So does Moses Mosop's 2:03:06 debut record make it officially impossible to beat the fastest debutant ever record?

A "debutant" record is like a junior record or an indoor record. Not really anything of any real relevance.

Has to be said wrote:

A "debutant" record is like a junior record or an indoor record. Not really anything of any real relevance.

A debuttante record isn't officially recognized. Junior records and indoor records are recognized.

If debut's were recognized Mosop's time would not. The course is not a record certifiable course (both by elevation drop and being further than 50% of the distance from Start to finish) even if there was no wind.

Then of course there's that pesky tailwind that fools are pretending didn't exist!

malmo wrote:

Has to be said wrote:

A "debutant" record is like a junior record or an indoor record. Not really anything of any real relevance.

A debuttante record isn't officially recognized. Junior records and indoor records are recognized.

If debut's were recognized Mosop's time would not. The course is not a record certifiable course (both by elevation drop and being further than 50% of the distance from Start to finish) even if there was no wind.

Then of course there's that pesky tailwind that fools are pretending didn't exist!

I think a lot of people are really confused though. They see that the course has a Net Drop and think that it is the reason why they ran such fast times. The course isn't a record certifiable course because of its starting line-finish line scenario and the net drop with Hills. Even though it is not a record course, the times at Boston are usually slow. It was really only the wind that pushed the front runners to their great times today.

The reason why Boston is typically slow isn't because it's a tough course, but because it's typically plagued by headwinds and/or high temps. Today we say a bump of about two minutes due to wind and another minute or two because of perfect temps.That said, Mosop's performance was arguably the best debutante performance, but by a slim margin.

Crimea River wrote:

The reason why Boston is typically slow isn't because it's a tough course, but because it's typically plagued by headwinds and/or high temps. Today we say a bump of about two minutes due to wind and another minute or two because of perfect temps.

Typically plagued by headwinds and high temps. As far as your running history exam goes, you failed.

Boston is slow becasue of the downhills and where they come in the race. From heartbreak to the finish is screaming downhill. Your quads have already taken a shot at 15.5 miles, the downhill at St Ignatious all but finishes them off. There have been many runners over the histroy of the race who have come through heartbreak at WR pace, then completely destroyed by the final descent.

If Boston's course went flat from Wellesly to Heartbreak, with no steep drops, just a gentle slope from St Ignatious to the finish, it would be a different story.

And this Magical Tailwind somehow exempted today's leaders from this horrific, quad-destroying effect from Heartbreak to the finish, enabling them to do what so many in the past have failed to do? As far your logic exam goes, you failed.

Huh?

malmo wrote:

Then of course there's that pesky tailwind that fools are pretending didn't exist!

Even the "smart" guys are getting in on it now. Because a bunch of internet-men don't like the race conditions, does that mean Moses has to go around saying he hasn't run a real marathon?

Crimea River wrote:

And this Magical Tailwind somehow exempted today's leaders from this horrific, quad-destroying effect from Heartbreak to the finish, enabling them to do what so many in the past have failed to do? As far your logic exam goes, you failed.

Kid. You're way out of your depth if you don't undestand the effects of a tailwind that four times what is allowed in a track event.

I love it. Even the NYTimes is on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/sports/19amdur.html?_r=1

Old Man. You are way past your bedtime if can't understand that your claim of why Boston has not yielded fast times (horrifically situated downhill) is NOT affected by wind. At some point a rational person will concede that while Mutai and others (especially Mosop and Gebremarian) benefited from the weather (TEMPS as well as wind), they were also the strongest racers ever to grace the course.

Apparently you are too entrenched in your monofactorial "hurricane at their backs" (your words) dogma to understand that today's result had multifactorial circumstances, i.e. 1)ideal temps, 2)tailwinds acting selectively at certain locations, 3)Hall acting as de facto pacemaker at as crucial point, and 4)according to his own coach,Renato Canova, the strongest marathoner active today. Junger's "Perfect Storm" occurred well off the coast two decades ago; today it was inland, and it included an incredibly strong and competitive men's field, who deserve full credit for their part in history.

Sure these 2:03's will forever bear their asterisks, but do not dismiss these achievements out of hand. At the least, the veil concealing the the future of marathon racing has been pulled back a bit.

I can see why you didn't choose to pursue biology any further as a career- jumping to entrenched conclusions too quickly when studying organisms interacting with their environment is profoundly frustrating to those who look for simplistic explanations.

You keep stuggling. I am not stuck with "mono-factorial dogma (sic)". This is not a difficult problem to figure out. There was a strong tailwind today, stronger that the two previous Bostons with a tailwind, 1983 and 1994. There is no jumping to conclusions because the conclusion is so obvious.

You're acting like this is a mystery. There is no 'veil' that has been pulled back.

Keep digging.

Has to be said wrote:

A "debutant" record is like a junior record or an indoor record. Not really anything of any real relevance.

Yeah, until a distance running American white dude gets one. Then ypou'll blow your wad.

I am not "stuggling". I thank you for input, myopic and reactionary as it might be.

malmo wrote:

You keep stuggling. I am not stuck with "mono-factorial dogma (sic)". This is not a difficult problem to figure out. There was a strong tailwind today, stronger that the two previous Bostons with a tailwind, 1983 and 1994. There is no jumping to conclusions because the conclusion is so obvious.

You're acting like this is a mystery. There is no 'veil' that has been pulled back.

Keep digging.

OKK wrote:

Moses Mosop beat the old record by 2:44, and although it may not count as the official debutant record unofficially it is the fastest debut marathon performance ever. Could Moses Mosop's(unofficial) debutant record ever be beaten? Is it even simply possible?

Engine Kubwa is with it.

This guy has great talent. I can't wait to see what he'll do after five marathons.

Big Engine was expecting a 2:08 or a 2:07 race. He surprised himself as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/boston-marathon-kenyans-geoffrey-mutai-caroline-kilel-are-winners/2011/04/18/AFj9yozD_blog.html

NativeSon wrote:

Big Engine was expecting a 2:08 or a 2:07 race. He surprised himself as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/boston-marathon-kenyans-geoffrey-mutai-caroline-kilel-are-winners/2011/04/18/AFj9yozD_blog.html

Native

Don't you think Mosops comments about a 2:07/8 are playing to the media a little?

We have been able to see his training thanks to Renato, and Renato was preparing him for 2:05/6. I am sure he didn't want to jump the gun being his 1st marathon. I would find it hard to believe, considering his pedigree and training, that he was seriously only thinking 2:07/8

OKK wrote:

Moses Mosop beat the old record by 2:44, and although it may not count as the official debutant record unofficially it is the fastest debut marathon performance ever. Could Moses Mosop's(unofficial) debutant record ever be beaten? Is it even simply possible?

what does "officially impossible" mean?