Yeah, aside from a good June and July, it’s been a pretty garbage year for me since Houston, not afraid to talk about it. Tried to build into things too quickly after Houston when my body needed more recovery. Put in a great summer at altitude, probably too great with not enough recovery again after July. That was followed up by tons of inconsistency from August until now. I’m trying the best I can and it hasn’t produced any fruit whatsoever since Houston, but I’m still trying.
Anyways, this video has sparked some great discussions and I’ve really been enjoying it. It’s challenged my thinking and maybe changed my thoughts a little.
I think my main beef with this now is the standards that USATF and IAAF have set. I’ve been looking at some of the biggest marathon courses and their start/finish points and elevation profiles for fun. In my eyes, a perfectly fair course is one that starts and finishes very close to each other so that there is no wind advantage or elevation advantage. I couldn’t care less how flat or hilly the course is on the path from start to finish.
CIM has roughly 340 feet of ascending and 680 feet of descending. Some argue that the uphills make it the same difficulty as a flat course. By that logic, the course should be the same difficulty if you run it in the reverse direction, right? How would people react if they announced the course was switching directions next year?
I also agree with Sage on the point to point thing being the biggest deal with course verification. From a competition standpoint, I’m perfectly fine with point to point courses. It allows us the opportunity to see some epic races like Boston last spring to see some people thrive in very adverse conditions. From a time standpoint, there’s a good chance that these courses won’t be fair under whatever weather happens, and that could be good or bad for the runners. With no wind, a perfect crosswind, and no elevation difference from start to finish, it’s possible that a point to point course could still be totally fair.