Boston analysis

So you ran considerably further than 26.2?

Numb Nutz wrote:

So you ran considerably further than 26.2?

Um... no.

malmo wrote:

It was an ESE wind, which is coming into your face, not from behind you, People were peeling off clothing because the air was completely saturated by a massive storm system, therefore no cooling effect.

My memory of 2007 is getting fuzzy but I remember that the forecast was describing the worst possible weather the day before: heavy winds in the face, cold so that BAA warned against hypothermia, and crazy rain.

By starting time, there was still a significant headwind but it was much warmer and most people were wearing too many layers (me included). Having prepared for the worst, it wasn't all that bad. A PR was out of question for most everyone and I took it a bit easier too. The winner was 2:14. That says it all.

2:14 with headwinds in Boston should help you understand that with the right runners, sub2 is possible in Boston on a day like Monday.

Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow. Why is a downhill course slower than Berlin anyways? Four times from this year, yes I know that. And one from last year. I just was bringing back up the part that Malmo considers Mutai to be a 2:06-2:07 guy at Boston, but a 2:04-2:05 guy at Berlin/Rotterdamn. If RK was 2:05 already, then you can't give Mutai a slower time.

BamBam wrote:

Malmo, I just don't undestand why you put 2:06-2:07 values on Mutai when the record was 2:05:52 already by Robert Cheroyiot. To be fair, its ok to assume Mutai is better than RK, so why would he be slower?

.

No it wouldn't be fair to say that Mutai would be better than Cheroyiot. Mutai has a best of 2:04:55 on a flat course. Cheeoyiot had a tailwind too last year, but not as strong, nor as direct as Mondays run.

+1

BamBam wrote:

Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow.

If there is no wind, Boston is around 2 min slower than Berlin. For someone who is not in top shape, Boston course can seriously screw you up an make a difference of a dozen minutes or so...

BamBam wrote:

Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow. Why is a downhill course slower than Berlin anyways? Four times from this year, yes I know that. .

Bamabam, you must be a newbie. Boston's net downhill topography is a hindrance not a help. It's been explained many times before.

Boston's unique topography makes it a NET downhill race on paper, however, it's still certainly not as fast as a flat course. Not even close. Any "aiding" at Boston depends on the capricious nature of the westerly winds. Even with the benefit of a tailwind, the course is such that your legs take an awful beating.

Notice that during the first mile (a) there is a drop of 130 ft. At the end of four miles (b), a net drop of 310 ft. Anyone who's ever run a marathon knows that the first four miles means nothing and any gains during those first four miles are going to be negligible -- especially in world-class fields. From four to 21 miles (b-d) there is an elevation RISE of 50 ft., leading to a quad-destroying drop of 220 ft. over the last five miles (e-f). I cannot name one runner who has ever said that they were "aided" during those last five miles of Boston, can you? To the contrary, the race history is riddled with dozens of runners making it through 21 miles ahead of world-record pace -- facing only downhill ahead -- and then being cruelly humbled by the final descent.

In a nutshell: Minus 310 ft. over four miles. Verdict: small gain. Plus 50 ft. over the next 17 miles. Verdict: a loss. Minus 220 ft over the last 5 miles. Verdict: a big loss.

I cannot stress it enough the two most significant features of Boston's course are the downhills at (c) Newton Lower Falls (-100ft. at 15.5 miles) and (e) St. Ignatious Church (-80 ft. at 21 miles after Heartbreak). That -80 ft. drop at St. Ignatious is more like -100 ft because there is a little rise after it to the 22 mile checkpoint. Those downhills kill the superstars and plodders alike.

Here are the elevations above sea level of the mile marks on the Boston Marathon course.

Mileage City/Town Elevation ft. Netchange

Start Hopkinton 490 N/A

1.0 Hopkinton 360 -130 (a)

2.0 Ashland 320 -40

3.0 Ashland 265 -55

4.0 Ashland 180 -85 (b)

5.0 Framingham 205 +25

6.0 Framingham 180 -25

7.0 Framingham 155 -25

8.0 Natick 180 +25

9.0 Natick 150 -30

10.0 Natick 170 +20

11.0 Natick 180 +10

12.0 Wellesley 165 -15

13.0 Wellesley 145 -20

14.0 Wellesley 130 -15

15.0 Wellesley 160 +30

16.0 Newton/LowerFalls 60 -100 (c)

17.0 Newton 115 +55

18.0 West Newton 145 +30

19.0 Newton 130 -15

20.0 Newton 150 +20

21.0 ChestnutHill 230 +80 (d)

22.0 Boston/Brighton 150 -80 (e)

23.0 Brookline 95 -55

24.0 Brookline 60 -35

25.0 Boston/Back Bay 15 -45

26.0 Boston/Back Bay 10 -5

26.2 Finish 10 0 (f)

On a windless day, you say Mutai would be 2:06-2:07/ all else being equal (pacing, strategy). That's a lot of credit for the wind for a 2:04:55 guy running on a downhill course.

BamBam wrote:

Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow.

Well then there's really not much to discuss. History has shown it to be slower than the other majors with the exception of NYC.

Just a thought here, but has it occured to anyone that maybe these guys are just that good. Mutai was already a sub 2:05 guy. Hall is a 2:06 low guy. You all are making it seem like these guys came out of nowhere to run these times. The defending champ ran slower than he ran last year. This isn't a situation where the whole field PR'd by 5 minutes. A couple of guys PR'd by less than 2 minutes and you all are acting like it's impossible for that to happen. Part of what made Mutai and Mosop so good was a great pacer in Hall, plus they had eachother the whole way to work off of. Hall and Gebre had eachother as well. Having someone to race against late in a marathon is a huge advantage that isn't always there. When you're dead tired and there is no one around, as is often the case at the front of WR pace marathons, it's real easy to slow down....even if you're not trying to.

BamBam wrote:

On a windless day, you say Mutai would be 2:06-2:07/ all else being equal (pacing, strategy). That's a lot of credit for the wind for a 2:04:55 guy running on a downhill course.

Bambam, you are even in the discussion if you don't understand why Boston is a slow course.

This is probably a better forum for you.

Malmo, I understand the effect of downhill course have on the legs (CIM for example). This is where the ability to absorb the stress (eccentric strength play a big role). When their quads or leg strength is not a limiting factor, the course can be crushed. History doesn't show this very well because most people are simply limited by the downhills impact on the legs. These athletes aren't (evidence shows with the fastest 5k being net UPHILL). So I'll post the link to Boston compared to other courses:

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/course/elevations/

No one said they were good runners. They are GREAT runners. They didn't come out of nowhere, their performances did.

I explained it before, when 9 out of the top 15 set PRs on a slow course, something you'd rarely see in any legit flat course, you don't have to be a genius figure this out.

Dude, you're just pissing into the wind.

Malmo, you need to get out. You'd get better results trying to teach my dog how to do calculus.

WHY, oh WHY, would you give the credit for an amazing 5k split to the athletes' "not being limited by the downhill impact on the legs", and NOT to the tailwind blowing them forward?

Why doesn't someone start a point to point race somewhere with a consistent north wind, and have it run due south, and I will fly to that place and PR for whatever distance it is. This is really simple stuff.

Why don't they start a course that goes with the prevailing winds: 1) it is stupid 2) it is not a legitimate marathon course.

Any more dumb questions?

BamBam wrote:

Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow. Why is a downhill course slower than Berlin anyways? Four times from this year, yes I know that. And one from last year. I just was bringing back up the part that Malmo considers Mutai to be a 2:06-2:07 guy at Boston, but a 2:04-2:05 guy at Berlin/Rotterdamn. If RK was 2:05 already, then you can't give Mutai a slower time.

Have you ever raced Boston and Berlin? I don't want to just dismiss your argument, but I think if you were to race them both you would understand better. In 8 tries at Boston, I still haven't come with 5 minutes of what I ran the ONE time I did Berlin. I also haven't come within 2 minutes of what I ran the two times I did Chicago. The course just beats you to hell. On a bad day, it beats you up so badly that you are unable to run fast even when you still have a lot of energy in the tank.

BamBam wrote:

Malmo, I understand the effect of downhill course have on the legs (CIM for example). This is where the ability to absorb the stress (eccentric strength play a big role). When their quads or leg strength is not a limiting factor, the course can be crushed. History doesn't show this very well because most people are simply limited by the downhills impact on the legs. These athletes aren't (evidence shows with the fastest 5k being net UPHILL). So I'll post the link to Boston compared to other courses:

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/course/elevations/

I wouldn't take those maps from marathonguide.com seriously.

The map of the Berlin Marathon shows hills were there are none. The course path is drawn with shortcuts over buildings at 2, 5, 8, 11, 13 and 23 miles. I assure you, it is much easier, and flatter, to simply follow the roads rather than try to climb buildings. The roads are flat. The buildings are not.

edumacator wrote:

WHY, oh WHY, would you give the credit for an amazing 5k split to the athletes' "not being limited by the downhill impact on the legs", and NOT to the tailwind blowing them forward? .

Repeat in the form of a question, in English this time, please?