Sort of, but what does that have to do with my comment?? Lets be honest, it is easier to run 2:37 today than it was 20-30 years ago. Who can argue that? It's been beaten to death, but Joanie would have run 2:16 on that course with the equipment and fuel sources available today.
I have run 2:47-49 at Chicago and Philly but been reduced to walking off slower paces at CIM in the two years to follow, might be net downhill but substantially harder than a flat course in my opinion. Go run it before looking at an elevation profile and pontificating about how easy it must be. Respectfully.
It’s massively downhill - you don’t need to try to rationalize it. It’s one of the most aided courses available.
And that's not meant to be a knock on those that qualified. Good for them. they followed the rules and got the result they trained for. And to clarify, my "horse" is now in the ZAP barn. They've got a real thoroughbred there who should run 2:26-2:27 with their help and guidance.
Sort of, but what does that have to do with my comment?? Lets be honest, it is easier to run 2:37 today than it was 20-30 years ago. Who can argue that? It's been beaten to death, but Joanie would have run 2:16 on that course with the equipment and fuel sources available today.
The question wasn't related to your comment. It was just a question about whether you were still involved with coaching in general, and this "horse" in particular. You know who I am. I'm a RI Red that is now a DE Blue Hen. Hope you are well. Still in your original state, or the one that has lots of summer sharks?
I have run 2:47-49 at Chicago and Philly but been reduced to walking off slower paces at CIM in the two years to follow, might be net downhill but substantially harder than a flat course in my opinion. Go run it before looking at an elevation profile and pontificating about how easy it must be. Respectfully.
It’s massively downhill - you don’t need to try to rationalize it. It’s one of the most aided courses available.
Such a tired narrative from those that have never even seen the course in person.
On a side note, looks like the 10k mats were a bit short of 10k. Almost everyone's results show a faster-than-average 5k-10k split and then a slower 10k-15k split. But I looked at my watch times and I had even splits for both.
The elevation drop is about 340 ft. The gain is about 660 ft. It nets out, at best. It's a totally fair course.
I was happy with how the weather broke by the start, but the roads were slick most of the way which hurts on the uphills since vaporflys have no tread.
I have run 2:47-49 at Chicago and Philly but been reduced to walking off slower paces at CIM in the two years to follow, might be net downhill but substantially harder than a flat course in my opinion. Go run it before looking at an elevation profile and pontificating about how easy it must be. Respectfully.
It’s massively downhill - you don’t need to try to rationalize it. It’s one of the most aided courses available.
I punched the elevation numbers into the Runworks calculator, and CIM is officially the equivalent of a closed loop course with 100ft of uphill and 100ft of downhill. Also, there seems to rarely be a tailwind on the course - usually either a light headwind or a light crosswind.
"Record-eligible" courses can be gamed too because the rules allow for 138ft of elevation drop. Both London and Kipchoge's Sub-2:00 course have a big downhill at the start and are flat the rest of the way.
Sort of, but what does that have to do with my comment?? Lets be honest, it is easier to run 2:37 today than it was 20-30 years ago. Who can argue that? It's been beaten to death, but Joanie would have run 2:16 on that course with the equipment and fuel sources available today.
The question wasn't related to your comment. It was just a question about whether you were still involved with coaching in general, and this "horse" in particular. You know who I am. I'm a RI Red that is now a DE Blue Hen. Hope you are well. Still in your original state, or the one that has lots of summer sharks?
Swimming with the sharks but looking to move to the Providence area and hopefully accepted as a volunteer with a USATF club there.
41 men and 55 women qualified for the OMT. Is this correct? And, I think 2 more women in Valencia. Congrats to all of them!
The depth at CIM wasn't just in the ranks of the OTQ. 106 men went sub 2:25 and 177 men went sub 2:30. 106 women went sub 2:45 and 149 women went sub 2:50.
41 men and 55 women qualified for the OMT. Is this correct? And, I think 2 more women in Valencia. Congrats to all of them!
The depth at CIM wasn't just in the ranks of the OTQ. 106 men went sub 2:25 and 177 men went sub 2:30. 106 women went sub 2:45 and 149 women went sub 2:50.
My time of just under 2:37 put me in 339th place... at least for my time this may have been the most competitive American marathon since Boston in the early '80s. I looked at a few years results for Boston, Houston, Chicago, Grandma's and CIM and only Boston 2022 was close (without adjusting for course difficulty). If you add 3 minutes for supershoes for pre-2019 races, Boston 2014 is the only other race that comes close.
I have run 2:47-49 at Chicago and Philly but been reduced to walking off slower paces at CIM in the two years to follow, might be net downhill but substantially harder than a flat course in my opinion. Go run it before looking at an elevation profile and pontificating about how easy it must be. Respectfully.
100% agree. I have run 2:36 at Toronto Waterfront and 2:37 at Boston last April. I bunked my way to 2:44 after running 1:18 in the first half at CIM. I didn't do any hills in my preparation for CIM due to an ankle injury and I had nothing left at all for the last 10k. Both quads totally toasted.
I really liked the rolling hills in Boston in the first half and the ones in CIM didn't look like that at all. There was always a hill in sight. Always.
