was there 2:
nothing you said goes against what S Canaday said
sage never said it was "hilly" and he never claimed the course was long, he just stated the distance his watch measured.
he just wanted to basically say that a 1:11 is worth slightly better (by 45 sec or so)
Heartbroken Hill wrote:
LM wrote:What passes for hilly is always amusing. No its not a blazing course, but it still had a mere 120ft of elevation change. Thats not much different than a pancake.
Id say "hilly" starts at around 600ft and extends all the way up to about 1300ft.
After that we are either talking about mountain running or a climbing road race in some fashion.
Oh, so Boston's Heartbreak Hill does not exist, and the bridge "climbs" in NYC are flat. Well, okay then...
Now that's a fantastic caricature of what I said. To put this course into perspective, it's the equivalent of running out at a 0.2% grade for 6.55 miles and then coming back.
That's...pretty flat. Yes, it slows the course down some, quite possibly by as much as 30-60 seconds but to call it hilly is just off.
When it comes to specific hills, just because you have one hill doesn't make the course hilly. If I have a flat marathon with one .5 mile hill @4% grade that hardly constitutes a hilly course, even if the hill itself is a legitimate hill.
As for heartbreak hill...it's relevant because it comes late in a marathon, and can change your rhythm and challenge you when you're already deep in the red. Heartbreak is like 0.4 miles at a 3% gradient or something like that, on a normal run it would be barely register, and depending on where you live could probably pass for flats.
Even NYC isn't really that hilly. Equivalent to running out for 13.1 on a 0.5% gradient (typical river path) and then coming back "downhill". Admittedly, for a major marathon...yea it's got a good deal of elevation change and is undoubtedly a significantly slower course than a London, Berlin, or Dubai. But for general terrain...it's not hilly. If you went out for an easy run on NYC course I think most people would come back and say that was a pretty flat run. Personally I'm not sure I've ever done a run with less elevation change per mile than NYC has.
Heartbroken Hill wrote:
Oh, so Boston's Heartbreak Hill does not exist, and the bridge "climbs" in NYC are flat. Well, okay then...
Seriously?????
The Boston course is very fast downhill, at least 2 to 3 minutes, maybe 5 minutes faster for top runners.
at risk of outing myself, I've both lived on the course (briefly), run OT qualifying times on it, and also run nearly 2min slower than my pb (which yes, came from a very flat course).
this whole pissing match about how "hilly" it is, and what the def of hilly is, is beyond silly.
as many (intelligent) posters have said, IT RUNS SLOW. S canaday was very on the money with a 30-45s guesstimate. You could reasonably say it could be as mmuch as a min slow, but no more than 60s, max. No way in hell is is ANY LESS than 30s slower than a RnR SJ type of course tho. period.
also, if you're def of "hilly" means it must be over 2min slower than a flat course, that's just a waste of breath. we're talking nat'l/int'l level road racing, not mountain running.
[quote]Deena wrote:
Am I missing something? Where is Deena on this list?[quote]WiT wrote:
Made a left turn and hasn't been seen since
amplify and illuminate please>
pred wrote:
[quote]Deena wrote:
Am I missing something? Where is Deena on this list?[quote]WiT wrote:
Made a left turn and hasn't been seen since
abbey lang can run 22:10 for the 6k
However it runs, KG ran 1:11:13. Good, not great, but better than she has run in a long time. If she stays healthy (never a given), I trust Wetmore to have her ready for LA.
I love that there has been back & forth about whether the course is hilly. Here, see for yourself:
http://www.bigsurhalfmarathon.org/Assets/Big+Sur+Half+Marathon/Redesign/PDF/HM+Elevation+Charts.pdf
Someone also mentioned that there was a hill that climbed "a few hundred feet." That's total BS.
It's a slightly rolling course with a U-turn. In summary, if I were looking to run well I would choose this course over the vast majority of courses out there.
Hey knucklehead, no one said that Sage said it was long, the poster said that gps watches are not accurate. No one said that Sage said it was hilly either, please point that out.
reed wrote:
was there 2:
nothing you said goes against what S Canaday said
sage never said it was "hilly" and he never claimed the course was long, he just stated the distance his watch measured.
he just wanted to basically say that a 1:11 is worth slightly better (by 45 sec or so)
Mr. Canaday is exaggerating things a bit as I've run it before and there are no hills. How many frickin courses are flat as a pancake with zero elevation change. Sorry, but he got it wrong, very wrong indeed. A bunch of trolls or a bunch of idiots indeed. That course is anything but hard or hilly. Rolling? Yes, at best on very few parts of the course. There is also parts of the course that are 0.2% downhill...those parts don't count? Honestly, it's a bunch of KG lovers or veterans who believe that their word is gospel. I lived in Santa Rosa up until 6 months ago. That course is EASY, period. KG would have run slower at Philadelphia or dozens of other halves in this country. Do none of you have a clue as to why she chose to run there? Geez! Mr. Canaday may be a really nice guy and a decent runner, but he's whiny about nothing. 45 seconds???? I can say that about a lot of courses.If you want a pancake flat course, go run on the track!
Data Data Data wrote:
I love that there has been back & forth about whether the course is hilly. Here, see for yourself:
http://www.bigsurhalfmarathon.org/Assets/Big+Sur+Half+Marathon/Redesign/PDF/HM+Elevation+Charts.pdfSomeone also mentioned that there was a hill that climbed "a few hundred feet." That's total BS.
It's a slightly rolling course with a U-turn. In summary, if I were looking to run well I would choose this course over the vast majority of courses out there.
BINGO!!!!!
Santa Rosa (former) wrote:
Mr. Canaday is exaggerating things a bit as I've run it before and there are no hills. How many frickin courses are flat as a pancake with zero elevation change. Sorry, but he got it wrong, very wrong indeed. A bunch of trolls or a bunch of idiots indeed.
That course is anything but hard or hilly. Rolling? Yes, at best on very few parts of the course. There is also parts of the course that are 0.2% downhill...those parts don't count?
Honestly, it's a bunch of KG lovers or veterans who believe that their word is gospel.
I lived in Santa Rosa up until 6 months ago. That course is EASY, period. KG would have run slower at Philadelphia or dozens of other halves in this country.
Do none of you have a clue as to why she chose to run there? Geez! Mr. Canaday may be a really nice guy and a decent runner, but he's whiny about nothing. 45 seconds???? I can say that about a lot of courses.
If you want a pancake flat course, go run on the track!
Data Data Data wrote:I love that there has been back & forth about whether the course is hilly. Here, see for yourself:
http://www.bigsurhalfmarathon.org/Assets/Big+Sur+Half+Marathon/Redesign/PDF/HM+Elevation+Charts.pdfSomeone also mentioned that there was a hill that climbed "a few hundred feet." That's total BS.
It's a slightly rolling course with a U-turn. In summary, if I were looking to run well I would choose this course over the vast majority of courses out there.
S. Canaday wrote:
Yeah that sounds like one of the bigger hills we ran up. Fairly steep grade I may add...I think alone that hill probably made the course about 10-15sec slower than pancake flat . The U-turn maybe 5sec slow down as at higher velocities this makes more of a difference. The other more gradual "rolling hills" on the course...not super fast like Carlsbad for sure I'd say ( I haven't raced the 5km in Carlsbad, but I've run that stretch while racing the marathon there).
Look at the PRs of both the top end of the fields...was anyone PRing??...most experienced, elite marathoners were well off their PRs.
I'm just saying all this because I think Kara's run was a rather impressive performance. If she ran Philly the week before she probably would've been 40-45 seconds faster.
Sure, more many mid packers in the race that aren't racing at their lactate threshold for a full hour..maybe it is a "PR" type of race (the weather, course measurements and organization was top notch for that). But again, look at the top 10 in the race and consider their PRs.
Otter pup wrote:Last time I ran it (in 2006, LOL), they added an abrupt detour from the oceanside through the middle of downtown Pacific Grove. This meant a pretty sudden, relatively steep uphill, a few hundred level feet, then an equally steep downhill. Do they still have this detour? Both times I ran it, the turnaround was basically turning around in the street, which doesn't cost that much time, but yet another feature that slows down the course.
Sage - Philly is not an easy course; it sounds like you have never run it. At lot of fast times have come on the Philly course because of the level competition. Philly is a signature event and athletes come to Philly focusing on running fast. Philly has a net downhill but downhill does not make up for an equal grade and length of an uphill and Philly does have a few hill. Btw, I have run Philly 7 times.
Well, I'm just supporting what this guy said (quoted below)...because he's run under 65-min on the course (he claims) and probably knows a thing or two about running.(Keep in mind for you mid-pack runners that it is much easier to PR on any type of course because factors like training probably make a bigger difference for you and you are racing at a lower intensity than true lactate threshold). A margin of 40-45 seconds for a 1:20+ half marathoner isn't much....for a guy going after a sub 1:05 (like some of those Asics Aggies guys in the group ahead of me) it was the difference between getting an OTQ and not getting one. All I'm saying is that Kara's performance was pretty darn good.And I think the course ran surprisingly slow (usually running on a bike path isn't super fast as well and that's what we finished on) considering what I saw on the elevation map/chart (it looked more flat/fast) and considering the very nice weather conditions. I'm also starting to think some of the little turns (not just the U-turn) maybe contributed more to the slower times (which of course at a higher velocity are harder to negotiate)I listed my Garmin 13.2 miles figure because I wanted to hint that the course probably wasn't short. That was actually surprisingly accurate. I know Garmins can be off (seriously who wouldn't know that). As far as the 0.2% grade calculation of 6.55 miles "up" and "down" goes? Well, that would be like saying let's smooth out Boston and make it this nice gradual downhill (since it's a net downhill race) the whole way. Of course it would be faster! Think of work/displacement/energy costs. Basic physics. Do the downhills "make up" for all the uphills?... does a headwind get "canceled out" by a tailwind?....No!Either there are a few people on here repeatedly posting that are rooting against Kara (hmm, I wonder who might do that) and/or there really are "local runners" on here that are somewhat upset that I'm saying Big Sur isn't a lightening fast course. Whatever. It is a beautiful course, it is well organized and it was a great event...I'm just saying the little hills (and keep in mind i come from mountain running...I know what a hill is) surprised me. However, it is quite entertaining to read how people are arguing what "hilly" is and what "fast" vs "non-fast" is!Again, I really liked my trip out there, I enjoyed the area, and I was happy with how my race went. I also think Kara ran surprisingly well from the course conditions that I experienced/saw.
not my real name. wrote:
at risk of outing myself, I've both lived on the course (briefly), run OT qualifying times on it, and also run nearly 2min slower than my pb (which yes, came from a very flat course).
this whole pissing match about how "hilly" it is, and what the def of hilly is, is beyond silly.
as many (intelligent) posters have said, IT RUNS SLOW. S canaday was very on the money with a 30-45s guesstimate. You could reasonably say it could be as mmuch as a min slow, but no more than 60s, max. No way in hell is is ANY LESS than 30s slower than a RnR SJ type of course tho. period.
also, if you're def of "hilly" means it must be over 2min slower than a flat course, that's just a waste of breath. we're talking nat'l/int'l level road racing, not mountain running.
Sage, you are arguing over the same thing.We know that it's harder for someone running 1:05 versus a 1:20 to drop 45 seconds (seriously who wouldn't know that).GPS watches are not accurate, but you posted it and no one, not on one post implied that it was short.As for Kara Goucher running a 1:11 or whatever, I think that you care more than most runners about her results (a small minority on this site is NOT a good sampling). Personally, I don't care one way or the other what she ran. You decide what's hilly or flat and then respond to what "you" think is accurate.Keep in mind that just because you are a faster than most (but only a tad faster than me), it doesn't make your definition any better (but seriously who wouldn't know that).Sorry, the little turns are not higher to negotiate. You're running Sage, not driving a race car.I think it's entertaining that you think the course is surprisingly slow and what makes your definition correct? I think it's entertaining that you've posted so many times and that's okay but others do and you find "them" entertaining. The 1 poster was saying that it's not hilly and that there are also slight downhill grades, very slight. You then respond about flattening out Boston? What are you talking about dude? Sorry, the course is one of the easier half marathons in the country and you're calling it slow. I don't have to have run a 2:17 marathon to tell you that you're wrong. Carry on Sage.
S. Canaday wrote:
Well, I'm just supporting what this guy said (quoted below)...because he's run under 65-min on the course (he claims) and probably knows a thing or two about running.
(Keep in mind for you mid-pack runners that it is much easier to PR on any type of course because factors like training probably make a bigger difference for you and you are racing at a lower intensity than true lactate threshold). A margin of 40-45 seconds for a 1:20+ half marathoner isn't much....for a guy going after a sub 1:05 (like some of those Asics Aggies guys in the group ahead of me) it was the difference between getting an OTQ and not getting one.
All I'm saying is that Kara's performance was pretty darn good.
And I think the course ran surprisingly slow (usually running on a bike path isn't super fast as well and that's what we finished on) considering what I saw on the elevation map/chart (it looked more flat/fast) and considering the very nice weather conditions. I'm also starting to think some of the little turns (not just the U-turn) maybe contributed more to the slower times (which of course at a higher velocity are harder to negotiate)
I listed my Garmin 13.2 miles figure because I wanted to hint that the course probably wasn't short. That was actually surprisingly accurate. I know Garmins can be off (seriously who wouldn't know that).
As far as the 0.2% grade calculation of 6.55 miles "up" and "down" goes? Well, that would be like saying let's smooth out Boston and make it this nice gradual downhill (since it's a net downhill race) the whole way. Of course it would be faster! Think of work/displacement/energy costs. Basic physics. Do the downhills "make up" for all the uphills?... does a headwind get "canceled out" by a tailwind?....No!
Either there are a few people on here repeatedly posting that are rooting against Kara (hmm, I wonder who might do that) and/or there really are "local runners" on here that are somewhat upset that I'm saying Big Sur isn't a lightening fast course. Whatever.
It is a beautiful course, it is well organized and it was a great event...I'm just saying the little hills (and keep in mind i come from mountain running...I know what a hill is) surprised me.
However, it is quite entertaining to read how people are arguing what "hilly" is and what "fast" vs "non-fast" is!
Again, I really liked my trip out there, I enjoyed the area, and I was happy with how my race went. I also think Kara ran surprisingly well from the course conditions that I experienced/saw.
not my real name. wrote:at risk of outing myself, I've both lived on the course (briefly), run OT qualifying times on it, and also run nearly 2min slower than my pb (which yes, came from a very flat course).
this whole pissing match about how "hilly" it is, and what the def of hilly is, is beyond silly.
as many (intelligent) posters have said, IT RUNS SLOW. S canaday was very on the money with a 30-45s guesstimate. You could reasonably say it could be as mmuch as a min slow, but no more than 60s, max. No way in hell is is ANY LESS than 30s slower than a RnR SJ type of course tho. period.
also, if you're def of "hilly" means it must be over 2min slower than a flat course, that's just a waste of breath. we're talking nat'l/int'l level road racing, not mountain running.
S. Canaday wrote:
Either there are a few people on here repeatedly posting that are rooting against Kara (hmm, I wonder who might do that)
Here's what I know about Kara's fitness. I ran the same race and finished 2 places behind her. Through mile 8, I was about 50-100 meters behind her feeling strong and clicking off 5:30s, and then I looked up and suddenly she was gone.
jayzus, yous guys are killing me.
Fine, it's one of the fastest courses in the country. you happy now? fact is, I've run 64xx, 65xx, and 66xx on that course, and run 63xx elsewhere. it's absolutely 30-45s slower than THE fastest course(s) in the country.
if it makes you happy, call it ONE OF the fastest, but it's still always going to be slower than THE fastest, period.
Looks like her endocrinologist has her dialed in again.
I don't think that you saying "if it makes you happy" means anything to anybody. No one said it was the fastest either. Posting that you've ran this time or that time impresses no one, fake poster. I broke 63 there, but I'm not telling you who I am. Seriously, get a life and get back on your meds, immediately.
not my real name. wrote:
jayzus, yous guys are killing me.
Fine, it's one of the fastest courses in the country. you happy now? fact is, I've run 64xx, 65xx, and 66xx on that course, and run 63xx elsewhere. it's absolutely 30-45s slower than THE fastest course(s) in the country.
if it makes you happy, call it ONE OF the fastest, but it's still always going to be slower than THE fastest, period.