Has anyone else ever been interested in a race, went to the website to read it is "lightly rolling" only to actually show up and run the race learning firsthand that there is nothing "lightly rolling" about the course? I get so frustrated with this trend in road racing. Why not just tell the truth and let people know that the thing is outright hilly and let them decide if they want to run a race anticipating a slower than normal time?
Why are you so afraid of hills? I'm sick of pancake-flat courses and my fellow runners failing to challenge themselves. How about leaving the road and running a tought trail race?
tigranya wrote:
Has anyone else ever been interested in a race, went to the website to read it is "lightly rolling" only to actually show up and run the race learning firsthand that there is nothing "lightly rolling" about the course? I get so frustrated with this trend in road racing. Why not just tell the truth and let people know that the thing is outright hilly and let them decide if they want to run a race anticipating a slower than normal time?
Have you ever considered that "hilly" is a highly subjective/relative term? To those in very hilly areas, "hilly" might mean something that they've yet to encounter.
Haha, yep... I did this 100k last year and I guess what the RD mean't be lightly rolling was that there wasn't a point on the 25k loop where you weren't either going straight up or straight down.
I guess it can be subject as to what 'lightly rolling' really is. If I were you I'd check previous results to see if they are slow, or ask around if you can find people that have done the race before.
tigranya wrote:
Why not just tell the truth and let people know that the thing is outright hilly and let them decide if they want to run a race anticipating a slower than normal time?
RD's are, to some extent, selling a product. Letting runners think their course is quicker than it is by mincing words around 'rolling,' 'scenic,' etc is to be expected. Twin Cities and NYC are both a bit more challenging than the advertising would suggest, for example -- not great PR courses. On the other hand, Boston and others are sold as just what they are: challenging and interesting courses, not time trial routes.
Just ask around if you're really set on running on a FLAT course and don't know the area.
We get lied to all the time. Its part of our culture and expected. Hardly anyone tells the truth about anything anymore. Marketing rules over everything. "Bring in the suckers, grab their entry fee and get rid of them ASAP"
tigranya wrote:
Has anyone else ever been interested in a race, went to the website to read it is "lightly rolling" only to actually show up and run the race learning firsthand that there is nothing "lightly rolling" about the course? I get so frustrated with this trend in road racing. Why not just tell the truth and let people know that the thing is outright hilly and let them decide if they want to run a race anticipating a slower than normal time?
It's not always intentional deceit. People who do their training in Boulder or in New York's Central Park consider most courses to be "lightly rolling" or pancake-flat.
LEH wrote: People who do their training in Boulder or in New York's Central Park consider most courses to be "lightly rolling" or pancake-flat.
?