Boston analysis

agip wrote:

a vote for the obvious here - it was the wind.

UNLESS Mutai and others start running 2:03x - then, we should revisit the thread.

Ryan Hall has posted his thoughts on the race here:

http://ryanhall.competitor.com/2011/04/22/reflections-on-the-2011-boston-marathon/

He doesn't mention the wind at all.

altoroad wrote:

agip wrote:

a vote for the obvious here - it was the wind.

UNLESS Mutai and others start running 2:03x - then, we should revisit the thread.

Ryan Hall has posted his thoughts on the race here:

http://ryanhall.competitor.com/2011/04/22/reflections-on-the-2011-boston-marathon/

He doesn't mention the wind at all.

__________________________

I have never been shy about leading and with the conditions as ideal as they were I was not about to let one mile slip by, as I knew that something special could happen today.

what do you think this means, then?

altoroad wrote:

Ryan Hall has posted his thoughts on the race here:

http://ryanhall.competitor.com/2011/04/22/reflections-on-the-2011-boston-marathon/

He doesn't mention the wind at all.

Why would he?

agip wrote:

altoroad wrote:

Ryan Hall has posted his thoughts on the race here:

http://ryanhall.competitor.com/2011/04/22/reflections-on-the-2011-boston-marathon/

He doesn't mention the wind at all.

__________________________

I have never been shy about leading and with the conditions as ideal as they were I was not about to let one mile slip by, as I knew that something special could happen today.

what do you think this means, then?

In his case, it could well mean that he'd had an especially good bible study session going into the race.

altoroad wrote:

agip wrote:

__________________________

I have never been shy about leading and with the conditions as ideal as they were I was not about to let one mile slip by, as I knew that something special could happen today.

what do you think this means, then?

In his case, it could well mean that he'd had an especially good bible study session going into the race.

__________________

you got a sn***** out of me, but that's all. Clearly he was talking about the low temps and tailwind.

He was talking about the tailwind two weeks before the race:

http://www.flotrack.org/speaker/78-Ryan-Hall/video/485333-Ryan-Hall-last-major-workout-before-2011-Boston-Marathon

Master of the Obvious wrote:

altoroad wrote:

Ryan Hall has posted his thoughts on the race here:

http://ryanhall.competitor.com/2011/04/22/reflections-on-the-2011-boston-marathon/

He doesn't mention the wind at all.

Why would he?

Apparently the wind was blowing so hard as to propel the blowhards on letsrun. But I suppose that people usually only notice headwinds; tailwinds are usually interpreted as "feeling good".

Great quotes from Ryan Hall BEFORE the race. He was praying for those conditions.

"Depends on the day."

"If we get a good day. Get a good tailwind. Cool day. Sky's the limit. When you are running one direction. You get a tailwind. You can really roll."

"I'm waiting for one of those years."

"Bill Rodgers stopped 5 times. I asked him, "How'd you run that fast", He said 'We had a wicked tailwind'"

Here are the splits for last year and this year. I don't know the Boston course at all, but there are plenty of people here who do.

2010 2011

5k 14:53 14:29

10k 15:14 14:37

15k 14:51 14:39

20k 15:13 14:58

25k 14:47 14:33

30k 15:00 15:07

35k 14:44 14:12

40k 14:39 14:13

The only thing that jumped out at me was that last year's split from 25-30k was faster; perhaps that can be attributed to the rhythm of the race. Otherwise , the two sets of data look reasonably similar, with those of this year's race being 15-30 seconds faster.

It might be interesting to compare splits for more years to see if there is a pattern from which one might make conclusions about the effect of the wind. I'd rather just watch the race.

Congatulations everybody, sixteen pages of American whiners.

altoroad wrote:

Here are the splits for last year and this year. I don't know the Boston course at all, but there are plenty of people here who do.

2010 2011

5k 14:53 14:29 -24

10k 15:14 14:37 -37

15k 14:51 14:39 -12

20k 15:13 14:58 -15

25k 14:47 14:33 -14

30k 15:00 15:07 +7

35k 14:44 14:12 -32

40k 14:39 14:13 -26

The only thing that jumped out at me was that last year's split from 25-30k was faster; perhaps that can be attributed to the rhythm of the race. Otherwise , the two sets of data look reasonably similar, with those of this year's race being 15-30 seconds faster.

It might be interesting to compare splits for more years to see if there is a pattern from which one might make conclusions about the effect of the wind. I'd rather just watch the race.

slow hands wrote:

Congatulations everybody, sixteen pages of American whiners.

Thanks for joining us!

slow hands wrote:

Congatulations everybody, sixteen pages of American whiners.

Do you even know the definition of "whiner"?

So much ignorance, so little time.

The only thing that jumped out at me was that last year's split from 25-30k was faster; perhaps that can be attributed to the rhythm of the race. Otherwise , the two sets of data look reasonably similar, with those of this year's race being 15-30 seconds faster...

Last year, which I ran, 25- 30k would have included a significant tailwind up the hill right after the fire station at 17.4. The wind was NW last year and it definitely helped up that hill, being one of the few times the wind was a true tailwind. This year (I did not run) I think it was probably a side wind at that point and so the wind could not help up that particular hill. Again though, I want to see mile by mile splits for each race since 2007.

agip wrote:

a vote for the obvious here - it was the wind.

UNLESS Mutai and others start running 2:03x - then, we should revisit the thread.

I'll agree with Ryan Hall's opinion, before the race.

"Depends on the day."

"If we get a good day. Get a good tailwind. Cool day. Sky's the limit. When you are running one direction. You get a tailwind. You can really roll."

"I'm waiting for one of those years."

"Bill Rodgers stopped 5 times and he still ran 2:09. (Rodgers statement at the time, "2;09? I can't run that fast!") I asked him, "How'd you run that fast", He said 'We had a wicked tailwind'"

Malmo, you argue your case so forcefully that you undermine your own credibility. This is particularly true when you resort to ad hominem attacks on people who challenge you. That being said, I agree with your basic point that the wind was a significant factor. I also agree with those of your detractors who suggest that you cannot possibly measure the precise effect that the weather had on a runner's performance.

I never said that it can be precisely measured.

So after 16 pages, how far have we gone, and how much further can we go?

On one end of the spectrum, Renato declares the wind effect to be not more than 40 seconds.

On the other end, we have several "scientific" approaches which say that such high winds should generate 3-4 minutes advantage.

Seemingly in the middle, we have Ken Young (ARRS) who somehow statistically computed a race time bias of 1:37 (for the men), for a course that is usually 13.5 seconds slow. This means the effect of wind/weather is a net 1:50.5.

Even a letsrun analysis (point 7 in the week that was) seems to suggest a 2:00 minute advantage over 2010 (also wind aided).

Ken Young seems to have created controversy/support for saying it's "statistially valid", and not "excessively aided", but looking at the ARRS website, and you see that the times are also not "record quality". They will not be considered an "ARRS record". The times are included, and coupled with the bias, will be used to calculate world rankings and marathon comparisons.

It may not seem apparent, with all these numbers floating around, but the ARRS calculations seem to support Renato. The 2011 bias gives Mutai a "normalized" time of 2:04:37, and Mosop 2:04:41. On a course like Berlin, with an average bias of 68.5 seconds faster, these times become 2:03:28.5 and 2:03:32.5. Even London would have given Mutai a 2:03:58.2

canova's estimate of mutai has to be worth something - he is familiar with guy's training to some degree & he believes he was "stronger" for this race than when he ran 2"04'55 on flat course

now, to be stronger, i assume that means he reckons mutai was putting up better training figures

if for instance prior to his 2'04'55 he was running X reps of 1 mile with Y rest in say 4'30, a 15 - 20s improvement in a 2'04'55 woud proportion down to improvement in training of ~ X reps of 1 mile with Y rest in say 4'29.2

this looks to me like a very small improvement to notice in training, probably too small to warrant the adjective "stronger"

i'd reckon for any coach to notice an improvement in training, those reps woud have to be at least 2s quicker -> X reps of 1 mile with Y rest in say 4'28 ->

~ 2'04'00

that does indicate jeff woud have to have been in more like in/at wr shape for an observing coach to justify a phrase like "stronger"