What is considered a "hilly" course?

Boston.

Boston is for hobby joggers

In my experience a UK - "moderate hills" = a US "hilly"

It is so funny when I here people call Boston 'hilly'.

Marathoners are such pu$$ies.

Never give up, never surrender wrote:

It is so funny when I here people call Boston 'hilly'.

Marathoners are such pu$$ies.

You have to admit that Heartbreak is, well, a dream-destroyer.

I would say that any race run on the track even the steeplechase should be considered a flat race.

I don't have to do anything.

Never give up, never surrender wrote:

I don't have to do anything.

This is true.

So is 900 ft for HM hilly?

A net 900 is very hilly

.

Thanks.

hilly guy wrote:

I ran a HM that had 900 ft elevation gain.

Is that "hilly"? What is the cutoff between a hilly course vs a "flat" one.

NET elevation GAIN of 10 meters per kilometer (roughly 25 feet per mile).

Any loop courses (ie Start/Finish at same spot) do not qualify.

bring me hills wrote:

hilly guy wrote:

I ran a HM that had 900 ft elevation gain.

Is that "hilly"? What is the cutoff between a hilly course vs a "flat" one.

NET elevation GAIN of 10 meters per kilometer (roughly 25 feet per mile).

Any loop courses (ie Start/Finish at same spot) do not qualify.

Ok thank you. It was net 900.

It was point to point.

One hill was 450 ft gain in about a mile alone. It was a monster.

bring me hills wrote:

NET elevation GAIN of 10 meters per kilometer (roughly 25 feet per mile).

Any loop courses (ie Start/Finish at same spot) do not qualify.

Oops. Off on my conversion. 48 feet per mile.

Wait I think I mispoke. I don't think it was 900 net. The end elevation was probably about the same as the start. But there was 900 ft of hills in between.

hilly guy wrote:

Wait I think I mispoke. I don't think it was 900 net. The end elevation was probably about the same as the start. But there was 900 ft of hills in between.

and 900 ft of downhill. I get it; you use more time going up than you make up on the way down, but you still get to go down....

down = up? wrote:

hilly guy wrote:

Wait I think I mispoke. I don't think it was 900 net. The end elevation was probably about the same as the start. But there was 900 ft of hills in between.

and 900 ft of downhill. I get it; you use more time going up than you make up on the way down, but you still get to go down....

definitely get that.

have to say that the downhill of the 450 ft monster was about the same grade going uphill - which is to say painful.

so some think it is not hilly then

The Mt Washington road race is hilly.