Holy hell the depth at CIM.

The CIM course is fair as those who went out of their way to get to Sacramento seem to believe.

However, if the CIM decided to run the course backwards in 2018 then how many of those who entered in 2017 looking for a fast course would enter?

If the 4% drop in the present course is not noticeable then the 4% gain on the reversed course would also not be noticeable and should thus be just as fast.

Ashley Madison wrote:

One year I ran sub-55 at Cal10. Finished 256th. When running was strong and had depth.

Yeah, this post and the one just before it (same time good for 400th at Chicago later good for 40th) says a lot. Those of you that know NorCal races will know Clarksburg. I did it in '79 or '80 as a teenager and ran 2:11. That might be decent for a 15 or16 yo now but it wasn't then. I was so far back in the pack I don't know what place I got. Missed the podium in my division. Half a dozen teenagers ahead of me and over a hundred people total. And as some of you know, this is a well-known regional event but it doesn't attract anyone from far away, certainly not East Africa. I've done it again recently and one year at least 2:11 was good for 2nd place overall. Top10 every year now. And in my old age division, finishing wins it.

I am happy to see what happened at CIM but it seems less remarkable to those of us that remember when there were Rodgers, et al, but a lot of unknown amateurs not all that far back who were far ahead of today's unknown amateurs. Maybe this country will turn back into what it once was. We have Ritz and Rupp recently, and of course Hall, but at any given point like 3 more guys going under 2:20. Then the crowd trying to qualify for Boston. The very best are good but we have been shallow.

Another topic: I have been trying to find the overall CIM results as opposed to the USATF Championship results. Weren't there various East Africans in M&W fields? You don't have to be a US citizen or USATF member to enter CIM (most of the mid to back of packers aren't) so who won the overall races? If I was standing at the finish unaware of the national sub-race within a race, whom did I see break the tape?

Not 4% gain/loss. 0.4% gain/loss. Big difference.

I think people came to CIM mostly because it was a championship this year. In the past it hasn't been nearly as deep or fast.

There is a lack of flat marathon courses in the west, so when a good one pops up it tends to be popular.

Ritchie and Hall won and I don't know of any non-Americans near the top in either gender. I don't think there was much if any non-American prize money so no incentive. Here's results I found https://www.athlinks.com/event/3241/results

I ran my fastest marathon in 5 years (3:21:39) yesterday in the black and white NYC version of the ZoomFlys (I have the white hat on in photo 11 below about 3 from the left). 2 years ago I ran 5 minutes slower on the same course. I noticed the Vaporfly and Zoomfly all over the place! Check photo 4 and 16 at the below link.

http://www.marathonguide.com/news/newsviewer.cfm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Esacbee%2Ecom%2Fsports%2Farticle187855184%2Ehtml

Old Time Depth wrote:

Yeah, this post and the one just before it (same time good for 400th at Chicago later good for 40th) says a lot. Those of you that know NorCal races will know Clarksburg. I did it in '79 or '80 as a teenager and ran 2:11. That might be decent for a 15 or16 yo now but it wasn't then. I was so far back in the pack I don't know what place I got. Missed the podium in my division. Half a dozen teenagers ahead of me and over a hundred people total. And as some of you know, this is a well-known regional event but it doesn't attract anyone from far away, certainly not East Africa. I've done it again recently and one year at least 2:11 was good for 2nd place overall. Top10 every year now. And in my old age division, finishing wins it.

Clarksburg is a half marathon now (for the PA-USATF circuit), but I believe the 20 miler used to be the headlining event. Is that what you're referring to with your 2:11? Or was Clarksburg a full marathon at some point?

It was also a Pacific Association USATF championship race, so that added to the depth plenty (2:13-40s) as it is the deepest association in America.

oakland runner wrote:

This year's depth at CIM was not typical of the race. In 1983, the first year of the race, I ran 2:27:05 and was 37th. I ran the race about 10 times in the 2:27 - 2:40 range and always finished in the top 50, once as low as 18th. Today, the 2:27 would have placed in the 80s. Using this year's results to say that the course is unfairly fast would be like using the year when 2:05 was run at Boston to say that that course is unfairly fast.

I had a similar experience. I finished 1007 yesterday, but I would have gotten 897 if I ran the same pace 2 years ago.

Cim depth off the charts wrote:

CIM was just insane, depth wise. I like these two stats:

1. A random dude ran 2:59:59 and got 649th place.

2. Mike Wardian's 2:38 would have only been good for 16th chick.

Damn. Also, Anthony Costales just dropped his pr from 2:17 high to 2:13:12 to take 4th. Talk about a breakout.

There were 7,289 entrants this year, and all sub-3 runners were in the top 8.88%. Two years ago there were 5,628 entrants, so to get in the top 8.88% you'd have to run a 3:05:04, which was good for about 500th place. So the times were about 5 minutes faster this year as compared to 2 years ago. This was probably due in part to the ideal weather conditions and the Nike Vaporflys/ Zoomflys.

real NYC man wrote:

1. in NYC, there were ~1000 sub3 runners even though the course is tougher. hence, there is more depth at the NYC m. but obviously, the field is exceptionally strong around the OTQ threshold. but that's because the course is known to be easy.

NYC has 5x as many participants so the volume of sub3s will be higher than CIM. Yesterday's CIM race only had 7,300 participants.

Slow Region wrote:

Not 4% gain/loss. 0.4% gain/loss. Big difference.

It's not even that much. 340 feet in 26.2 miles works out to a net gradient of 0.2%.

Last train to London wrote:

If the 4% drop in the present course is not noticeable then the 4% gain on the reversed course would also not be noticeable and should thus be just as fast.

THIS.

I felt a head wind in the middle miles . Died out at mile 11 shooting for sub 3. Had other better trained buddies miss their marks by 6 - 10 minutes...then lots others who did PR. So I am scratching my head here on how to assess my performance.

running the course reverse to prove the benefit is a brilliant suggestion

CIM course follows (parallels) a flowing RIVER from a dam

how can anyone not realize this means guaranteed descent all the way, water doesn't flow uphill

also look at the wind that day, it was a benefit most of the way because it's uni-directional (point to point)

I still don't understand why a USA championship course doesn't follow the same international IAAF/AIMS rules, no more than a meter of descent per kilometer and has to either be a loop or out-and-back

how can runners properly qualify for Olympics if they can't produce race times on a course that would be used at the Olympics but instead use little tricks to optimize for PRs?

You don't seem to understand that in order to be comparable to a flat course, there should be a little more downhill than there is uphill since you don't get back 100% of the energy lost on the uphill portion by running an equivalent downhill portion.

So running it in reverse will make it a harder course and tougher than a flat course.

As it stands, the course is similar to a flat one like Chicago or Berlin etc.

It doesn't matter if the course is legit or not.

It was a magical day that is unlikely to be duplicated by most of these runners. You had old timers that shocked themselves and newcomers that shocked themselves. That is highly unusual for every runner in the top 10 of both men and women to be pleased with their results.

We call that an outlier.

Calling the race at CIM an outlier is a great description of this year's event. The results remind me of the USA half marathon championship in Houston back in 2015 where the top 50 guys broke 65 minutes. I'm willing to bet most of these runners never touched those times again.

http://results.houstonmarathon.com/2015/?pid=list

Y'all are fooling yourselves if you think this course doesn't provide any advantage. Yea, there are rolling hills in the first half, but those are being addressed while you are fresh and not starting to feel the pain. Outside of a bit of a hill at 15 miles, it's a gradual downhill for the rest of the way. It's a huge advantage to have a slight downhill for most of the second half of the race, as opposed to the hills late in the race in Boston and the Central Park hills in New York. You can attack that whole second half without having to worry about feeling the pain on hills.

CIM already is harder than a flat course, because you lose more on uphills than you gain on downhills, and there is 600+ ft of climbing and 1000 ft coming down.

It isn’t the net change that determines course difficulty- it is the amount of up and down, and the ratio of course.

Courses that are not flat but have the same amount of uphill and downhill are obviously harder than CIM.

What is an American marathon course that is truly flat for the whole thing? With good weather and few turns, it would be the fastest course.

Also- there definitely was some wind in the middle miles yesterday but it felt like single digit MPH and I didn’t pay attention to it for Long so I am guessing it was short lived.