123

Marathon Comparison (Read 953 times)

    I'm running quite a few marathons in the next 4 months and wanted to get a feel for which one was tougher.  I used Marathon Guide but the problem is that one marathon could look a lot different then another because of the lower elevation change.  Plus it does not give total elevation change on that site. 

     

    I would love to be able to adjust the charts so they are all equal.  For example St. Louis looks a lot tougher at first glance then the Flying Pig.  However, the St. Louis  eleveation chart is from 400 - 650 and the Flying Pig is from 400-900.  I believe the Flying Pig is a lot tougher but would love to see them both along with some other marthons with eleveations from 400-900.  Anyone, know where I can do that?

    2014 Goals: (Yeah I suck)

    • Sub 22  5K
    • Sub 1:35 1/2 marathon 
    • Sub 3:25:00 Marathon


    just a simple cat

      You may have to just check each marathon's website for elevation information.

       

      Running is stupid


      A Sweetheart

        Many (but not all) of the races on marathonguide have an elevation chart.  While total elevation may not be listed, it should be easy enough to look at the elevation profile to determine if hills will be a factor.

         

        Flying Pig

        I want to do it because I want to do it.  -Amelia Earhart


        A Sweetheart

          This also has a bunch of marathons.

          I want to do it because I want to do it.  -Amelia Earhart

            I sometimes use usatf.com/routes. Usually you can find the marathon course mapped out. The risk you run though is whoever mapped it got the course wrong, but that is easy enough to figure out. It
            xor


              A dude on the runners' world message board has done some work in this area. Go find gmaclin and see what he's got.

               

              That said, nah, the pig is not "a lot tougher" than St Louis.  Maybe some.  Kind of close, though, so it comes down to what kind of runner you are and race day weather.

               

              There's more to it than total elevation change, though that's a piece.  It also has to do with where the hills fall in the course.  For example, it's not the big hill in Big Sur that chews people up... it's all the hills after that one.  And the pig?  It's a big ass hill.  Followed by a whole lot of downhill to the finish.  

               

              Anyway, I ran the pig and st louis and finished with the same basic time.

               

              Of my 10 fastest marathons, 6 of them... including my current PR and one of my two BQs... are courses considered to be reasonably hilly.

               

              And on days that were 70 degrees.

               

              (we all have our strengths and weaknesses.  Comparing elevation charts is a good exercise, and gmaclin's work may help you.  It's just not the whole story.)

               

                All to the same scale, here.

                  I'm running quite a few marathons in the next 4 months and wanted to get a feel for which one was tougher.  I used Marathon Guide but the problem is that one marathon could look a lot different then another because of the lower elevation change.  Plus it does not give total elevation change on that site.

                  I'm not sure how many "quite a few" is, but it can't be that many if they're all run within four months.  How about you map them here on RA, which gives you elevation gain/loss/net?

                  “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


                  A Sweetheart

                     it can't be that many if they're all run within four months.

                     

                    Have you seen some of the Maniacs?  Four months can be 36 marathons.

                    I want to do it because I want to do it.  -Amelia Earhart


                    A Dance with Monkeys

                      gmaclin's stuff seems to be the source of WG's link above.  I never liked his charts because I thought they were too compressed and hid a lot of hills that runners feel.


                      HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                        Hills? Why would you put any hills on a marathon? That would just be cruel.

                         

                        Hills should be reserved for ultras, cause the people that run those don't know any better and deserve to suffer.

                        It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                        I'm back!

                          I'm not sure how many "quite a few" is, but it can't be that many if they're all run within four months.

                           

                          You're very funny.

                          xor


                            gmaclin's stuff seems to be the source of WG's link above.  I never liked his charts because I thought they were too compressed and hid a lot of hills that runners feel.

                             

                            Ah ok, I didn't really click the link.  Fooey on me.

                             

                            I like the idea that he has done a lot of work in the area; I disagree with some of the results he has come up with.  But it's a place to start.

                             

                            Anyway, for me, when comparing elevation charts between races, it can be an exercise in "thinking too hard" for races that are both roly poly.

                             

                              Have you seen some of the Maniacs?

                              Have you seen BCR?

                               

                               

                               

                              Wink

                              “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                                All to the same scale, here.

                                 

                                 

                                That was funny.   Of course Trent was in the middle of all of that.  That Tuscon marathon looks like a killer on the Quads. 

                                 

                                @ Wrigly Girl that is a really cool link.  The best so far. 

                                 

                                @ srlopex I understand all of that.  But I want to get a feel for how big those hills actually are compared to each other.  I know the PIG course very well as I run it all of the time.  I've actually run the whole course three of the last two weeks.  So when I look at the chart I can say ohh that hill is at the end but that is the same as this hill that I run.   Just trying to put things in perspective.   It would just be nice to be able to adjust the scale a little bit. 

                                2014 Goals: (Yeah I suck)

                                • Sub 22  5K
                                • Sub 1:35 1/2 marathon 
                                • Sub 3:25:00 Marathon
                                123