Shunpo wrote:
CIM has 700 feet of gain in it
No it doesn’t. It has roughly 340 gain and 680 loss.
Shunpo wrote:
CIM has 700 feet of gain in it
No it doesn’t. It has roughly 340 gain and 680 loss.
Shunpo wrote:
He wore the next% lol there's tons of photos
*he wore shoes made to look like the next%.
http://citiusmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/peter-bromka-nick-roche-california-international-marathon-podcast-otq.jpgI disagree you're a tempest in a teapot and I have also more than sniffed those times. CIM is deceptively harder than people think. The shoes help a little, maybe by a minute at most!
lupprxc wrote:
"You're either over the standard or under the standard. It's best not to be over."
You might want to check nearly everyone’s Strava who runs that race. I’ve run it myself. It has 700 feet of gain. Obviously GPS watches vary but the lowest I’ve seen is 570.
Clearly you haven’t taken a close enough look at Alphafly’s lol those are just unbranded next%s.
Shunpo wrote:
You might want to check nearly everyone’s Strava who runs that race. I’ve run it myself. It has 700 feet of gain. Obviously GPS watches vary but the lowest I’ve seen is 570.
I’ve run the course lol I know what 700 feet of gain looks like. I think I’ll trust the data from thousands of garmin and coros watches and my own experience. You should run it yourself before you judge it. The main reason CIM is fast is the insane depth of the field.
Shunpo wrote:
I’ve run the course lol I know what 700 feet of gain looks like. I think I’ll trust the data from thousands of garmin and coros watches and my own experience. You should run it yourself before you judge it. The main reason CIM is fast is the insane depth of the field.
Lol there are no tall buildings throughout most of the course and there’s one short bridge at mile 22 or so.
You think because it starts at 366 and ends at 26 that it can’t have more than 340 feet of gain? It’s called rolling hills, every time you climb a hill that adds to the gain. It’s really not that hard to imagine climbing 700 feet over 26.2 miles when there’s rolling hills.
Bromka Update:
Going to be extremely close. He was on 40 seconds under OTQ pace at 35K. Rough 5K puts him at 12 seconds over with 2.2K to go. Can he rally with a kick?
No rally comes: 2:19:23. Ouch.
Oof, bummer. He is consistent, though. Gotta give him that.
Sounds like he had some bad training.
Gotta feel for the guy, but the haters are gonna hate. To run back to back 2.19 is a marvellous achievement. Kudos to him
I really feel for the guy. 3 marathons between 219-220 - his last 2 cal internationals and this one. Those last couple miles must have been hell as he tried to make up the necessary time.
If I were him, I'd see what I could do at 10k now.
Needs higher mileage and a break from social media. Posting what OP quoted was wrong. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Objectively Flag wrote:
Needs higher mileage and a break from social media. Posting what OP quoted was wrong. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
This was more of a last min effort. He didn’t have a full block and was trying to capitalize on the one he had leading up to CIM.
The fact that anyone can say anything negative about his effort is sad. Great inspiration to someone in a similar place to where he was 8 year’s ago.
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Strava thinks the London Marathon times improved 12 minutes last year thanks to supershoes
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
NAU women have no excuse - they should win it all at 2024 NCAA XC
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?