Downhill Marathons

Prior to 2012 it did count.

Helpful advice giver wrote:

Back on topic though, it someone tells me about their marathon "PR" from some 2000+ foot drop course, not only do I instinctively roll my eyes and add 5+ minutes but I kinda think less of the person for running such a race in the first place and then, worse, trying to pass it off as a legit time. That's only one small step from people who flat out lie about their PRs (which was much worse before the internet).

You my friend are a purist. Your arguments are valid. But I'm still tempted.

I do wonder if there is a sweet spot with more like 1500 foot decline, like maybe Steamtown. But getting to Scranton PA looks like a beating. Ojai/Mountain2Beach is another but it's sold out, and I have an ultra 2 weeks before that I wouldn't recover from in time.

I've run Tucson 4 times over the last decade. It's steep the first 5, then gentle 1 percentish till 10, then a 4 mile out and back with a clime, and then back to the 1 percent until about 22, then essentially flat. I've always had good experience-though note that there have been some off years logistically that have reflected on it's reputation.

Colorado Marathon in Fort Collins ain't bad, and Pocatello Idaho is good too-though both flatten out at mile 20.

Helpful advice giver wrote:

Anytime I hear someone talk about their PR from a big downhill course, I can't help but to roll my eyes. I don't mean to, it's a reflex that I cannot stop.

OP, don't be that guy who claims a downhill race as a PR

You're nicer than me. I have a hard time not laughing in their face.

Helpful advice giver wrote:

Back on topic though, it someone tells me about their marathon "PR" from some 2000+ foot drop course, not only do I instinctively roll my eyes and add 5+ minutes but I kinda think less of the person for running such a race in the first place and then, worse, trying to pass it off as a legit time. That's only one small step from people who flat out lie about their PRs (which was much worse before the internet).

This is how a true runner should think. I take it even further, and if my PRs are nowhere near world class, or even national, or even regional, I want certified and record eligible drops. If the drop is too much, or course is point to point, it might be a great race but in the back of my head I'd still feel like I may have "cheated" with an easier course, or helped by wind etc.

Loop courses on a flattish ground or rolling hills is where one should target his PRs! I was looking at Utah because I like the state... but all their marathons seem downhill wtf

Net downhill marathons at high elevations provide an advantage compared to a flat marathon at high elevation, in the same way that a sea level flat marathon provides a distinct advantage over a flat marathon at 6,000ft. Yet, no one seems to criticize marathon runners who run a flat sea-level race for a PR.

A huge net downhill marathon to sea level obviously doubles-up the advantages (ala Revel Canyon City).

The original marathon route was a net uphill from around 100ft above sea-level, up to 800ft, then back down to 400. If we're being true to the original, that should be the standard profile, with all other times adjusted.

The only 'fair' way is to have a perfect formula that adjusts all marathons to account for elevation and gains/losses, as well as temperature and weather conditions. Of course these factors affect runners of different size differently, so height and weight should probably be in that formula, too. Also, males have a testosterone advantage, but the levels vary by individual, so testosterone levels should also be included in that calculation. Good luck with that!

Missed this thread when it started, but "Jack and Jill's" is a great name for a downhill race.

Doesn't have the big downhill marathons, but interesting anyway:

http://www.arrs.net/TB_Mara.htm

The San Diego Holiday half-marathon drops about 700 feet, and as I recall that drop is almost all between miles 2 and 11. I thought the downhill felt great, didn't beat up my quads and I went 2-3 minutes faster than the shape I was in.

Caveats: (1) A half marathon is very different from a full, as I'm sure you know. (2) I tend to overstride seriously, which makes me quite efficient going downhill (and a terrible uphill runner despite being fairly light).

Its just another stunt. Why not cut the course by 2 miles? It amounts to about the same thing. Plus, real runners will laugh at you, lol.

Having missed a BQ by 90 seconds, I thought this might be the answer. I did the Peak to Creek in North Carolina. I wasnt trained for this experience (live in flat farm land) and it beat the heck out of my legs. I also watched a woman to a faceplant.

more helpful advice wrote:

Helpful advice giver wrote:

Anytime I hear someone talk about their PR from a big downhill course, I can't help but to roll my eyes. I don't mean to, it's a reflex that I cannot stop.

OP, don't be that guy who claims a downhill race as a PR

You're nicer than me. I have a hard time not laughing in their face.

Seriously. If we counted downhill races then I should be added to the list of sub-4 minute milers compliments of the Superior Downhill Mile in Superior, CO... My actual PR is well above 4-minutes.

To those wondering what the ideal downhill grade is for maximising speed, it isn't that easy to answer. I've done a fair bit of research and calculations and found that ~4% is probably ideal. You would want to train specifically for the downhill or your quads won't last 26 miles.

I did a 6 mile race down a paved road at 6.3% grade, not even running with much effort, but ran PRs at every distance from 2-6mi. Legs were completely trashed as soon as I stopped running.

It's pretty simple. Extreme downhill at high altitude = flat at sea level.

If you can get to a flat or slight downhill sea level race, do it, it won't destroy your quads as badly, and apparently PRs don't have as much of a stigma, despite the abundant oxygen.

If you live at altitude, and can't get to sea level, do a downhill race. Same advantage (gravity instead of oxygen assisted) as a sea level race so time should be equivalent, but much harder on your legs, and you will have a mental asterisk next to your PB because the gravity assist will be apparent in the course profile.

Extreme downhill to sea level is where you get into some grey territory in my opinion, but if you are dying to get to Boston, and are willing to endure the pain of a downhill race, I say power to you, especially considering the rule of thumb now is you have to beat your AG BQ time by 5 minutes to get in.

Steamboat Springs Marathon has a net downhill of 1200 ft. BUT it starts at 8500 elevation so times are pretty slow.

Bill the pill wrote:

Helpful advice giver wrote:

Back on topic though, it someone tells me about their marathon "PR" from some 2000+ foot drop course, not only do I instinctively roll my eyes and add 5+ minutes but I kinda think less of the person for running such a race in the first place and then, worse, trying to pass it off as a legit time. That's only one small step from people who flat out lie about their PRs (which was much worse before the internet).

You my friend are a purist. Your arguments are valid. But I'm still tempted.

I do wonder if there is a sweet spot with more like 1500 foot decline, like maybe Steamtown. But getting to Scranton PA looks like a beating. Ojai/Mountain2Beach is another but it's sold out, and I have an ultra 2 weeks before that I wouldn't recover from in time.

I've done Steamtown and St George (as part of doing races in 50 states, not chasing some PR) along with Sugarloaf Maine (another 1000+ foot drop). St George is by far the easiest, and aside from mile 15 or there about, no part of the race is particularly steep to where you feel like you're getting beat up. The "big uphill" that starts around mile 7 is pretty mild to be honest, and I didn't slow down terribly on it, plus it's early enough in the race you still feel good. Most of it is more like a false flat than proper uphill.

Sugarloaf has a couple of steep downhills and a steep uphill (maybe around half way), and the last 10 k or something is pretty much flat, so it feels much less like a downhill course.

The race near Mt Charleston (outside of Las Vegas) would probably be a blazing fast course. I've hiked there and driven that road and it has just the right gradient, and it's consistent as well.

Steamtown is a tough course, in spite of what it appears to be. The last half gets harder, and what is hard to see are all the little short but steep inclines that you do. You will not PR on this course unless you are legitimately strong.

downer wrote:

It's pretty simple. Extreme downhill at high altitude = flat at sea level.

As someone who lives above 6000 ft this isn't even close to true. Downhill at altitude is way easier than flat at sea level.

In my book< I wouldn't count it as a PR, if the time was set on a downhill course.

It might be a fun thing to do but a PR it is not.

You are just cheating yourself.

amkelley wrote:

The San Diego Holiday half-marathon drops about 700 feet, and as I recall that drop is almost all between miles 2 and 11. I thought the downhill felt great, didn't beat up my quads and I went 2-3 minutes faster than the shape I was in.

Caveats: (1) A half marathon is very different from a full, as I'm sure you know. (2) I tend to overstride seriously, which makes me quite efficient going downhill (and a terrible uphill runner despite being fairly light).

Better yet course is really 12.8 miles even though USATF certified so people can get their fake PR's.

Back on topic... This is why USA sucks at marathons vs the world. Too many downhill races bloating people's Instagram egos. Then they quit when they can't repeat efforts on a legit course