As of a few hours ago...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/04/19/boston.marathon.mutai.ap/index.html
"Boston Marathon officials say they will apply to the IAAF to have Geoffrey Mutai's winning time of 2 hours, 3 minutes, 2 seconds certified as a world record..."
"Boston officials say that the 115-year history of the race shows it is not an artificially fast course."
Post Edited
Good! Courses like Boston should be grandfathered in.
the reason a point to point course isn't eligible for a wr is because there can be a tailwind that aids in a way a loop or out and back course does not. This doesn't mean there will be a tailwind every year, or even every 115 years, but as seen from Boston yesterday there was one that gave an unfair time advantage as compared to a marathon not on a point to point course. Boston should remain ineligible.
if any marathon course could be used, someone could just set up a marathon with 8000 feet of elevation drop on a point to point course, easily resulting in a wr.
In 2010 people were stunned that Robert Cheruiyot the younger ran 2:05, and now after Monday's race people are saying that Boston should never count for record purposes. I find this hilarious considering that before 2010 everyone thought Boston was a slow course and a fast time similar to ones run in Berlin or London or Chicago would never happen. Mutai is the the fastest of anyone in history and Boston should be record eligible.
Correct. That's why courses like Boston should be GRANDFATHERED in. When the course was designed, it wasn't designed to be fast. I don't see much of a difference between Boston with a tailwind and running circles around a pancake-flat city with a team of pacemakers.
resdredff wrote:
the reason a point to point course isn't eligible for a wr is because there can be a tailwind that aids in a way a loop or out and back course does not. This doesn't mean there will be a tailwind every year, or even every 115 years, but as seen from Boston yesterday there was one that gave an unfair time advantage as compared to a marathon not on a point to point course. Boston should remain ineligible.
I suppose we should then account for headwinds. Every time Boston was run into a headwind, we should subtract time from the finishers results to account for the wind, otherwise it would be unfair.
It's a downhill marathon record yes, but not a marathon record.
I agree that courses like Boston should be grandfathered in. The Boston course is not the same as some schmuck inventing a marathon with a 8000m elevation loss. This movement will not be successful, I fear, but I wish it would be.
Mechanical Energy Graph wrote:
It's a downhill marathon record yes, but not a marathon record.
YET.
clearing the bs up wrote:
. . .before 2010 everyone thought Boston was a slow course and a fast time similar to ones run in Berlin or London or Chicago would never happen. Mutai is the the fastest of anyone in history and Boston should be record eligible.
Well said.
clearing the bs up wrote:
In 2010 people were stunned that Robert Cheruiyot the younger ran 2:05, and now after Monday's race people are saying that Boston should never count for record purposes. I find this hilarious considering that before 2010 everyone thought Boston was a slow course and a fast time similar to ones run in Berlin or London or Chicago would never happen. Mutai is the the fastest of anyone in history and Boston should be record eligible.
The reason why they ran so absurdly fast was because of the ridiculous tailwind. Boston isn´t a very fast course, but because it is point to point, you can get an advantage because of weather conditions.
The second reason is simple: rules are rules. If we start to twist and bend them, we´re out on the slippery slope. Next time it may be some other race that isn´t record eligible that starts to scream. The only reason why you argue like this is because it is an American marthon and an American was 4th.
.. and the London Olympic committee are rumoured to be preparing a 100m downhill track with industrial fans behind the start. No reason has been given....
not very smart, are you? wrote:
The reason why they ran so absurdly fast was because of the ridiculous tailwind. Boston isn´t a very fast course, but because it is point to point, you can get an advantage because of weather conditions.
So when do we start subtracting time from a finisher's result because of a headwind or a hot day or some other unfavorable condition?
not very smart, are you? wrote: The second reason is simple: rules are rules. If we start to twist and bend them, we´re out on the slippery slope. Next time it may be some other race that isn´t record eligible that starts to scream. The only reason why you argue like this is because it is an American marthon and an American was 4th.
And rules are changed. Boston isn't some random race, it is the oldest marathon in the United States, one of the oldest in the world, and one of the most respected.
Also please show me where my reasoning had anything to do with the fact that the marathon is in the United States and that Ryan Hall finished fourth? Because I'm pretty sure you're full of shit.
Not like it hasn't been done before.... (according to Wikipedia)
In 1947, the men's record time set was 2:25:39, by Suh Yun-Bok of South Korea. In 1975, a women's world record of 2:42:24 was set by Liane Winter of West Germany, and in 1983, Joan Benoit Samuelson of the United States ran a women's world record time of 2:22:43.
clearing the bs up wrote:
I find this hilarious considering that before 2010 everyone thought Boston was a slow course and a fast time similar to ones run in Berlin or London or Chicago would never happen. Mutai is the the fastest of anyone in history and Boston should be record eligible.
It is hilarious. People have no idea what they're talking about in terms of courses, weather, net elevation changes, etc.
This record should be eligible simply because it's a road race.
Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that Mutai might not have actually run 42.195 km? He probably didn't. It might have been 42.199 or 42.187. Why hasn't anyone brought up that the fact that there was perceivable wind in Geb's WR in 2008? Was it more noticeable than in Boston? Geb didn't run exactly 42.195 km, he actually ran 42.1944094 km. It rained the day before Geb's marathon - the friction coefficient of the roads was slightly lower. Geb's coefficient of drag * frontal area is lower than Mutai's, so Mutai gets the record. The wind shifted in Berlin, giving Geb a tailwind for 87% of the race.
When people make races ineligible for records because of semantic bulls**t then our sport becomes bulls**t. It's a road race. Road races aren't held under laboratory conditions. They're not reproducible. They're not really even comparable to one another.
Either it should count as a record. Or there shouldn't be marathon world records. All of them should simply be "fastest times" run. Or, we should only have course records.
resdredff wrote:
if any marathon course could be used, someone could just set up a marathon with 8000 feet of elevation drop on a point to point course, easily resulting in a wr.
You obviously have never run a truly long downhill. The course you describe would be one of the slowest in the World.
I thought most people considered Boston a fast course for elites whenever there was good weather. Look at how many runners ran PRs (or close to them) there. Guys like Sell, Kempainen, Rodgers, Cheruiyot,Moses Tanui, Cosmas Ndeti, Gelindo Bordin, Greg Meyer, and so on. Now some of that is because Boston is a big marathon and lots of people run it while in good shape. Part of it is because it is a point to point downhill course.
clearing the bs up wrote:
In 2010 people were stunned that Robert Cheruiyot the younger ran 2:05, and now after Monday's race people are saying that Boston should never count for record purposes. I find this hilarious considering that before 2010 everyone thought Boston was a slow course and a fast time similar to ones run in Berlin or London or Chicago would never happen. Mutai is the the fastest of anyone in history and Boston should be record eligible.
The tailwind renders this argument moot. It does not matter what kind of history Boston has. If there is a perceptable tailwind then it's a wind-aided "aided time" course. If they allow for Boston's wind-aided times to count, they should allow for all wind-aided track meet times and records to count and rewrite the IAAF world-record books.
zax wrote:
I agree that courses like Boston should be grandfathered in. The Boston course is not the same as some schmuck inventing a marathon with a 8000m elevation loss. This movement will not be successful, I fear, but I wish it would be.
Getting to the start of a marathon that has a 8000m drop would be a huge challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander