even if there is no wind, a perfect temperature and a pack to run in you still have a ton of right angle turns at Chicago. Sure it is a super fast course, but CIM is net downhill...that is significant I think.

I'd love to hear Coach J.S. and his thoughts on this.

Ben you should just get a pair of Vaporfly, run CIM next year, qualify and show everyone you were right.