Holy hell the depth at CIM.

Yeah. Now the USATF-PA event is the half marathon but it used to be the 30K (which is what the 2:11 guy is referring to). They don't even run the 30K anymore ... (20 mile, 1/2 marathon, 10K and 5K). I ran the 30K the last year it was the featured race - 2009.

Lol at the trolls who normally complain about how slow U.S. marathoners are, no depth, etc., then they are momentarily stunned at the result of a quality field running a fair course under perfect weather conditions (a combination that happens in the U.S. almost never). They must then seize at the sliver of hope offered by trumped-up elevation profiles: "Screaming downhill kiddie-slide of a route! Non-IAAF certified! Outlier!" Pretty sad but funny for sure.

Re wrote:

YouveRunIt wrote:

You've run CIM then? 6-7 minutes faster than NYC or Boston??? Get outta here. Boston and CIM are very similar at least when running them. You lose a ton in the very first mile at CIM but then it's all rollers through 16 or so. Yes, you go down more than you go up but you do a fair amount of climbing. The last 10k is really nice where it flattens out and you're still losing some elevation.

Look at CIM compared to NYC. It’s not even the same race:

http://www.uli-sauer.de/laufen/stories/2006newyork/2006nyc-marathon-routeprofile.gifhttps://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YKVjsUMXkM4/Tn-UIm2_UqI/AAAAAAAAgvk/v7vx-0vEZ_U/s1600/courseelev.jpg

those are different scale profiles, ya dummy.

makes no sense to compare those.

come on come on come on wrote:

Re wrote:

Look at CIM compared to NYC. It’s not even the same race:

http://www.uli-sauer.de/laufen/stories/2006newyork/2006nyc-marathon-routeprofile.gifhttps://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YKVjsUMXkM4/Tn-UIm2_UqI/AAAAAAAAgvk/v7vx-0vEZ_U/s1600/courseelev.jpg

those are different scale profiles, ya dummy.

makes no sense to compare those.

You're a moron. CIM is wayyyy faster than NYC. Most people on letsrun have never run the course so they don't know jack shyt. I know a dude that can't break 20 in the 5k and he ran 3:14 in CIM last year.

3:14:00 marathon and 20:00 5K are equivalent times. McMillan gives 19:55 and Daniels gives 20:17. And you friend probably didn’t run 3:14:00 but more likely 3:14:30-ish.

CIM is faster than NYC...and so is about 1/2 of the marathons in the USA. NYC is a great race but not a fast course. That doesn't mean NYC is the gold standard.

Berlin is faster than NYC.

Your data is wrong. I'm looking at the Garmin Connect elevation data of the course from multiple runners on Sunday and it's only 340 feet of climbing and over 700 feet of drop.

This is way less climbing than courses like Grandma's, Philadelphia etc. Even Chicago has about 200 feet of "climbing". Honestly it's probably less climbing than even Berlin, plus you get the net drop.

Clarksburg started as a 20-miler. Was named the Pepsi 20. Finishers received a six pack of Pepsi and hot tomato soup. I ran it first time in 1974 at age 14. Clarksburg was pretty much the only long race in the Sacramento region (Many Bay Area runners raced too) and like Cal10 had the quite the reputation for fast times. It was also the way to end the year with a long run, before CIM came along.

Takinadump wrote:

come on come on come on wrote:

those are different scale profiles, ya dummy.

makes no sense to compare those.

You're a moron. CIM is wayyyy faster than NYC. Most people on letsrun have never run the course so they don't know jack shyt. I know a dude that can't break 20 in the 5k and he ran 3:14 in CIM last year.

Well I ran 2:58 at NYC and 3:06 at CIM on similar training. This year field was stacked cause of championship being near by for many top runners. I bet sage Canada is regretting not doing this one for OTQ. I think they had pacers for the B standard s

I agree with stacked field. Also, the weather allowed many(including me) to be greedy and run faster than planned. Thankfully, I was able to hold on for PR. I know others that had the greed catch up. Stinson ran like many serious hobbyjoggers did. I don't mean that as a negative, it was awesome to see him chase a win.

Weather felt great so they went for it. The field was full of experienced runners who took advantage. It's still 26.2 miles and regardless of course, weather, etc., you still have to have enough to finish. The b.s. of ease or downhill is garbage.

I wasn't there but based on the results something created the perfect storm. I will be anxious to watch how all of these successful athletes run in future races.

Mooving Forward wrote:

I wasn't there but based on the results something created the perfect storm. I will be anxious to watch how all of these successful athletes run in future races.

I was there. It was a combination of:

(1) 45 deg F at the start,

(2) low humidity,

(3) little to no wind,

(4) multiple pace groups to set the pace and block the infrequent gusts of wind, and

(5) the mass use of the Vaporflys/ Zoom Flys.

Having been there and been part of the race and ran an OTQ. It was the perfect storm. No weather issues, slight head wind, 45 degrees. Rolling in a pack of 30 to 40 guys it felt more like a Sunday long run tempo with buddies than a actual race. People were sharing bottles, gels, and water cups, something I have never been a part of or even seen in all my time running.

Also take into account the amount of veterans that were leading this pack for this group, You had Pat Rizzo, love him or hate him the guy did a great job pacing. Eric Loeffler the calm of the group, Matthew Fecht, this guy is the human metronome kept us steady and non aggressive

You had a large group of us "sub-elites' that all wanted to work together to achieve this goal.

Stop hating because you didn't make it or didn't show up to the race

Haters gonna Hate

Congrats on the OTQ!

I ran my fastest marathon in the last 5 years on Sunday at CIM, and I ran 5 minutes faster than I did 2 years ago on the same course, qualifying me for Boston by 5 minutes. The weather certaintly helped, but I think the bulk of my success was increased mileage with 20% or more at marathon pace. I wore the ZoomFlys, and I think they helped. Do you think the Vaporflys/ Zoomflys contributed to the faster times at all? I think they helped my time by a few minutes.

do you have the stills as individual files by any chance? would love to snag a couple of those

gregmacd wrote:

Do you think the Vaporflys/ Zoomflys contributed to the faster times at all? I think they helped my time by a few minutes.

Vaporflys, yes. Zoomflys, no way. Saucony A6, Adios Boost, Asics Hyperspeed all better.

Watching these CIM defenders circle jerk is just fascinating.

It's a downhill course, it's easier than the vast majority of marathons run in this country. It's okay, you're allowed to say that without you feeling the need to defend it with ridiculous statements like "but the uphills take so much out of you!"

Out of the top 15 men. All 15 ran a PB at this race. 100%. I challenge you to find another marathon over the last 5 years that can make that claim.

Vaporfly much better wrote:

gregmacd wrote:

Do you think the Vaporflys/ Zoomflys contributed to the faster times at all? I think they helped my time by a few minutes.

Vaporflys, yes. Zoomflys, no way. Saucony A6, Adios Boost, Asics Hyperspeed all better.

The Zoom Fly SP is a better shoe for 99% of Runner’s out there. The SP is a bit more firm, has a more comfortable upper, and feels like it will last twice as long as the 4%, all for $100 less. The SP is the best racing shoe Nike has ever made, and I’ve worn nearly all of them.