Tim Ritchie is a future sub-2:09 Marathoner who is just figuring things out. If anything 2:12 is just a hint of what's to come.
Tim Ritchie is a future sub-2:09 Marathoner who is just figuring things out. If anything 2:12 is just a hint of what's to come.
Why is this difficult to understand? The field on both sides was incredibly deep. No one was going to make the top 15 without having a great day. There are plenty of runners who could have placed in the top spots had they had a better day. Of course CIM is a fast course if the weather is perfect and runners have plenty of fast bodies to work with. Having ten people working together in a pack is much faster than running solo. CIM did an incredible job organizing an elite/sub-elite field and those of us not there can be jealous we didn't take advantage of that opportunity.
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.
I think I'll go run the course/race in a couple of years.
Word on the street is that a high percentage of PRs at CIM ran in VaporFly....the advantage is higher than 4% since the study on the vaporfly had to add weight to the shoes to make them equal in weight with control shoes....2:15 marathoner with a 4% boost in running economy is worth 9:24...remember the advanatage is probably closer to 6%! This is probably one of the reasons as well ....like the swim speedsuits there will a some PRs or high placing of runners wearing these shoes ( like Amy & Shalene)
I think he was capable of faster than his PR of 2:14-2:15 though b/c he said his half in CIM this year was his second slowest half in any marathon he has run....meaning this time he actually went out a little slower and finished strong instead of dying out.
The race is so stacked that if someone faded or hit the wall, they were passed by several runners who went on to run PRs while they fell behind and didn't make the top 10 or 20. Look at Nick Arciniaga.
Quick question, maybe this will help determine the legitimacy of PRs at CIM...
Is the course record-eligible?
CIM = not your PB wrote:
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.
CIM is a fast course on the day, Boston is fast course on the day, Chicago is fast, London is fast, Berlin is fast etc, etc. Pick a fast course and on a good day if you want to PR you surprise yourself.
It was a perfect day as you look at the number of sub 2:20's run.
No the course is not record eligible due to the downhill. However it is a Boston qualifier and a OTM qualifier.
I'm glad that marathon courses are all not equal. Makes things far more interesting.
You might consider sticking to track to cut down on variables. Sounds more your speed.
Oldwise wrote:
Tim Ritchie is a future sub-2:09 Marathoner who is just figuring things out. If anything 2:12 is just a hint of what's to come.
Every American male is a future sub 2:09 marathoner.
They have been running CIM since 1983. This year a lot of fast dudes showed up and ran great.
There have been many, many, many, many OTQ attemps at CIM over the last 34 years. Most of them did not end as positively.
How do you feel about St George? How do you feel about Chicago? Are these also sham courses?
CoachB wrote:
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
I ran that same year. NOT fun. Seemed to be running into a headwind the whole time.
but as to the OP, Tim's interview said he was aiming for at least a 2:15. So as an experienced marathoner he went out and waited for the race to come to him.
I don't think the course is a farce but apparently there was very nice weather which surely helped. One of my Strava friends who had a previous PR of 2:43 (at Mountains2Beach another marathon famous for its net downhill) crushed CIM with a 2:34. He was wearing the Zoom Vaporfly 4% which may have helped some too.
CIM = not your PB wrote:
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, make sure you have all your facts. Tim Ritchie has been feeling "very fit", since he ran a 1:01 half marathon. The fact that he ran the 2:11 is not a shocker to those of us that know what kind of runner he is. The goal, as I read it was to go out conservatively and see how you feel towards the latter part of the race. He apparently, felt pretty good and went for it. Also, if this was such a cheap course, why didn't some of the more marathon experienced runners beat him?
Everyone ran the same course. Haters gonna hate.
The course is "valid," whatever is exactly meant by that. The course does have a net downhill, but it is rolly throughout, which many people don't realize until they actually run it.
This year's race was the US Championships, so a) a lot on the line and b) deep competition.
On top of that, the weather conditions were the best I've heard of at CIM in possibly the last 10+ years - it was ideal.
Add in the fact that a lot of people were trying to hit the A and B qualifying standards for the Trials and you've got a lot of factors that come together to make a great day and leads to a significant number of people running PRs.
Cici wrote:
The race is so stacked that if someone faded or hit the wall, they were passed by several runners who went on to run PRs while they fell behind and didn't make the top 10 or 20. Look at Nick Arciniaga.
This is a fantastic point. There were certainly faster fields at US races this year, but not deeper ones!
If you've ever raced CIM before, you'd actually realize that isn't quite as easy as it might seem because of the rolling hills and downhills. It isn't necessarily an easy course, but people do run fast times there if they're having a good day.
Pretty incredible run for Ritchie off just 12 weeks at 85 mpw.
I'd like to see what he can run if he ups it to 120 mpw and can stay healthy. I guess 2:08 on fast day at London.
It's funny how this is the first year there has been such noise that CIM was insanely fast and unfair. But years ago I remember similar sentiments about Austin on a year when a lot of people selected it as a Trials qualifier and conditions were perfect.
Seems a lot of people are jealous that they didn't get themselves into the race of the year which weather provided.
Even Boston 2011 I was in the race...nobody strapped a rocket pack to my back...but conditions were ripe for those that prepared well to pop. Unfortunately it was not me. But I'd run the race multiple times and there was no tornado at my back.