Since when do American marathoners aim for a 2:15 and end up with a 2:11? Normally it is the other way around. It's a "PB" to the extend that Eliud Kipchoge's "PB" is 2:00:25.
Since when do American marathoners aim for a 2:15 and end up with a 2:11? Normally it is the other way around. It's a "PB" to the extend that Eliud Kipchoge's "PB" is 2:00:25.
first, he was aiming for 2:14 not 2:15. second, his main objective was to be strong in the last 10k, not to necessarily run a specific time
respondstotrolls wrote:
first, he was aiming for 2:14 not 2:15. second, his main objective was to be strong in the last 10k, not to necessarily run a specific time
That's what everyone says. Everyone has a goal time in mind and they never run 3 minutes faster than that goal - more often 3 minutes slower. Except at CIM - even he probably wasn't expecting such a cheap downhill "marathon."
If I remember correctly, Allie Kieffer wanted to run 2:32 and ended up with a 2:29 in NYC for 5th place. Is the NYC course a farce?
We get it. You're jealous and bitter cause you didn't run CIM and a bunch of other people did. You don't need to make a million threads about it.
CIM = not your PB wrote:
Since when do American marathoners...
Boston 2011 is the answer to your question.
CIM = not your PB wrote:
respondstotrolls wrote:
first, he was aiming for 2:14 not 2:15. second, his main objective was to be strong in the last 10k, not to necessarily run a specific time
That's what everyone says. Everyone has a goal time in mind and they never run 3 minutes faster than that goal - more often 3 minutes slower. Except at CIM - even he probably wasn't expecting such a cheap downhill "marathon."
I had a goal time in mind, and then ran 2 minutes faster at NYC. Bow down MF!
You have a tenuous grasp on the definition of "proof".
The dude has run a half in 61 is it so hard to believe he can run 2:12? If the course is really so fast how come he ran the second half faster despite the first having most of the downhills? Clearly he was in good shape, ran a conservative first half, and crushed the last 10K.
the king of marathoning wrote:
CIM = not your PB wrote:
That's what everyone says. Everyone has a goal time in mind and they never run 3 minutes faster than that goal - more often 3 minutes slower. Except at CIM - even he probably wasn't expecting such a cheap downhill "marathon."
I had a goal time in mind, and then ran 2 minutes faster at NYC. Bow down MF!
Obviously that statement is limited to elite runners, not hobbyjoggers.
RitchieFTW wrote:
The dude has run a half in 61 is it so hard to believe he can run 2:12? If the course is really so fast how come he ran the second half faster despite the first having most of the downhills? Clearly he was in good shape, ran a conservative first half, and crushed the last 10K.
Because he spent SIGNIFICANTLY less energy running a 66 minute first half than he expected.
Not everybody in the elite field at CIM pr'ed but those in the top 10 did because those that hit the wall hit it hard.
See:
Daniel Tapia -> 2:16
Fernando Cabada -> 2:18
Parker Stinson -> 2:18 after being on 2:09 pace through 20
Joe Grey -> 2:20
Nick Arciniaga -> 2:26
There is no certaintee that you'll get great conditions at CIM. I ran it in 1997. Pouring rain with a screaming headwind out of the south. This means that miles 6-10 were directly into the wind and miles 13-17 also were into the wind. The rest of the race was sidewind with rain coming in sideways.
What a point to point course giveth a point to point course can taketh away.
Except for the elevation profile
FasterThanGoalTime wrote:
Not everybody in the elite field at CIM pr'ed but those in the top 10 did because those that hit the wall hit it hard.
See:
Daniel Tapia -> 2:16
Fernando Cabada -> 2:18
Parker Stinson -> 2:18 after being on 2:09 pace through 20
Joe Grey -> 2:20
Nick Arciniaga -> 2:26
100% of the top 15 men pr'd. 18 of the top 20.
Only 3 women in the top 20 did not pr.
That means with the top 20 in both genders. 35 of 40 pr'd. Please show me another race in the last 2 years that has done that. People want to go back to Boston in 2011 which only proves the point. This was probably the fastest marathon run in the US in 6 years.
CIM = not your PB wrote:
the king of marathoning wrote:
I had a goal time in mind, and then ran 2 minutes faster at NYC. Bow down MF!
Obviously that statement is limited to elite runners, not hobbyjoggers.
I am a runner, and I am elite, so I think it is fair to call myself an elite runner. And I say that in the least arrogant way possible.
Darn close wrote:
...
100% of the top 15 men pr'd. 18 of the top 20.
Only 3 women in the top 20 did not pr.
That means with the top 20 in both genders. 35 of 40 pr'd. Please show me another race in the last 2 years that has done that. People want to go back to Boston in 2011 which only proves the point. This was probably the fastest marathon run in the US in 6 years.
If that's true, then it's pretty damning in my eyes.
Darn close wrote:
FasterThanGoalTime wrote:
Not everybody in the elite field at CIM pr'ed but those in the top 10 did because those that hit the wall hit it hard.
See:
Daniel Tapia -> 2:16
Fernando Cabada -> 2:18
Parker Stinson -> 2:18 after being on 2:09 pace through 20
Joe Grey -> 2:20
Nick Arciniaga -> 2:26
100% of the top 15 men pr'd. 18 of the top 20.
Only 3 women in the top 20 did not pr.
That means with the top 20 in both genders. 35 of 40 pr'd. Please show me another race in the last 2 years that has done that. People want to go back to Boston in 2011 which only proves the point. This was probably the fastest marathon run in the US in 6 years.
Technically no one PR'd because to do so requires a valid course. But to your point - yes, everyone ran faster than their PR and obviously if you run way too fast and blow up as did Tapia, Cabada, Stinson, et al then you will not well fast even on a laughably aided course.
You're probably right. It's a fast course, on a fast day. People had trained hard and worked together in the race so they had big PR's. The few that had rough days dropped out or tanked hard leaving most of the top 20 with PR's. That doesn't mean the course in unfair it just runs fast much like Chicago/Berlin/London with good weather.
As others have noted weather was even better last year. CIM is first (but fair) course with high odds for ideal weather. You're welcome to come run it next year!
Well then show up and race rather than whine about it.
Weather was perfect, best weather at an American marathon in a few years. The course will always be the course but the weather is a crapshoot. American marathons have not had great weather lately. This (CIM) was the weather you pray for and don't often get. It was windy (40 MPH gusts) a day later.
Chicago, Boston, New York all had issues with wind and/or warmth and/or rain. So tough bananas dude and major props to the athletes who put their balls/ovaries on the line at CIM and came away with their dream race.
Fast Course wrote:
You're probably right. It's a fast course, on a fast day. People had trained hard and worked together in the race so they had big PR's. The few that had rough days dropped out or tanked hard leaving most of the top 20 with PR's. That doesn't mean the course in unfair it just runs fast much like Chicago/Berlin/London with good weather.
As others have noted weather was even better last year. CIM is first (but fair) course with high odds for ideal weather. You're welcome to come run it next year!
It is nothing like Chicago, Berlin, or London!! Those courses are perfectly flat. CIM is full of rollers, much like Boston.
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
2017 World 800 champ Pierre-Ambroise Bosse banned 1 year for whereabouts failures