Hobble Creek pacing strategy

[Michelle Lowry]

Hi all,
So my last two races are DesNews 10k (35:02) and Provo River 1/2 (1:18:40).  My DesNews predicted a 1:18:40 Provo River Half, so both races predict the exact same time for Hobble Creek for me: 1:14:26.

1:14:26?

That is a 5:41 average, so if I went by this I shouldn't panic by any miles that are 5:25 or slower on the more downhill section, though I would think all miles would be more like 5:35 in the canyon, and slower miles 11-13. 

My gps is recording the miles in the canyon long, so I will have to run by feel, but I will get my splits for feedback each mile.

So I guess my questions would be:

1) Should I really be expecting sub 1:15?  I am thinking to shoot for sub 1:16 and then pleasantly surprise myself if I can.

2) Should I run my own race if there's a faster girl in the field or try to go with her (I don't think anyone will show up sub 1:13, so she shouldn't be that far away from my abilities, so perhaps I should just go with her if there's an aggressive girl)? 

[Superfly]

First off I don't think anyone will show up to challenge... maybe like a 5% chance. So just plan on doing your own thing. I'd try to find a guy who is shooting for a 1:15 and just latch on.
I've ran Hobble the last two years and after those two races I think that the best strategy is too:
Run within yourself on the first 6 miles down to the golf course. Then on the rolling portion really try to open up and hammer out the second half. Others will tell you to hammer the first half like there is no tomorrow and then hold on for dear life from the golf course in. However that second half isn't as easy as it appears, and that will show it's self in race conditions. It looks very doable until your 7 miles into a pounding race and then your legs start refusing to go any faster. I'm not an expert by any means on half's and for that matter this course I've ran a 1:12 and 1:09 there and both of those times predicted slower fall marathons than I ended up running. But if I was running this year that's the approach I'd take and hopefully I'd crack a 1:08ish which would still predict a slower than planned STGM. 

[Superfly]

One thing I forgot to plug in is that Hobble is weird. I ran a 2:25 last year at STGM and that predicts a 1:07:01 at Hobble. If I ran a 1:07:01 at Hobble I'd be thinking 2:18 at STGM. Really!

[Sasha Pachev]

The most common mistake I've seen in Hobble Creek is taking the first 6 miles too slow. I raced it every year 1997 - 2005 skipping 2002. In every race I was aggressive in the first 6 miles running them at 5:12 pace in 1997, and at 5:00 or faster other years. Times:

1997 - 1:11:45 - 9th place (I think),  nobody passed me in the last 7 miles.
1998 - 1:10:17 - 7th place (I think), no passings
1999 - 1:08:13 - 6th place, passed by Cameron Smith around mile 10
2000 - 1:08:43 - 1st place
2001 - 1:07:03 - 3rd place, passed by Jody Benson around mile 9
2003 - 1:07:36 - 1st place
2004 - 1:07:27 - 1st place
2005 - 1:07:21 - 2nd place, was with Steve Ashbaker the entire race, he pulled away in the last 0.5.

Nobody ever came back to me in the last 7 miles either. In 1999 I caught up to Larry Smithee around mile 11, but then he pulled away.

Cameron beat me in every race in 1999 by a greater margin than he did in Hobble Creek, and in every one of those races he was never behind me at any point. Jody was just getting into shape in 2001, so he just did not realize how fit he was at the start, and took out very cautiously. Other than those two cases of higher fitness level runners starting  out too cautiously, nobody has ever passed me in 8 races after we got out of the Canyon.

My take on this - in Hobblecreek, if someone is ahead of you at 6 miles, and he has been running more than 60 miles a week consistently, he is gone unless you are in a different league and have botched your start.

Hobblecreek miles are marked well enough, and there are even quarter marks on the road. A GPS would be a distraction. However, Michelle, for you an HRM monitor would do some good. I noticed your HR is very predictable, and correlates well with the pace you are going. Do not set any alarms, but for a rough guideline try to keep it around 173-175 range.

I would not worry too much about time though. No race director has ever been impressed with my 1:07 in Hobble Creek, and for a good reason.

[Superfly]

Did the course change between 2005 and 2006? I heard it did and that the finish was pretty different. I could be wrong because I heard that two years ago but that would be a big factor.
Sasha I can't believe if you ran a 1:07:36 in 2003 at Hobble and it was the same course that I ran on... why you only ran a 2:24:47 at STG that year? I'm sure the other years are the same. With those half times at Hobble you should have been hitting at least 2:21 or faster at STG all of those years. But if the course is different then it makes sense. Because last year I ran a 1:09 at Hobble and then a 2:25 at STG. You'd think a 1:07 would have brought you better things at STG.

[Sasha Pachev]

Clyde - the course was probably 30 seconds faster in the 2003-2005 version than in 2006-2007. Cannot be much more than that unless the 2003 was short or 2006 long - they share the first 10 miles. Also note that 1997-2001 version was faster than 2003. You did not have the trail and went straight on the road. I found that trail a huge rhythm breaker, worth about 30 seconds for the stretch, if not more. 1:08 on the current course is probably honestly worth a 2:24, no faster in St. George. Your Hobblecreek races just have been bummers, while in St. George you were on top of the game. I do have a disclaimer that since 2003 I've never run St. George without TOU first, but I do not think it makes that much of a difference for me. I've run better quality St. George than TOU on several occasions in spite of caring more about TOU.