At what elevation drop does a marathon PR lose validity?

Zero or negative elevation drop.

Boston ain't easy

minusminusplus wrote:

Zero or negative elevation drop.

Sounds like we've got a real tough guy here. IAAF even allows 138ft.

Dam Sohn Chang wrote:

Boston ain't easy

Never said it was, but thanks for the constructive input and moving the discussion forward. The point of the poll is...there are races that are "too easy" to be considered a PR by some people, what is your threshold for too easy? If Boston ain't easy, what is?

I think it is too hard to say. CIM loses 339 net to Boston's 442, but the points of the course in Boston where the elevation changes occur make it a fair course, not a fast course, whereas CIM is a nice, steady drop. Napa Valley is the same deal as CIM - steady, moderate downhill the whole time.

So I don't think using net drop alone is meaningful enough to make the distinction that you want to make.

UsingGravity wrote:

I'm looking for the hobby jogger definition of PR-eligible marathon, not the world record definition.

For me I consider the definition of PR-eligible to be the same as WR-eligible.

PR == WR wrote:

UsingGravity wrote:

I'm looking for the hobby jogger definition of PR-eligible marathon, not the world record definition.

For me I consider the definition of PR-eligible to be the same as WR-eligible.

So some guy that's run 3:10 goes to Boston and runs 3:08...he didn't PR in your eyes? You'll asterisk him for that?

Smoove wrote:

I think it is too hard to say. CIM loses 339 net to Boston's 442, but the points of the course in Boston where the elevation changes occur make it a fair course, not a fast course, whereas CIM is a nice, steady drop. Napa Valley is the same deal as CIM - steady, moderate downhill the whole time.

So I don't think using net drop alone is meaningful enough to make the distinction that you want to make.

Fair enough. Mostly I'm looking for a late year marathon within driving distance of my home... and the Hamilton, Ontario Marathon fits those requirements. Unfortunately it has net drop of a little over 400ft. Most of which takes place from 13.5-18miles. I'd rather not spend my time working towards a race that I'll feel guilty for running if I PR. Something like Grandma's seems ok even though it's >100ft down. A lot of people still seem to count CIM as an acceptable course though the map does look pretty smoothly down. Boston is legit for hobbyists in my eyes. Just haven't been able to decide on this one yet.

I'd say 138,000 is the max I'd consider PR eligible.

Unrelated, from a Runners Workd article on Nike's Breaking2: "This formation, according to Nike’s testing, offered a benefit comparable to running downhill at a 2.5 percent grade." That's almost 3500' downhill. And unlike the "cheater" courses at St George and Utah Valley, Nike didn't have to deal with altitude, unsteady grades, or the quad damage from an actual downhill.

UsingGravity wrote:

PR == WR wrote:

For me I consider the definition of PR-eligible to be the same as WR-eligible.

So some guy that's run 3:10 goes to Boston and runs 3:08...he didn't PR in your eyes? You'll asterisk him for that?

If he's one of my buddies of course I'll give him grief for setting a PR on a non-WR-eligible course. Then again, I'd tell him that he only set the PR due to good weather, a tailwind, etc.

I draw the line at WR-eligible because setting another threshold just seems arbitrary, and some of the net downhill courses are absurd. Big Cottonwood has a drop of 5255 ft, and in my mind that's way too much.

Marathons are supposed to be point to point races. Boston is the standard for marathons. Running 2:29 at Boston means more than running 2:29 at Chicago or some other flat or downhill course. Any marathoner will tell you that. For over 120 years people have gone back to Boston year after year to try and get it right just once.

I think this is individual to the runner. For myself..USATF allows a runner to qualify for the Olympic trials on a course with a net drop of 3.25 meters per KM or less. (Boston has a net drop of 3.23). So I'll count a PR run on any course that meets that standard.

(CIM's net drop is 2.45; St. George's net drop is 18.48).

I can see the argument for only counting PRs on courses that are world record eligible. But of course, those standards are pretty strict, and exclude a lot of good races.

I think Boston and CIM are both pretty legit even with the drop. They barely start above sea level and go to 0... dropping hundreds of feet over 26.2 miles isn't downhill. Both have plenty of climbing to almost make them even.

Neither are easy.

CIM isn't flat and has quite a few short rollers early.

Boston is easy as heck to the 13.1 mark but after that is brutal!

We're only talking about 300-400 ft over 26.2 miles they isn't massive.

The world isn't flat.

It depends how tough the course is. Boston may be net down hill but the uphills at least match the downhills in course difficulty. I'd dismiss a course that was a steady 450 feet of steady drop before Boston

darkwave wrote:

I think this is individual to the runner. For myself..USATF allows a runner to qualify for the Olympic trials on a course with a net drop of 3.25 meters per KM or less. (Boston has a net drop of 3.23). So I'll count a PR run on any course that meets that standard.

(CIM's net drop is 2.45; St. George's net drop is 18.48).

I can see the argument for only counting PRs on courses that are world record eligible. But of course, those standards are pretty strict, and exclude a lot of good races.

I didn't know the USA Olympic trials qualifer standard. That seems like a reasonable metric...and pretty close to the 500 feet I was thinking.

Don't dismiss races that start at altitude with a large drop. There is a high variance. You either get it right or you blow up hard. Your quads can get demolished.

People who dismiss these have never run them.

Smoove wrote:

I think it is too hard to say. CIM loses 339 net to Boston's 442, but the points of the course in Boston where the elevation changes occur make it a fair course, not a fast course, whereas CIM is a nice, steady drop. Napa Valley is the same deal as CIM - steady, moderate downhill the whole time.

So I don't think using net drop alone is meaningful enough to make the distinction that you want to make.

I think CIM being fast is also helped by the weather. Unlike last week when Mother Nature tried to melt all of the USATF competitors over at Sac State, December is generally cold here in Sacramento, with a high in the mid-50's; although in 2013, it was below freezing at the start. Also, about 66% of the CIM drop is in the first half of the race and the last four miles are flat as a board.

OP, if the race is an OT Qualifier, I think you are safe to brag about your PR.

I second that 3.25 meters per KM sounds like the perfect answer. All of the Utah courses, Mt. Charleston, Mountains to Beach etc. are all hobby jogger cheater courses. I know because all my hobby jogger BQ cheat friends try to get me to race these marathons tailored around ludicrous drops. They tried to talk me out of Big Sur. Big Sur has no real drop and about 2,400 feet of climb. I'd rather do that than a cheater's course any day.

[quote Fair enough. Mostly I'm looking for a late year marathon within driving distance of my home... and the Hamilton, Ontario Marathon fits those requirements. [/quote]

Do you not run the risk of being stopped by a train during this marathon?

I ran a race called "Revel Rockies" that is around 5,000 feet of drop, I trained my butt off for this race and ended up running considerably slower than any other marathon in 2 years, my legs were completely trashed, I literally walked like a penguin for a week after this race, earlier in the year I ran a 2:49 on a flat sea level course, on this course I ran a 3:12. Downhill doesn't equate to faster (at all) unless you are doing a short race, a marathon is a ton of pounding going downhill, so much that it cancels out the benefit.

Also, Boston is downhill net course and I also ran slower on this course, in fact of the 11 people who went to Boston that I knew every single one of them ran slower than a flat course.