Any St.George people out there? Bad wind for the marathon?

Eric B. wrote:

I know several of the runners who participated. One ran under the U.S. trials qualifying time with a huge PR. But to write off his performance by citing his previous marathon PR would be a mistake. He had more than enough fitness to run this time even on a "legit" course.

Well, perhaps he'll eventually run that sort of time on a legitimate course. But most people who have "more than enough fitness" to qualify for the Olympic trials on a legitimate course actually choose to do so on a legitimate course. They don't run St. George, and they don't run Steamtown.

thinairrunr wrote:

I know that USATF will make courses like SG & Steamtown a non-Qualifier for the next marathon trials in 2012.

That would be a very welcome change. What's your authority or source for that information?

I'd like to see the Olympic trials standard to be restricted to marathons on record-quality courses. That, of course, would exclude times at Boston, which has long seemed a "political" sticking point in the matter. But Boston no longer relies on its status as an Olympic trials qualifier to attract good runners (as it did, to some extent, back in 1983), and legitimate contenders for the U.S. Olympic team don't need Boston as a trials qualifier.

Avocado---I've run St. George,Steamtown and Boston and they don't compare. Steamtown is fast like Boston---in fact they are very similar---but you can make some argument that they are legit. St. George is not legitimate at all---no argument...2,600 feet of downhill. Of my 14 marathons, nothing else comes close. I agree however that all the point to point marathons should be eliminated for OT qualifiers. If you can't set a world record on the course you shouldn't be able to qualify for the trials on that course. I can't believe they still allow it.

Nevermind that ST, being on the east coast, is a lot more easily accessible to a lot more people. It wouldn't require flying in to BFE, Utah like SG does. SG is more remote to almost everyone besides rich yuppies.

Eric B. wrote:

Everyone seems to forget the fact that this race starts at a mile in elevation and doesn't drop below 4500 feet until 14.5 miles. Nevermind the four mile ascent (from mile 7-11), the altitude alone is enough to nearly equalize this course. I know how much my running was affected by travelling from sea level to Fort Collins, CO this summer. There is no way the altitude didn't factor in.

Also consider that running downhill for that long, though much easier on you cardiovascularly, is very hard on your legs. Having burned out quads in the final 10k from pounding downhill, is hardly what I would call benificial.

You can prepare for either or both in your training, it's not as big of an obstacle as you're trying to imply here.

Granted, I do believe overall, the good factors did outweigh the bad ones.

Then you should have said that alone and left out all the excuses posted above.

It is interesting people talk about Boston being fast- yet even on the best of days, the fastest times always fall well short of the World Record. I think the reason is obvious- the number and severity of the uphills at Boston cancel out any advantage of the downs.

Having also run Steamtown and Boston, I can say ST is significantly easier than Boston, given 2 less uphills at the end of ST. If there were a scale- I'd rate ST 2 and Boston 3. Steamtown has another feature which I think is a benefit- the 2 trails between 14 and 19 miles. It's definitely a great break for the legs, and at a critical part of the race when you are beginning to tire.

Having not run SG, I can appreciate your opinion- the altitude and steepness of the grades is a simple matter of preparation which the better runners can handle. So on the scale- SG is probably 1 if not 0.

All the negativity aside, St. George is a fun, beautiful (to the point of inspiring)footrace. I know its fast, but I just refer to it as a race unto itself and only judge my times there in comparison to themselves and not to other, flatter courses. Can't beat watching the sun rise in red rock country during the quiet early miles of a long footrace.

St G runner wrote:

I just refer to it as a race unto itself and only judge my times there in comparison to themselves and not to other, flatter courses.

Part of what bothers me about some of these downhill races is that they are promoted as real marathons, half-marathons, 10Ks, and so on. The promoters are generally careful about getting the races certified for a particular distance, and many of the participants are clearly concerned about the certification of distance, even though it's really silly to talk about whether St. George (for example) has been certified as 42.195 kilometres in distance when the elevation drop effectively reduces the running times by four or five percent over a flat loop course.

If people are going to promote and run downhill races, I would prefer that the distances be somewhat uncertain, recognizing the irrelevancy of precise measurement in such cases. There are a few major races, like Falmouth, that have attracted big crowds and notable runners over the years without getting hung up about the precise distance of the race. In international cross-country, in fact, that's probably the norm.

I'd have to agree. I would run St. George for the experience, even if it wasn't certified.

Fast is fine, beautiful is fine, giving people a false sense of what they can really do is bogus especially for those that get a near Trials or Oly Trials qualifier. I expect that USATF will eventually pull their heads out of their bums and exclude St George from being a legit place to turn in a Trails time....

St G runner wrote:

All the negativity aside, St. George is a fun, beautiful (to the point of inspiring)footrace. I know its fast, but I just refer to it as a race unto itself and only judge my times there in comparison to themselves and not to other, flatter courses. Can't beat watching the sun rise in red rock country during the quiet early miles of a long footrace.

One more thing. This is not a discussion about runners trying to qualify for the Boston race but about those who trying to race the most important marathon outside of the Olympics

Boston loses 450 ft, .325% over the entire 42.195 KM, I see nothing wrong with this race. In fact it maybe 2-3 minutes slower then races like Berlin.

Steam Town loses 955 ft, .6899%, I see this race as 2+ minute advantage.

St George loses 2560 ft, 1.849%, Over the top, 4-12 minutes faster then what could be replicated anywhere else.

A great point made by another poster was the fact that the 2.18 men were no better then 1.09 & 1.11 which would indicate a 6 to 10 minute advantage when that fitness level is extrapolated out to the marathon distance.

I have no doubt that if runners in the class of H. Geb ran SG we would see the first sub 2 hour, maybe in the 1:58 range.

If when standing around talking with runners comparing times & a runner states that they ran anywhere close to an OT-Qualifier at SG, turn your head. This person lives in a fantasy world of their own making.

Imagine if these same runners were given incentive ($$) to race else where to prove their times legit, would they? Most of the faster finishers at SG have not raced any other marathons anywhere close to more legit courses.

Once you live in the fantasy world of performance enhancement it is very hard to come back to the real world. Just go ask the women's winner who made the A Q-time, who was caught as a drug cheat a few years back. Now USATF will pay her to race the OT Marathon with others who made the Q-time without gravity & other enhancements.

Most of the faster finishers at SG have not raced any other marathons anywhere close to more legit courses.

I've run a PR at St. George but it's not my marathon PR! I ran that 9 weeks later. If St. George gives a runner any sense of being able to run fast or faster for the distance is that a bad thing?

Giving you a false sense of your running self is hardly a good thing. I did not run a PR at St G although I have run it,once was enough. My PR is at Houston what I would term a real course, ie unaided...

ONeill wrote:

Most of the faster finishers at SG have not raced any other marathons anywhere close to more legit courses.

I've run a PR at St. George but it's not my marathon PR! I ran that 9 weeks later. If St. George gives a runner any sense of being able to run fast or faster for the distance is that a bad thing?

I have followed this thread since the beginning, I have to agree with the new USATF decision to ban this race from the Olympic Trials list of races that are allowable to qualify in.Deeja Youngquist should not be allowed to take USATF money to a free trip to Boston nor should these runners who pop into the sub 2:20 club after never showing better then 5:40 6+ minute pace in any other marathon in resent history.SG has too many people tearing huge amounts of time from their best to be considered legit. How many of theses runners could even come within 3-5 minutes of their SG prs at Berlin or Chicago?

[quote]MarathonMind wrote:

Steamtown has another feature which I think is a benefit- the 2 trails between 14 and 19 miles. It's definitely a great break for the legs, and at a critical part of the race when you are beginning to tire.quote]

actually those trail miles slow you down. it takes more effort ot maintain the same pace you were running on the roads when running on trails.

You have a valid point, but I feel that any slow down in speed that does result is countered by the change in muscle stress. I think the trail from 14.5 to 17 is great. The wood chip one from 18 to 19 might be a bit taxing as you say. Still, they save the legs a bit of pounding.

An exact opposite condition is NYC, where the run up all-concrete 1st Avenue is the last thing you want for miles 16-20.

I had no idea people cared that much about how I ran a marathon on Labor Day. Yes, I am the owner of the "barely under 1:11 half marathon one month prior to the SG marathon. The only problem is that the course is far from flat so it's probably a good idea to know what you're talking about before you start making crazy statements. And since you seem to care so much about my race times, you should also know that I was injured the week prior to the race. My 1/2 PR is 1:08.

Since you've done your research on my times, perhaps you noticed that I PR'd this years SG race by 13 minutes from 2006. The course didn't get any easier.

If you really did your homework, you would have also known that I was on OTQ pace through 20 miles at the Eugene Marathon before dehydration set in.

People who whine about SG being allowed to be a qualifier should try running the course first. Go run 14-15 miles above 4500 feet and then try and take advantage of he downhills. Try it and then report back about how easy it was to "parachute in" to the finish.

By my calculations, SG is aided by maybe 90-120 seconds. Miles 8-12 were all slower than OTQ "B" pace this year. In fact, mile 8 was a 6:00 mile for me. Had I run a flat marathon at sea level, there wouldn't have been any 6:00 miles.

And if you're going to eliminate SG, then you better eliminate Boston, Sacramento, Steamtown, Deseret News Marathon, Top of Utah Marathon and several others that have significant elevation drop. Slippery slope...pardon the pun.

Bottom line is they are USATF certified and they present their own challenges that require different training, race strategies and levels of patience and pacing.

The only fair way to eliminate the aforementioned marathons from the qualifying list is to eliminate ALL marathons which are not certified for posting a world record...meaning marathons that don't start and finish in the same general location.

So stop whining, lace up your shoes and come run the SG marathon with me next year and tell me what a breeze it is to run in 2:18.

yes

Steve

GOOD RACE and good luck in the trials. One question:

if some ones asks you "what's your marathon PR?". what's your answer.