Call that a hill? *This* is a hill!

donothoponpop

This comes from pacing the recent Enniscorthy half marathon, when pre- and post-race discussion focused on "was it hilly or not"? I *honestly* consider it a flat course- even bearing in mind the obvious caveat that flat and hilly mean different things to different runners. And I've signed up to pace the Dingle full marathon, which a lot of runners are calling very hilly.
I had a look at the mapmyrun route for the dingle marathon. The total elevation is 279m- in other words, the route is exactly as "hilly" as Enniscorthy! (At 140m for a half). So it's flat! Surely this can't be right?

Mapmyrun also lists (total elevation gain):

Connemarathon at 232m
Dublin at 112m
Longford at ?
Cork at 84m

An easy imra race might have 300m of climb within 4k or so- 240m spread across 42k is flat in my book! I know its all relative, but if those figures are correct, I'm pretty shocked! :eek::D

Krusty_Clown

You see you're comparing hill runs with road races, which is like questioning why someone can't achieve a sub-40 on an 10k hill run, or get a sub 3 on a marathon-distance mountain race (and yes, I know some supermen can!).

Is Enniscorthy 1/2 Marathon genuinely hilly? I don't know if I would describe it as hilly (despite my protests yesterday), but there are several uphills, which dispels any rumours that it is flat. Don't confuse 'hilly' with 'bad'. Describing a route as hilly doesn't necessarily qualify it as difficult, it just means that if you put a spirit level on the inclines (or declines) the bubble wouldn't be in the middle. Though to be fair, if you are running uphill at half-marathon pace it could will push you beyond your lactate threshold levels, which may cause problems further down the line (even if you do hit a descent immediately after cresting the hill).

By the way, the fabled Hell of the West in Connemara is a little over 100m of climb spread over a 2.3 mile mile stretch of road. From a hill running perspective, that reads like a speed-bump, but when you hit it at mile 23 after running 22 miles at marathon pace, the average runner wouldn't be quite so buoyant.

If you want to know the measure of how hilly a course is, don't ask a hill-runner. They will feel duty-bound to scoff at the merest suggestion that Everest itself is anything more than a quick jog before breakfast.

RoyMcC

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

By the way, the fabled Hell of the West in Connemara is a little over 100m of climb spread over a 2.3 mile mile stretch of road. From a hill running perspective, that reads like a speed-bump, but when you hit it at mile 23 after running 22 miles at marathon pace, the average runner wouldn't be quite so buoyant.

In disbelief I had to check this, but of course you're correct. It's the never-ending feel to the climb that makes it a challenge at the end of the race.

T runner

Id class anything from 150 metres amd up in a HM road race as hilly and getting hillier. This is comparing with other road races ofcourse.

Hills in road races are horrible. I detest them. I think hillrunners have an inbuilt pacing for a long climb and so instinctively drop well below the red line at the bottom of a hill.

I often get passed on road hills much to my shame.

Road hills are shallow in gradient so primarily use your flat running muscles.
Running up big steep hills at a slow pace may not prepare you for these little horror shows at a fstaer race pace and cadence.

As mentioned the connemarathon hell of the west is spread out gradually.
I reckon this makes it worse. You are using the same tired muscles, your cadence is going so that cant save you and its drawn out over 15 minutes.

I short steep climb of 100m gain over 6 or 7 minutes would be a lot easier. Youre using different muscles, its over quick and youll have strenght left in your running muscles at the end of it.

The minor bumps in Dunshaughlin at 10k race pace were horrendous!
Maybe I need to toughen up.:(

scottreynolds

Compared to the Mount Blanc Marathon (For 2010 the itinerary for the Marathon has a positive vertical gain of 2511 meters and an elevation loss of 1490meters ) all your examples seem pancake flat....

http://www.montblancmarathon.fr/index.php?rub=62

OMG.... I just read the winner still did 4:03 minutes .. I was training out there a few weeks ago and though 7:30 was a good target.

Brendog

Thats not a hill, thats a spoon

stanleybowles

Did Sive recently and found the hill really tough. I know the figures are available online somewhere but it was tough.

Peterx

T runner wrote: »

Id class anything from 150 metres amd up in a HM road race as hilly and getting hillier. This is comparing with other road races ofcourse.

Hills in road races are horrible. I detest them. I think hillrunners have an inbuilt pacing for a long climb and so instinctively drop well below the red line at the bottom of a hill.

I often get passed on road hills much to my shame.

I always get passed out on the short sharp kickers in XC running races, I deffo slow down way too much when I see a hill in front of me. Road hills are just horrible, slogging up a hillrun is much easier then maintaining good pace on a road hill.

Krusty_Clown

scottreynolds wrote: »

Compared to the Mount Blanc Marathon (For 2010 the itinerary for the Marathon has a positive vertical gain of 2511 meters and an elevation loss of 1490meters ) all your examples seem pancake flat....

http://www.montblancmarathon.fr/index.php?rub=62

OMG.... I just read the winner still did 4:03 minutes .. I was training out there a few weeks ago and though 7:30 was a good target.

Sure there's as much down as there is up in that race (give or take a kilometer).

mithril

One big hill, over the Connor pass, brings the Dingle Ultra to 858 meters elevation gain, so first half of the route is proportionately tougher.

From an account elsewhere, there was one very short but very steep section in the Dingle marathon last year which accounted for its notoriety.
I think they may be trying to cut it out this year with a route change.