RunningAHEAD - Topic: Goal of Sub-3 Hour Marathon (page 20)

Eustace Tierney

YoYo

posted: 10/27/2008 at 12:35 PM

I see you made it Daithiwk! Congrats! Great Run! Dont forget the race report.

"The will to win means nothing without the will to prepare." Goals: Keep on running!

JDF

Non-Stroller-Still Crazy

posted: 10/27/2008 at 1:08 PM

Quote from DoppleBock on 10/27/2008 at 11:53 AM:

There is no pressure on Wayfool, JDF or myslef to deliver this next weekend I am not sure I can be like UPS this race ... I ran 2:58 on 10/11, followed by a 129 mile next week and a 120 mile week last week. I have called it my anti-taper as this is not a goal race. But ... This is the sub 3:00 thread, so I am tapering this week and will give it my best effort.

Great job Ken and daithiwk. You guys rock! I have to back out of the challenge for atleast another month. I switched my marathon attempt to December 13th at the Charlotte Thunder Road event instead of the Raleigh city of oaks next week. I will still run the half next week though. I ran a 10 mile race on Saturday and I just melted(Literally). It has been in the 60's or 70's here lately with 100% humidity in the mornings. I ran great for the first 5 miles and then I just fell apart once the humidity got to me. I ended up with a 1:13 for the 10 mile so I am in no shape to attempt a 3 hour Marry. We had one cool low humidity day 2 weeks ago and I managed a 1:33 half on a hilly course with 4000 feet of total elevation change. The heat absolutely destroys me. Hopefully, it will cool down by the time December rolls around.

http://runningahead.com/profiles/69d214e40d824ad0b0a73c925d655a13

Wet Bus Ticket

posted: 10/27/2008 at 2:11 PM

I used this program (well, the last 9 weeks as started a bit late) for my 3:07:58 in Amsterdam... http://www.runnersworld.ltd.uk/sub3hr.htm but missed a couple of the time targets by a little bit so had a fair idea I was going to be a bit over 3 hours. It only includes 2 long runs though - 1x18m and 1x20m - which is what I did, but that seems like it might be a bit light compared to some of the other programs I have now seen and from other comments in this thread. ??

kcam

posted: 10/27/2008 at 2:13 PM

Quote from daithiwk on 10/27/2008 at 11:17 AM:

Well done Ken - fantastic time on what sounds like a tough course. You can add another graduate to the list: I'm just back from finishing Dublin in 2:58:35, so I'm delighted with that. Went through half way in 1:29:40 and then managed to pick it up for the next 10km or so before slowing back down to exactly 3 hour pace for the last 10km. My calves are in bits now, so I'm off to soak in a nice warm bath. No ice bath for me, I'm afraid. It was only about 50 degrees F on the course, so I need a bit of warming up.

Suhhweeet! As DB said, that is very nice pacing. Congratulations. I understand about the calves, but for me it's my quads. I don't think I'll be running for a few days. I will do some nice brisk walking though cuz it does make my legs feel better.

kcam

posted: 10/27/2008 at 4:10 PM

Quote from JimHowe on 10/26/2008 at 4:58 PM:

This is no easy course, btw. Not what you would call brutal, but definitely harder than average. I checked a list of 179 marathons and their BQ percentages. Silicon valley ranked 108/179, putting it in the toughest 40%.

I thought this stat by Jim was pretty interesting. I've run a couple different courses (but not so many that my recollections of them run together!) so I thought I'd compare the ones I've run in the past. So below are the courses I've run along with their rank in terms of % of finishers BQ'ing (http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/bq_2-year_overview.htm): Boston.......1 Austin........72 Si Valley.....110 RnR AZ......124 Chicago......137 Portland.....141 SanFran.....143 BigSur.......150 My ranking, in order of 'easiest' to BQ on would be: 1....Boston 2....Chicago 3....Austin 4....RnR AZ 5....Portland 6....SanFran 7....Si Valley 8....BigSur Doesn't really match up to the rank but there's lots of reasons that could be. 1 & 2 are the easiest by a clear amount. 3, 4 & 5 are probably really close to each other (Pick 'Em) and 6, 7 & 8 are just plain hard to run fast on.

pRED

posted: 10/27/2008 at 4:27 PM

Go Irish!!!! Congrats Daithiwk! Big grin

Ricky

—our ability to perform up to our physiological potential in a race is determined by whether or not we truly psychologically believe that what we are attempting is realistic. Anton Krupicka

dacook

posted: 10/27/2008 at 4:40 PM

Congrats daithwick! Great job! Smile

Dave
"Run like hell and get the agony over with."
--- Clarence DeMar

Lane

posted: 10/27/2008 at 8:43 PM

Quote from kcam on 10/27/2008 at 4:10 PM:

I thought this stat by Jim was pretty interesting. I've run a couple different courses (but not so many that my recollections of them run together!) so I thought I'd compare the ones I've run in the past. So below are the courses I've run along with their rank in terms of % of finishers BQ'ing (http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/bq_2-year_overview.htm): Boston.......1 Austin........72 Si Valley.....110 RnR AZ......124 Chicago......137 Portland.....141 SanFran.....143 BigSur.......150 My ranking, in order of 'easiest' to BQ on would be: 1....Boston 2....Chicago 3....Austin 4....RnR AZ 5....Portland 6....SanFran 7....Si Valley 8....BigSur Doesn't really match up to the rank but there's lots of reasons that could be. 1 & 2 are the easiest by a clear amount. 3, 4 & 5 are probably really close to each other (Pick 'Em) and 6, 7 & 8 are just plain hard to run fast on.

I think this is a good meter stick except for Boston. A large number of people running Boston have already BQ'd at least once (though not all of them), so it's placement as #1 place where people BQ may be due to another factor other than easyness of the course.

kcam

posted: 10/27/2008 at 9:06 PM

Absolutely! Boston only lets in people for the most part that have already qualified. But, of all the courses I've run, Boston is the most favorable course to run a fast time! Chicago is another outlier in that it's BQ percentage is way lower than I would expect. It's a flat course with great crowd support. But it's also a mega-marathon with more than it's share of walkers and 'just finish' runners (nothing wrong with that, it just skews the percentages). Also the bad weather in '07!

pRED

posted: 10/27/2008 at 11:42 PM

Hey Jim, In order to give myself more time to properly train, I have made a change of marathon venue. I will now be running 1/11/09 - Disney World Marathon, Orlando, FL

Ricky

—our ability to perform up to our physiological potential in a race is determined by whether or not we truly psychologically believe that what we are attempting is realistic. Anton Krupicka

JDF

Non-Stroller-Still Crazy

posted: 10/28/2008 at 12:43 AM

Quote from kcam on 10/27/2008 at 9:06 PM:

Absolutely! Boston only lets in people for the most part that have already qualified. But, of all the courses I've run, Boston is the most favorable course to run a fast time! Chicago is another outlier in that it's BQ percentage is way lower than I would expect. It's a flat course with great crowd support. But it's also a mega-marathon with more than it's share of walkers and 'just finish' runners (nothing wrong with that, it just skews the percentages). Also the bad weather in '07!

Was 08 that much better? It was still freaking hot. They just had a lot more water this time.

http://runningahead.com/profiles/69d214e40d824ad0b0a73c925d655a13

JimHowe

posted: 10/28/2008 at 4:44 AM
modified: 10/28/2008 at 4:45 AM

"I'm just back from finishing Dublin in 2:58:35, so I'm delighted with that. Went through half way in 1:29:40 and then managed to pick it up for the next 10km or so before slowing back down to exactly 3 hour pace for the last 10km. " Congratulations, David, on a beautifully executed race.

Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

JimHowe

posted: 10/28/2008 at 4:49 AM

ON DECK for this weekend: Dopple Bock - 11/02/08 Trails to Rails wayfool - 11/02/08 NYC, New York, NY Good luck guys.

Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

DoppleBock

posted: 10/28/2008 at 7:53 AM

Quote from JimHowe on 10/28/2008 at 4:49 AM:

ON DECK for this weekend: Dopple Bock - 11/02/08 Trails to Rails wayfool - 11/02/08 NYC, New York, NY Good luck guys.

Reporting for duty captain - Feeling good!

Long dead ... But my stench lingers !

OnceADCV

posted: 10/28/2008 at 9:18 AM

Quote from JDF on 10/28/2008 at 12:43 AM:

Was 08 that much better? It was still freaking hot. They just had a lot more water this time.

I didn't run Chicago in '07 but did run it this year. And I would have to say that '08 was probably considerably better than '07, though it wasn't anywhere near optimal conditions. The humidity was way lower this year and temps did not get into the upper 80's so early. This year it was mid-to-upper 60's near the start. It quickly got up into the 70's. And was low 80's about 3 hours into the race. However the dewpoints were mid 50's when in 2007 they were in the mid-to-upper 60s. One bad thing about Chicago when you get sunny hot weather is that the last 10+ miles are out in the open, in the sun and the farthest part away from the lake. It was rough. Chicago's BQ rate was definitely killed by 2007 and also a lot of first time marathoners use that race to run in. Also in the megathon's the average time is 4 hours+ so you are not going to get a lot of BQ's. BTW, my next race is tentatively set for Boston in April (4/20/2009). Hopefully it won't be 80 degree then, but with Boston you never know. I'm just wishing I got into New York. It seems New York will be blessed with 3 straight years of perfect weather. Though I'm glad they didn't have the race today. Would have been ugly.

Goal of Sub-3 Hour Marathon (Read 15845 times)