I ran yesterday and there were some positives and negatives with the weather.
I'll definitely take the wind we had any day when considering the alternative (who wouldn't), though it ends up as more of a cross-wind on that course given how the winding road is...you get the gusts in your face often enough when you do find yourself out of the pack and the highway is elevated such that its not as the wind is whipping straight from the coast. Its not a jet stream to your back for 26 straight miles...the course still abides by normal physical laws and such.
Temps started out ok, but were definitely a drain in the last hour or so for the elite guys...everyone caked in salt and soaked in sweat, so not exactly comparable to December time CIM conditions with temps in the high 40s. Decent day, no denying, but its not a bullseye from a conditions perspective...You only need to look at the top end and note the casualties of the day to realize that while it was a good day to run fast, the performances weren't out of the ballpark.
I take the OTQ density from the fact that there was a group of 40 guys running 2:18 pace from the gun. The lead was traded, teammates worked together, and kids are generally working hard trying to get the standard in the last 6 months to qualify...its good evidence of the quality of US distance running, not that a marathon course dating back to the 1970's needs to be disqualified...
Grandma’s Marathon LiveStream WDIO
Report Thread
-
-
Grandma wrote:
I take the OTQ density from the fact that there was a group of 40 guys running 2:18 pace from the gun. The lead was traded, teammates worked together, and kids are generally working hard trying to get the standard in the last 6 months to qualify...its good evidence of the quality of US distance running, not that a marathon course dating back to the 1970's needs to be disqualified...
This is why as many qualified as they did. I was at around mile 14 and was shocked by the huge pack of guys that came through together. Then a couple minutes later another huge pack of women came through. -
I ran the half and there was a crosswind the whole time. There definitely wasn't a tailwind. The last couple of miles were into a pretty strong headwind.
-
thtrnnr wrote:
I ran the half and there was a crosswind the whole time. There definitely wasn't a tailwind. The last couple of miles were into a pretty strong headwind.
I ran the full and can confirm this. Being that close to Lake Superior, the wind was coming off the lake from the side. If we were more inland, I think it would have been more of a tailwind. If you look at the personal bests of the field, nothing was out of the ordinary. I personally got a 90s PR, but it was definitely in my fitness range (was actually expecting/hoping for faster). It was just a loaded field with trials being so close. Over 200 elites in the full. That's much more than usual for those race.
The course in general is rolling. More than I expected being a first timer at this race. I'd say even with the 150 ft drop, it's still a fair course. Still over 500 ft of climbing along the way. My prior PR was on a course with ~300 ft of climbing, but equal start/finish elevation, and I wouldn't call one course faster than the other.
We were all hoping for that tailwind, don't get me wrong, but it was a cross wind most of the way. -
thtrnnr wrote:
I ran the half and there was a crosswind the whole time. There definitely wasn't a tailwind. The last couple of miles were into a pretty strong headwind.
How many times are you going to contradict yourself in one short post?
1. Unless by "crosswind the whole time" you mean a wind blowing at exactly 90 degrees to your direction of motion, you mean that you experienced less than an absolute tailwind the entire time. Feeling a crosswind that is also a tailwind (say, a wind coming out of the east on a point-to-point course that heads southwest) is not only not unusual, it's basically obligatory.
2. You say there was a pretty strong headwind in the last miles, which is at odds with both your own initial claim about a crosswind and the reports of the weather services.
According to you, the race was beset by obstacles, Wah wah wah. And sadly, you're not the only one here doing this. On a course that slowly drops 100 ' from start to finish and enjoyed a double-digit net tailwind, people are complaining that the air rose above 60 degrees F. Waaaaahhhhhh.
With that attitude, all of you should just quit. If you can't have everything perfectly gift-wrapped for your candy asses you don't want it. Somehow to you pussies there is no such thing as a fast course even if the physics explain why it is fast. Wah wah wah. Pffffftt. Wah wah wah. Quit. -
The 1 part per thousand elevation drop works out to 138 feet for the marathon.
I thought Grandma's had about 135, making it legal by 3 feet.
But according to google earth the drop is about 120 feet (700-620)
(The painted start line is visible on google, just south Two Harbors)
So legal by 18 feet.
The US rule for start/finish separation (straight line) is 30%.
The IAAF is 50% (I think).
Grandma's could be made US record eligible (7.8 miles separation) if:
they put the start between the 16 and 17 mile mark,
ran north for 8.5 miles,
turned around and ran 8.5 miles back to the start,
then continue on the original course 9 miles to the finish line.
The straight line separation between the start and finish would be
less than 30 percent of the marathon distance and windage would not be a consideration.
For IAAF (13.1 miles separation) it could start about mile 10,
run 5.5 miles north,
turn around and run 5.5 miles back to the start,
then continue on 15 more miles to the finish.
(but only a 13.1 straight line separation because the race follows
a crooked path through the city)
Bottom line: the course is helpful, legal for IAAF, but not record quality (windage). -
Not unfair, not fair totally irrelevant if they don’t make the 2:11:30 REAL OLYMPIC standard, not the self-gratifying American OTQ race which is also irrelevant if the winners don’t meet that standard. Americans, either catch up and become faster, stop expecting an invitation to the Olympics just because you have a sense of entitlement with no talent, clowns.
-
Rick Sanchez wrote:
Wait, now she's 35 years old in the results?!? How does that happen?
Time machine, obviously. -
stateroftheoblivious wrote:
The 1 part per thousand elevation drop works out to 138 feet for the marathon.
I thought Grandma's had about 135, making it legal by 3 feet.
But according to google earth the drop is about 120 feet (700-620)
(The painted start line is visible on google, just south Two Harbors)
So legal by 18 feet.
The US rule for start/finish separation (straight line) is 30%.
The IAAF is 50% (I think).
Grandma's could be made US record eligible (7.8 miles separation) if:
they put the start between the 16 and 17 mile mark,
ran north for 8.5 miles,
turned around and ran 8.5 miles back to the start,
then continue on the original course 9 miles to the finish line.
The straight line separation between the start and finish would be
less than 30 percent of the marathon distance and windage would not be a consideration.
For IAAF (13.1 miles separation) it could start about mile 10,
run 5.5 miles north,
turn around and run 5.5 miles back to the start,
then continue on 15 more miles to the finish.
(but only a 13.1 straight line separation because the race follows
a crooked path through the city)
Bottom line: the course is helpful, legal for IAAF, but not record quality (windage).
man so many words! you should run more -
Not Your Grandmas's Grandma's wrote:
2. You say there was a pretty strong headwind in the last miles, which is at odds with both your own initial claim about a crosswind and the reports of the weather services..
I'm feeding the troll, but....
The course doubles back on itself and then follows an S curve in the final mile+. So yes, what was a crosswind--to-tailwind for much of the race becomes a headwind at times as you change direction. -
They used to allow Las Vegas which rolling and then downhill at the halfway.
-
Not Your Grandmas's Grandma's wrote:
[quote]thtrnnr wrote:
According to you, the race was beset by obstacles, Wah wah wah. And sadly, you're not the only one here doing this. On a course that slowly drops 100 ' from start to finish and enjoyed a double-digit net tailwind, people are complaining that the air rose above 60 degrees F. Waaaaahhhhhh.
With that attitude, all of you should just quit. If you can't have everything perfectly gift-wrapped for your candy asses you don't want it. Somehow to you pussies there is no such thing as a fast course even if the physics explain why it is fast. Wah wah wah. Pffffftt. Wah wah wah. Quit.
In fairness the tone of the conversation shifts when Letsrun add a link on the front page asking if the race was "fair or foul". Some of the points made above are to explain the tradeoffs of the weather/course and why the race was fair. No one can argue that it was a good day to run fast - that isn't in doubt.
As far as how fast the course is, the net elevation drop and rolling terrain seems to net out closely to a totally flat course. The grade-adjusted pace on Strava looks like 10-20 seconds slower than totally flat depending on whose activity you look at. -
What a race from Andrew Colley! Great to see him fully recovered!
-
I ran on Saturday and had a great day. While the weather forecast was looking to be effectively perfect, the actual conditions turned out to be a little less sublime.
We didn't really have much cloud cover (forecast was supposed to be 95% cover)
Temps did get into the 60s with the sun, but was comfortable the whole way (not the 52 forecasted)
The wind was quartering off the lake and did swirl some. It was helpful as a tailwind at times but was not a gale at our backs the whole way. Sometimes a pleasant cooling breeze, other times a confidence boosting wind at your back, and once or twice a "don't get cocky" gust in your face.
The weather was about as ideal as you can get up there but it wasn't a "cheater" day like some have suggested.
I ran negative splits to an huge PR, but alas, most of that is the fact I was actually in shape to run way under 3hrs rather than exploding at 20miles like I had done in the past. -
Records
USATF & the IAAF have the same course requirements
Drop- not exceeding 1 m/km
Separation - not exceeding 50%
IAAF/USATF Certified Course
The course must also have a verification measurement.
Achieving the Qualifying Time for the Olympic Games or World Championships
Drop - not exceeding 1 m/km
Separation - ANY separation is acceptable
Must be IAAF Certified
Points for the IAAF Rankings
Must be IAAF Certified
Separation - ANY is acceptable
Drop- ANY is acceptable but there is a penalty for a drop above 1 m/km
To avoid disregarding performances achieved on a course not fully complying with the IAAF criteria, a “Downhill Modification System” has been developed to include results achieved on a Downhill course.
A “Downhill Couse” is defined as one which has a net drop (decrease in elevation) of more than 1 m/km.
A net drop of 1 m/km of the race distance is equivalent to 6 points according to the IAAF Scoring Tables (or the alternate Scoring Tables in case of events that are not included in the IAAF Scoring Tables).
These points are deducted from the initial Result Scores of the athletes at the competition concerned.
There is no deduction if the net drop is within the allowed 1 m/km.
Over the net drop of 1 m/km every 0.1 m/km is equal to 6 + 0.6 points for each 0.1 m/km. (e.g. 1.1 m/km = - 6.6 points; 1.2 m/km = -7.2 points)
USATF Olympic Trials Qualifying
Must be a USATF Certified Course
Separation - ANY is acceptable
Drop- Can not exceed 3.25 m/km -
still a good day wrote:
I ran on Saturday and had a great day. While the weather forecast was looking to be effectively perfect, the actual conditions turned out to be a little less sublime.
We didn't really have much cloud cover (forecast was supposed to be 95% cover)
Temps did get into the 60s with the sun, but was comfortable the whole way (not the 52 forecasted)
The wind was quartering off the lake and did swirl some. It was helpful as a tailwind at times but was not a gale at our backs the whole way. Sometimes a pleasant cooling breeze, other times a confidence boosting wind at your back, and once or twice a "don't get cocky" gust in your face.
The weather was about as ideal as you can get up there but it wasn't a "cheater" day like some have suggested.
It took three pages to get to this post which describes the conditions perfectly.
This was my 18th consecutive Grandma's, so I've seen it all on this course. It was a good day to run, but it definitely wasn't a cheater day. A lot of people blew up because they didn't account for the sun, warmer temps, and variable wind. The weather didn't play out according to the forecast. I knew as soon as I stepped off the bus at the start that the day wasn't as perfect as people thought it would be. -
Not Your Grandmas's Grandma's wrote:
thtrnnr wrote:
I ran the half and there was a crosswind the whole time. There definitely wasn't a tailwind. The last couple of miles were into a pretty strong headwind.
How many times are you going to contradict yourself in one short post?
1. Unless by "crosswind the whole time" you mean a wind blowing at exactly 90 degrees to your direction of motion, you mean that you experienced less than an absolute tailwind the entire time. Feeling a crosswind that is also a tailwind (say, a wind coming out of the east on a point-to-point course that heads southwest) is not only not unusual, it's basically obligatory.
2. You say there was a pretty strong headwind in the last miles, which is at odds with both your own initial claim about a crosswind and the reports of the weather services.
According to you, the race was beset by obstacles, Wah wah wah. And sadly, you're not the only one here doing this. On a course that slowly drops 100 ' from start to finish and enjoyed a double-digit net tailwind, people are complaining that the air rose above 60 degrees F. Waaaaahhhhhh.
With that attitude, all of you should just quit. If you can't have everything perfectly gift-wrapped for your candy asses you don't want it. Somehow to you pussies there is no such thing as a fast course even if the physics explain why it is fast. Wah wah wah. Pffffftt. Wah wah wah. Quit.
I was in the top 5, huge pr, so nah I won't be quitting. I don't think the conditions were bad at all, just clarifying that it didn't really seem "foul" to me as the headline read. -
Over 1000 BQs too!
5th most of any race this year (Boston, Chicago, NYC, CIM).
http://findmymarathon.com/bostonmarathonqualifiers-2020.php -
I also ran the half and my two main training partners ran 2:17 in the full. Will cosign the general consensus from the folks posting who ran it - it's a fast course and conditions were generally favorable but it wasn't a Boston 2011 situation where the conditions generated results totally out of line with what could be considered reasonable.
Speaking of Boston, the elevation profile of the course is important to consider as well - not just the fact that it's a net drop. Most of the drop is in the first 10k, which actually I think lulls folks into taking things out a bit too fast. Not going to name names but a couple of the elite Americans who went out at 2:10-2:12 pace really paid the price with a few big DNFs/slow second halfs. The last 4 miles are rolling hills and sharp turns ("Lemon Drop Hill" is nothing compared to anything you'd see in Boston but it is, y'know, a hill at mile 22 of a marathon) and you do turn into the wind right around mile 25. The 25 miles of tail/crosswind probably doesn't feel great when it becomes a headwind in the last mile.
You can see the elevation profile on the course map here - https://grandmasmarathon.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Full-Course-Map.pdf. Keep in mind the course runs right to left on the map.
All in all it's definitely a fast course with favorable conditions but there were enough mitigating factors that I don't think it's worth crying foul over. You're obviously going to have a lot of qualifiers at the races (Chicago, Grandma's, CIM) where every trials-caliber guy/girl in the country is flying in with one time in mind and essentially engaging in one big group time trial. It's an incredibly predictable outcome, but by all means, feel free to complain on the internet. All those "candy asses" are going to Atlanta whether you or not you complain about it. -
OTQ hopefuls: I really hope that we happen to get favorable weather conditions so I can capitalize on years of hard training and achieve my running dreams
Weather: ok, that’s fine
Letsrun: doesn’t count
