As a geographer and a runner, one of my pre-race rituals is to make my own map and profile for the course I am about to run. For me, making maps is enjoyable, soothing even, and it really helps me get a bearing on a course and form a strategy. Just as in school, where you learn more by writing down notes yourself, I learn more about the course by making by own map rather than just looking at the map supplied by the race website.

One of the course aspects strongly emphasized by all the mapping I do as Marathon GIS is elevation change. Creating a strong false-color elevation model as the backdrop of a route will show the location and magnitude of all hills, ridges, peaks, and valleys with a quick glance. And hills are probably the most important component of the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials race, which will be held in New York City on November 3, 2007.

The marathon trials course starts by looping through Times Square, and then circumvents the interior of Central Park 5 times. I have never been to New York City (a sure disadvantage for me), but word on the streets is that the Central Park loops are very hilly, and the constant barrage of rolling undulations will strongly influence the race, favoring runners with strength and the ability to accelerate on uphills. The existing course maps are very well-done, but do not show an elevation profile or indication of where the hills are.  I decided to put some work in to see for myself what I am up against, and compiled the course map shown below:

Judging by the false-color elevation (green = low, red = high), it is evident that the Central Park course is indeed quite hilly! How hilly? That can be quantified through the Elevation Profile, shown under the map. According to my elevation measurements, there is just under 2000 feet of total (cumulative) elevation gain and loss! However, the total relief of the course is only 80 feet. This means that none of the hills are particularly large…but there are lots of them! And since it is a 5-lap course, we will run the same battery of hills over and over…and over and over.

The map itself is 24″x36″, and its purpose it to plot out and hang on a wall. It is an ideal size for presentation at an expo or information meeting. The entire map was composed in ArcMap 9.2, and the final layout was done in InDesign CS2. Since this was a relatively “rough and dirty” map, I did not use Illustrator at any point.

The false-color elevation model is derived from a 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM), as are the elevation profile chart and statistics. The underlying aerial photography, which nicely shows all of the buildings of the city and trees of Central Park, is 1-meter NAIP. Water features are highlighted by using multiple-ring buffers and gradient fills. Something new I tried on this map was a cartographic trick presented by the ESRI Mapping Center Blog for creating “expressive” directional arrows as polygon features rather than simple line graphics. The arrows turned out nicely, and will be a technique that I will continue to use on future maps.

I did use Illustrator (CS2) for the elevation profile graphic, but in a new way. Rather than creating the raw profile in Microsoft Excel and then pasting into Illustrator, I experimented with creating the raw profile directly in ArcMap, using the improved graphing tools of v.9.2. I then exported the profile to a .jpg image, placed the .jpg into Illustrator, and tweaked the Live Trace feature until I got a satisfactory result. I then cleaned up and modified the profile artwork, added some effects, and dumped it into the InDesign layout. Quick, but effective. It is definitely a fresh look from my previous profiles, and I am pleased with it in that it does not look like it came straight out of Excel.

So enough of the nerdy technical details. It is unfortunate that I will not be able to tour the course until November 1, only two days before the race. Nothing beats gaining familiarity by actually running and racing on a course, but I hope to use this map and profile to at least get a sense of what I am in for. I will post my thoughts on how the course will actually impact my race and my strategy later this week, as well as my other miscellaneous thoughts on the trials race.

First off, just let me say: Yeeeaaahh!! 2:18!! NY here I come!!

There, that feels good. For anyone who missed it, the 2007 St. George Marathon was an absolute gem of a race, not just for me, but for the vast majority who participated. I can’t even count the number of PR’s of just the people I know. Unreal. And yes, a PR at St. George is a PR. Maybe not as impressive as a PR at Boston or New York, but 26.2 is 26.2, and a PR is a PR. There are different types of PR’s (downhill PR’s vs. flat PR’s; elevation PR’s vs. sea-level PR’s; young man PR’s vs. old man PR’s, etc.), but those who PR’ed at St. George should be proud. It was an amazing day to run.

Looking back at my earlier dilemma of whether to run St. George, Chicago, or Twin Cities, I get chills and cravings for an I.V. when I think about what would have happened if I had picked one of those big, sexy, mid-western marathons instead of my tried-and-true “local” race. One American qualifier at Chicago (who is stud of the world for doing that, by the way). No qualifiers at Twin Cities. If I had chosen one of those races, all I would have qualified for was a bummer.

Instead, I chose my local race, St. George. It was a no-brainer. The whole trip cost my wife and I a total of $175, thanks to having friends down there to stay with (thanks again, Clyde and Mik’l). And it yielded an 8-minute PR and an all-expense paid opportunity to toe the line with America’s best in New York City on November 3.

True, St. George gets no love, exemplified by the fine thread on LetsRun.com. Some of the criticisms are valid, other criticisms are elitist LetsRun.com drivel, typical for that site. But it probably provides a pretty valid cross section of what most people outside of Utah think of St. George. People who have never run the race exaggerate how “easy” it is. They describe it as “cheating” even. Run the race first, then criticize it. On the other end of the spectrum, Utah natives and long-time St. George participants exaggerate the difficulty of the first half of the course, and tend to play up the effects of altitude and downhill battering.

The truth of St. George lies somewhere in the middle. Most of the uphills do not show up the course profile, but there is over 400′ of climbing, mostly in the first half. The second half of the race…is ridiculous in its speed. If you are trained for hills (both up and down) you will fly. If you are not, you may not even finish. Flat-landers beware. I think the elevation has almost no effect on the downhills, and only moderate effect on the uphills. A well-trained Utahn will most assuredly run a huge PR at St. George. In my opinion, an elite runner will finish 2-4 minutes faster at St. George than at a flat, sea-level course, depending on their downhill aptitude.

By qualifying at St. George, I did not earn any respect, nor did I expect it or think I deserve it. I plan to go out and earn respect in three weeks at Olympic Trials, and in my subsequent racing over the next few years. I have a nice PR of a low 2:18, but for now I always have to follow it up with, “…at St. George“. It’s definitely a bit of an asterisk, as far as elite running circles are concerned. But I did not run St. George to earn the respect of LetsRun.com. I ran it because it made the most sense.

• It is the closest race to where I live (ie - I can drive there in a few hours).
• It is one of the top 20 largest marathons in America, ensuring great competition.
• They treat semi-elite runners very well (water bottle service, separate staging, etc.).
• The weather is virtually always excellent and reliable in the desert in early October.
• It is the fastest course in America. Who would not want to run the fastest course?
• It was my best shot at an “A” qualifier and a free trip to NYC.

So given its proximity and the speed of the course, why would I not run St. George? Why would I not want an “A” qualifier? If the USATF says it’s legit, then it is legit. Period. It would have been insanity to drop a couple grand to take myself and my wife out to some strange huge city and run a 2:40 in hot, humid conditions. I know this is retrospect, but I can’t help patting myself on the back, along with the other 16 people that qualified in the desert this weekend. St. George: 38 degrees at the start, 50 degrees at the finish. Slight tailwind most of the race. Even without the massive downhill, St. George had perfect conditions, and it was a PR day, the kind of day that makes runners salivate. Throw in the downhill, and it gets even more fun.

So yes, I am looking forward to “proving” myself on some flat and rolling sea level courses. Personally, I think I can run even faster if I hit a fast course like Chicago on the right day with the right pack. Right now, I am eyeballing Twin Cities for next year, which is the USATF Marathon Championships. I hope to make an impact. I’d also like to travel and do some big-time races such as the Fifth-Third Riverbank 25K in Grand Rapids (mid-May), as well as something like the Crim 10-miler or the Utica Boilermaker. I think one of the primary steps to becoming elite on a national scene is to travel to national races and mix it up with people better than me. Good butt-whippings make a person strong. Oh, and so does training like a mad-man, which I plan to do as well. I’ve got 100-mile weeks mastered; it is time to try 120 mpw in 2008.

Adjusting for the downhill speed of St. George, right now I consider 2:20-2:22 guys to be my peer group, and like all races, I hope to out-compete my peer group in NYC. And if I can knock off some 2:18 guys, that would be great too. I am certainly not content with 2:18, whether I ran it at St. George or at Boston. The reason we train and race is to perpetually get faster. St. George this year was an important step in my own journey, but certain not the end.