concerned american wrote:
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.
I apologize for going too far off topic.
I think Rojo gets unfairly insulted on here for the record....hence my defense (and evidence of why he is very intelligent).
Back to JK:
He's a very smart guy as well and IMO knows his training stuff....and I don't believe he went to an Ivy and I have no idea what his SAT score is. I think he taught math at some point though and he is very well versed in science and numbers in the context of running.
His analysis of hilly course profile and "slow down factor" also seems very solid. I guess we'll see how the race plays out on Saturday....
concerned american wrote:
concerned american wrote:
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.
Rojo is a middle-aged man. STOP telling me about his SAT scores
S. Canaday wrote:
I apologize for going too far off topic.
I think Rojo gets unfairly insulted on here for the record....hence my defense (and evidence of why he is very intelligent).
Back to JK:
He's a very smart guy as well and IMO knows his training stuff....and I don't believe he went to an Ivy and I have no idea what his SAT score is. I think he taught math at some point though and he is very well versed in science and numbers in the context of running.
His analysis of hilly course profile and "slow down factor" also seems very solid. I guess we'll see how the race plays out on Saturday....
concerned american wrote:
concerned american wrote:
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.
Rojo is a middle-aged man. STOP telling me about his SAT scores
S. Canaday wrote:
Rojo and Wejo are very smart guys.
not even a hobby jogger wrote:
Sarcasm font wrote:
not even a hobby jogger wrote:
I love this analysis...I plotted this out for my wife using her training paces before Boston last year (another course with lots of rolling hills...albeit it more downhill than up). She is a super-responder to downhill running (most runners are not). I ended up with 2.9 seconds lost (not far from the 2.4 used in this article) per 10 feet of elevation gain but 3.1 seconds gained per 10 feet of elevation loss. I used these numbers to create a band for the Boston course and she pretty much nailed it without even looking at the band or watch. I have witnessed MANY runners....both average and good...that simply can not run down hills to their advantage. So the analysis here of 2.4 lost and only 1.8 gained does not surprise me at all. It will be interesting to see if there are runners in the field that can take advantage of the downhills to milk small amounts of time off their competitors.
If your wife loses 2.9 seconds per 10 feet of uphill, but gains 3.1 seconds per 10 feet of downhill, she should just find an absolutely crazy hilly course and set massive PRs.
She should run a full 26 minutes faster on the Pike's Peak marathon than she would on a flat course, with its 7800 feet each of uphill and downhill.
If we can find a faster marathon, she could do even better! Your wife is probably the only person who gets faster as the course gets tougher! If we find a hilly enough course, she could set the world record!
To drop an hour off of her flat course marathon using your calculations, she would need a course with 18,000 feet of uphill and downhill. That is an average slop of 25%. That sounds really high, but there are some backroads with slopes that high, it isnt just limited to paths. So just find a nice mile long stretch of road with an average of 25% grade and create a course that goes up and down it 13 times. If your wife's PR is under 3 hours, she could be the first woman to run under 2 hours! Suck it Kipchoge!
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.
This isn't running, but gives you some things to think about.
https://youtu.be/DCMQRPQS9T4
a very stable genius wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Rojo and Wejo are very smart guys.
What makes them very smart guys to you? Their sub-kindergarten spelling level. Their utter inability to learn English grammar? Their astonishing ignorance of basic arithmetic, history, economics, literature? Their dubyaing through life on unemployment?
You have very, very low standards.
I've already been posting for the last couple weeks that my analysis shows the course is 2:55 slower than a flat course. After seeing the weather forecast of low 30s and 14 mph wind, it will be even slower because NOBODY will want to lead the race for any length of time. My formula for 5 minute pace is that there is roughly 50 ft of gain and loss per mile. At close to 1% per mile the uphill will cost the runners 12 seconds but they will get 6 seconds back on the downhills. The net is roughly 6 seconds slower per mile.
My original thought was that low 211 will win but with the weather I am going with a winning time closer to 212. That would be equal to someone running 208 on a flat course.
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.
phonePhreaking wrote:
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.
That's hilarious. When met with paywalls and adblock blockers online, I click-y the 'x' in the top right.
S. Canaday wrote:
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.
a very stable genius wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Rojo and Wejo are very smart guys.
What makes them very smart guys to you? Their sub-kindergarten spelling level. Their utter inability to learn English grammar? Their astonishing ignorance of basic arithmetic, history, economics, literature? Their dubyaing through life on unemployment?
You have very, very low standards.
rojo, I have to be blunt, JKs numbers are nonsense. He will tell you that he worked out the physics of the matter. He didn't. He pulled the numbers outa his a$$ and you, like a sucker, believed him.
I said this 15 years ago and in all those 15 years he has never even bothered to check his numbers against actual data. Never. Not once in all those years. He's deluded and you are deluded for believing him without even checking yourself.
Here's a reliable formula based on actual observations of what happens in an actual race:
For every meter of ascent in a distance race (this doesn't apply to hill sprints) you lose around 1 second and for ever meter of descent you gain back 1/3 of a second. Or around 3 seconds per 10 feet up and 1 secod per 10 feet down. Easy to remember and reliable. There are lots of silly formulae which underestimate how much time we lose uphill and gain downhill. Daniels' uphill calculation is reasonable accurate, but he overestimates the downill advantage.
Nailed it!
lol so is jk a genius?
If John Kellogg was right about the course being 1:24 slower due to the hills (and he usually is right about these things) then Rupp basically soloed a 2:07:56 on a windy day and NEVER looked like he was seriously pushing or straining. He looked so relaxed!
That makes me wonder what he could have run in a competitive, flat race with good marathoners around him.
Rupp could run 2.03 in the ideal race. But then Bekele and Kipchoge in an ideal race could run 1.59
Mayor of Edmonton wrote:
lol so is jk a genius?
Those splits were mostly downhill with a tailwind.
rojo wrote:
Mayor of Edmonton wrote:
lol so is jk a genius?
While after the race, John said something to me along the lines of "Guess I was way off on my men's predicted time," I thought his analysis of the mile by mile stuff was good.
Yes, John thought anything under 2:12 woudl be surprising and he's not the only one as Ben Rosario said the same thing.
The only analysis I did after the race was to look at the mile splits of the men's leaders for 5-6, 13-14 and 21-22 as these were the miles where Jon said to look for a 20 second spread (+12.4 for 5, 13 and 21 and -8.5 for 6, 14, and 22).
Here is what the lead pack fan for 5-6. 5:10/4:55 so that's 15 seconds.
13-14 5:13 and 4:51 so that's 22 seconds.
21-22 (pack is broken up at this point so I used Rupp) - 4:59 and 4:42 - 17 seconds.
The average of those 3 is 18. Pretty darn close. I used the men because there pace was much more honest than the women who were sandbagging for a lot of it.
