JK is a genius Part III: Here is his mile by mile analysis of how much the hills will impact the 2020 US Olympic Marathon Trials

Findmymarathon.com’s converter gives it a +1:44 compared to a 2:10 flat marathon and +2:10 for a 2:25 on a flat course.

Timeline of events wrote:

lmb wrote:

I keep hearing that JK is a genius, agreat coach etc. Exactly who has he coached aside from WeJo? What teams? My college coached(Gags) has coached multiple Olympians and too many all americans to count, but we do not call him a genius. What are JKs credentials?

They anointed him a genius when he surmised that the Boston times were going to be fast the year the runners had a hurricane at their back. As if nobody else saw that coming.

No. We anointed him a genius long before that. We started this website because of that.

But, while you are trying to be sarcastic, the reality is no one else saw it coming like he did.

You either know running or you don’t. He knows it. Inside and out. Ask Chris Lear. He’s run under Wetmore and Kellogg. Jon got tired of giving out all of his wisdom on the Internet 15+ years ago. Then he helped me at Cornell.

I love Gags but why do I care how many Olympians or All Americans someone has coached? Is Holman a success or fail story?

The reality is you need big time talent to procue big time results. When Salazar had middle of the road talent, he was a middle of the road coach. Same thing with tinman before he got the pros, Scott Simmons before he go the Kenyans,, Wetmore at Seton Hall, etc. Well you really aren’t a middle of the road coach but people like you think they are.

A good coach a) has talent improve year after year b) peaks them when it matters most,. There are plenty of coaches who don’t do that. They throw eggs against a wall and a few superstars survive.

Appreciate the full sarcasm on that reply. Clearly those calcs were done on hills that looked just like Boston and did not take into account accumulated fatigue. She does feel that she is better on rolling hills than flat courses provided the hills are not long and sustained or terribly steep up. In the rolling hill scenario she can use her downhill momentum to cover her uphill weakness. Clearly if uphills are longer or too steep she would not fair as well so your pikes peak scenario would not hold up. The main point is that not everyone fits the 2.4/1.8 model touted by this analysis. Some runners excel at downhills.

I like the idea of a challenging course but the question I would like to know is it similar to what the Olympic course is like? The hills and the turns to me mean that the super smooth efficient runner may find this course too tough. The strength based runners will have an advantage. I would imagine everyone has prepared but I do think that there will be some surprises on this course.[/quote]

I’m curious about the Olympic course profile as well. This course is definitely going to even out the playing field and minimize the advantage of the fastest, most efficient runners. Walmsley, for example, will benefit heavily on a course like this vs. a Bonneville Salt Flats course against guys like Rupp.

Walmsley will not benefit from the up or downhills. These 1400ft measures every single mole hill. Most of it will hardly be noticeable.

Overall it will be a little slower course but Walmsely will have no benefits because of that.

I gotta ask: has JK jumped the shark?

Rojo and JK (and Wejo for that matter) are very smart guys. .....and in my experience with him and JK (training at Cornell) they knew/know running. Rojo also graduated with honors from Princeton I believe...which I think is also impressive... and a testament to his high IQ. I could talk with JK about exercise science all day. He was a numbers/science guy and could rattle off all sorts of impressive data points....but they actually made sense and worked! Rojo (also with JK as a side kick at Cornell) coached me to a 2:21 marathon and a 29:47 10km when I was 21 years old. I was a "no talent 4:28-mile hs recruit" that ended up being the Ivy League Champion at 10km in track and getting 2nd at Conference in Cross Country. Besides the OTQ I was also coached to making NCAAs in XC as an individual. I give the most credit to the coaches that can turn runners like me (not a blue chip recruit or super talented guy) into being able to compete with guys that ran 9:10 or even sub 9:00 and sub 4:15 in hs. Not to mention he created the base that allowed me to run for Hansons right after college (and continue as a sponsored pro today!).

rojo wrote:

With over 700 Trials participants, I thought about making the following article the first pay per view article in LRC history, but decided to yet again give it away for free. When I ran the uphill/downhill, Las Vegas Marathon in 2000 trying to make the Trials, his hill analysis was spot on.

[/quote]

Did Wejo pace you or were you both going for the trials standard? Do you think you'd have hit it at CIM or Houston? Care to share what your training was like?

ROB REEDER (M) 2:17:15 1 1 / 1 M25-29 LOS ALTOS, CA, USA

TOM JEFFREY (M) 2:20:06 2 2 / 2 M25-29 WAYNESBORO, VA, USA

CHRISTOPHER LANGAN (M) 2:20:32 3 3 / 3 M25-29 WYCKOFF, NJ, USA

RUSTY SNOW (M) 2:21:23 4 4 / 1 M30-34 WATERTOWN, MA, USA

ROBERT JOHNSON (M) 2:23:11 5 5 / 4 M25-29 WASHINGTON, DC, USA

WELDON JOHNSON (M) 2:23:12 6 6 / 5 M25-29 WASHINGTON, DC, USA

I live in and have ran in Atlanta basically my whole life, ATL is so hilly. Don't be surprised to see slow times all over the board. Rarely any flat sections in the entire course

Lighten up rojo, I was specifically referring to this "official" JK genius thread:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4006866

[quote]S. Canaday wrote:

Rojo and JK (and Wejo for that matter) are very smart guys.

.....and in my experience with him and JK (training at Cornell) they knew/know running. Rojo also graduated with honors from Princeton I believe...which I think is also impressive... and a testament to his high IQ.

Sage, where did you go to college again? I’ve never heard of it?

Not a good look

Mayor of Edmonton wrote:

[quote]S. Canaday wrote:

Rojo and JK (and Wejo for that matter) are very smart guys.

.....and in my experience with him and JK (training at Cornell) they knew/know running. Rojo also graduated with honors from Princeton I believe...which I think is also impressive... and a testament to his high IQ.

Sage, where did you go to college again? I’ve never heard of it?

Not a good look

About twice a year Sage comes on here and defends Rojo based on his Ivy League credentials while reminding us of his.

Hi, Sage ?

John - its time to get out of the house and the basement. Go meet a girl. Time to do something productive

Mayor of Edmonton wrote:

[quote]S. Canaday wrote:

Rojo and JK (and Wejo for that matter) are very smart guys.

.....and in my experience with him and JK (training at Cornell) they knew/know running. Rojo also graduated with honors from Princeton I believe...which I think is also impressive... and a testament to his high IQ.

Sage, where did you go to college again? I’ve never heard of it?

Not a good look

Runner10287 wrote:

Mayor of Edmonton wrote:

[quote]S. Canaday wrote:

Rojo and JK (and Wejo for that matter) are very smart guys.

.....and in my experience with him and JK (training at Cornell) they knew/know running. Rojo also graduated with honors from Princeton I believe...which I think is also impressive... and a testament to his high IQ.

Sage, where did you go to college again? I’ve never heard of it?

Not a good look

https://i.redd.it/b1wa0twh01gz.jpg

Peak Sage and Brojos

Grand Canyon mule wrote:

Walmsley will not benefit from the up or downhills. These 1400ft measures every single mole hill. Most of it will hardly be noticeable.

Overall it will be a little slower course but Walmsely will have no benefits because of that.

Like everyone else, Walmsley won't have his time improved by having lots of uphill and downhill. The question of benefit, though, is of course relative. Nobody cares about time, the objective is to finish in the top 3. In that sense, Walmsley may well have a benefit from the hilly course, i.e., relative to other runners. I suspect he will, however, that benefit may be quite small.

Grand Canyon mule wrote:

Walmsley will not benefit from the up or downhills. These 1400ft measures every single mole hill. Most of it will hardly be noticeable.

Overall it will be a little slower course but Walmsely will have no benefits because of that.

Yup, it's a matter of perspective. Walmsely is used to bigger fish. Chart includes elevation profile of Western States, that tiny little bump in the lower left corner is Boston. Your welcome.

Ivy League credentials aside (lets take that out of the equation).

I believe Rojo got a super high score on his SAT (much higher than mine).

The simple fact is that: if one scores very high on the SAT, then it means they can't have a low IQ.

Of course a low SAT score doesn't mean one has a low IQ (they could also still have a highIQ obvioulsy the test is biased)...its that a high SAT score reflects not having a low IQ. In my opinion Rojo has a very high IQ.

Tests/exams and college degrees simply show how you well can process information and problem solve though. Obviously they aren't the end all.

In the real world (outside side of "Book smarts" and back to what is relevant on this thread):

Rojo helped co-create the #1 running website in the world. I thought he was a very good coach in college. I thought JK was very, very knowledgeable about running . I used my progression as an example. They were both nice as people to me and seemed to genuinely care about our health, well being and long term running too.

S. Canaday wrote:

Rojo helped co-create the #1 running website in the world. I thought he was a very good coach in college. I thought JK was very, very knowledgeable about running . I used my progression as an example. They were both nice as people to me and seemed to genuinely care about our health, well being and long term running too.

this is all you needed to say. the rest i don't care about.