Avocado's Number wrote:
It would be interesting to see what the times would be if the start and finish lines were switched. It would also be interesting to see how many people would bother to run the race.
As someone who watched the race at multiple points, I thought Wykes was cooked from the start. He had a huge gap on the chase pack at mile five, and it only grew as the race went on. He didn't look comfortable early, but the weather didn't require anyone to block the wind. He ran a very tough marathon, but props to him for the win, PR, and $10,000 payday.
No wind today. A bit chilly and overcast at the start, but warmed to the mid-50s (with sun) in the middle miles. Last bit was under a foggy sky, but still warm. A little humid, but just about perfect conditions compared to CIMs in years past.
Even by rather conservative measures, a 340-foot net elevation drop results in an energy savings (and reduction in time) roughly equivalent to shortening the course by a couple hundred meters. (My own rule of thumb has generally been to equate one foot of net elevation drop with a shortening of the course by one meter, but others use significantly smaller adjustments based on relative energy expenditures at various gradients in treadmill tests.) Whether that's a big deal is, of course, open to debate. To me, it is, if we're actually trying to compare times across races. Obviously, however, other factors, such as wind, temperature, altitude, and gradient along the course, can overwhelm the effects of a downhill or short course.
I may be mistaken, but I think this is Deba's 4th marathon of 2010 -- wins at Grandmas, Twin Cities and now CIM, with a 10th at NYC. She also won CIM last year.
Avocado's Number you are all over any race that is net downhill here.
Not bashing or trolling, just wondering why you are so vocal about (against?) courses with net downhills.
Give it a rest already avocado. You made the same arguments last year, get off your high horse.
My mistake on Deba, fifth marathon this year:
2:27 Twin Cities 1st
2:29 New York 10th
2:31 Grandmas 1st
2:32 CIM 1st
2:33 Jacksonville 1st
Congrats
Pretty sure she (Deba) also won at least one or two spring marathons - Jacksonville (the Donna) and maybe one more?
concord wrote:
Anyone know if wind was a factor today?
Hard in the Paint wrote:
Avocado's Number you are all over any race that is net downhill here.
Not bashing or trolling, just wondering why you are so vocal about (against?) courses with net downhills.
His coach Steve Boyd is the man.
Avocado's Number thanks for the well written reply. Makes sense.
Woah, this is a bit different from his usual event,
42 Rankin, Jon 93 M 28 M25-29 20/342 41/3330 Cayman Islan 2:34:29 5:54
CIM is almost identical to Boston in net down and overall up and down (actually a bit more up and down than Boston). A course that goes up and down quite a bit for its net down is obviously slower than one that would be smooth downhill plane all the way.
If I were going for a fast time I would rather run Chicago than either Boston or CIM. And that's not just me. When Ryan Hall was initially targeting the past Chicago marathon, he said he was excited to be pointing to a fast course (in contrast to the up and down of Boston, which, again, is almost identical in topography to CIM).
And yes, I did run CIM this morning. My time was two something.
CIM is NOT IAAF approved. This means that any times will not be eligible to be selected for the WC team. However, times at Boston are eligible. IAAF does see a difference in the 2 courses.
Lane Pryce wrote:
Woah, this is a bit different from his usual event,
42 Rankin, Jon 93 M 28 M25-29 20/342 41/3330 Cayman Islan 2:34:29 5:54
Even more ouch... He was 1:47:44 through 20 miles... So last 10k was ~46:45...
I'd be interested in confirmation of that on the IAAF, since it's contrary to what was suggested above.
The course profiles are what they are.
This course has some rolling hills until about 15mi (or so) with some significant uphills. My own experience is that what you lose on uphill, you can regain about 2/3 on the downhill. In other words you need 3 parts downhill for 2 parts uphill to break even. Not sure what the ratio on this course is, but it seems like break even or just slightly beneficial.
Like Malmo said, 13ft/mi isn't much. But add some uphills in there and you don't gain a whole lot, but maybe a little. I don't think anyone would argue that Boston is a super fast course and it has more net downhill than CIM.
