Have at it.
Have at it.
I don't mind the announcing. But how many years in a row can someone announce the event with becoming predictable? I'm sure most loyal Boston viewers knew exactly what was coming once Rawson started a story. Of course the Wellesley yell louder for the women, of course the marathon route was predicated by the railroads....interesting stories, at one time, but now cliché. Again, I like Rawson, just need some fresher blood.
I didn't mind the announcing on the baa.org feed. Compared to the olympics or world champs, they did a good job with the contenders. Just wish they would provide better updates on the top 10 finishers not just the leaders. Such as, Ritz dropped Meb by a minute, would of like to have known when that happened. Did Ritz pick it up, Meb stop to take a poop, what?
Also Teg, had a good steady run today, finished 11th and the 3rd US. Would have been nice for recaps of the top 10 or 15 at each checkpoint.
But the announcing was pretty good, I thought. They seemed to call and predict/interpret the race pretty well.
leg turnover...
I liked how the one guy picked the girl because she has longer legs, to win it down the home stretch. He was right, but not because her legs were longer.
Also, what was with calling each mile a 1600 meters? Are they trying to appeal to the JV track kids?
milethon wrote:
I liked how the one guy picked the girl because she has longer legs, to win it down the home stretch. He was right, but not because her legs were longer.
Also, what was with calling each mile a 1600 meters? Are they trying to appeal to the JV track kids?
That whole 1600 thing today was bizarre. They were trying to use metric because it was a world feed, but the rest of the world could give a crap about 1600 meters. Give K splits for the metrically inclined and miles for us dinosaurs.
MOAR LEG SPEED wrote:
leg turnover...
lol.
I like Rawson. I like him for his intelligent comments (which in truth, there are quite a few), his enthusiasm, AND for his dumb/odd comments and screw-ups and oh-so-predictable repeat-ad-nauseam comments ("I can tell they are speeding up just based on looking at leg turnover").
All in all it's entertaining.
What on earth was his obsession today with talking about 1600m splits?? he would mention the mile split, but then HAVE to also reference the 1600m in some way. Weird, but another Larry classic.
I also like how they were really excited about the back and forth in both the men's and women's races, and then, Desisa appears to make a decisive move, only to be covered by Tsegay and........they mention in the most casual way, 'oh yeah, looks like Tsegay is back up with Desisa." It just seemed odd.
I don't mind the announcers at all. So they make the occasional dumb comment. Just give me the visuals and the pertinent numbers. We all know what goes on out there in a race.
not a world figure wrote:
milethon wrote:I liked how the one guy picked the girl because she has longer legs, to win it down the home stretch. He was right, but not because her legs were longer.
Also, what was with calling each mile a 1600 meters? Are they trying to appeal to the JV track kids?
That whole 1600 thing today was bizarre. They were trying to use metric because it was a world feed, but the rest of the world could give a crap about 1600 meters. Give K splits for the metrically inclined and miles for us dinosaurs.
If they refer to 1600m it is easier to give the analogy about going down to your local HS track. And Rawson did say something about the local track at least once that I heard.
Haji wrote:
If they refer to 1600m it is easier to give the analogy about going down to your local HS track. And Rawson did say something about the local track at least once that I heard.
He also referred to 1600m as "4 laps of a standard European track"
...
Larry also claimed that the Ethiopians started their altitude training at 7000m, and run all the way up to 10000m. That was something amazing that was never known before.
I'm torn.
On one hand, he makes me want to throw things at the TV and plug me ears so I can't hear him.
On the other, the comments about him in the race thread make me laugh out loud the whole time.
So I just say thanks for the fact Carol Lewis wasn't there and Joan Samuelson was running a great race instead of screeching on TV, and roll with it.
not a world figure wrote:
milethon wrote:Also, what was with calling each mile a 1600 meters? Are they trying to appeal to the JV track kids?
That whole 1600 thing today was bizarre. They were trying to use metric because it was a world feed, but the rest of the world could give a crap about 1600 meters. Give K splits for the metrically inclined and miles for us dinosaurs.
Agree plus if we get familiar with 1000 meter splits a useful result will be better understanding when we use International feeds from races outside the US and in languages other than British and American .
not a world figure wrote:
milethon wrote:Also, what was with calling each mile a 1600 meters? Are they trying to appeal to the JV track kids?
That whole 1600 thing today was bizarre. They were trying to use metric because it was a world feed, but the rest of the world could give a crap about 1600 meters. Give K splits for the metrically inclined and miles for us dinosaurs.
They didn't have the K splits and there probably are no K markers in Boston
No Ks for Felix wrote:
not a world figure wrote:That whole 1600 thing today was bizarre. They were trying to use metric because it was a world feed, but the rest of the world could give a crap about 1600 meters. Give K splits for the metrically inclined and miles for us dinosaurs.
They didn't have the K splits and there probably are no K markers in Boston
Call me a relic, but I wish Boston would go back to the train station splits: Framingham: 6.7, Natick 10.5 etc. These were the 'split' records because the race officials and reporters would take the trains from stop to stop and to keep track of the runners. And there used to be records - venerable records - for those splits and for the Newton hills etc. etc.. Given that the main appeal that Boston still holds is its ancient origins, it should stick with its ancient splits.
In any case it's not a course for which km or mile splits are particularly meaningful. it falls off a cliff out of Hopkinton, there are hills between Natick and Newton Falls, heartbreak etc etc.... There are miles for which a 5:05 is brutally fast and for which 4:45 is not fast enough.
7k to 10k m wrote:
Larry also claimed that the Ethiopians started their altitude training at 7000m, and run all the way up to 10000m. That was something amazing that was never known before.
That made me spit out my metaphorical coffee.
No Ks for Felix wrote:
They didn't have the K splits and there probably are no K markers in Boston
I notice white posts or conical markers with the KM printed on them on the right hand side of the course. I believe a comment was made about the one that noted the 7km mark.
No Ks for Felix wrote:
They didn't have the K splits and there probably are no K markers in Boston
Kilometer Mile Location City/Town
Start Start Main St. Hopkinton
1 Km 0.62 Rte. 135-East Main St. Hopkinton
1.60 1 Mile Rte. 135-East Main St. Hopkinton
2 Km 1.24 Rte. 135-East Main St. Hopkinton
3 Km 1.86 Rte. 135-East Main St. Hopkinton
3.21 2 Miles Rte. 135-West Union St. Ashland
4 Km 2.48 Rte. 135-West Union St. Ashland
4.82 3 Miles Rte. 135-East Union St. Ashland
5 Km 3.10 Rte. 135-East Union St. Ashland
6 Km 3.72 Rte. 135-Union St. Ashland
6.43 4 Miles Rte. 135-Union St. Ashland
7 Km 4.34 Rte. 135-Waverly St. Ashland
8 Km 4.97 Rte. 135-Waverly St. Ashland
8.04 5 Miles Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
9 Km 5.59 Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
9.65 6 Miles Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
10 Km 6.21 Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
11 Km 6.83 Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
11.26 7 Miles Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
12 Km 7.45 Rte. 135-Waverly St. Framingham
12.88 8 Miles Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
13 Km 8.07 Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
14 Km 8.69 Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
14.48 9 Miles Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
15 Km 9.32 Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
16 Km 9.94 Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
16.09 10 Miles Rte. 135-West Central St. Natick
17 Km 10.56 Rte. 135-East Central St. Natick
17.70 11 Miles Rte. 135-East Central St. Natick
18 Km 11.18 Rte. 135-East Central St. Natick
19 Km 11.80 Rte. 135-East Central St. Natick
19.31 12 Miles Rte. 135-Central St. Wellesley
20 Km 12.42 Rte. 135-Central St. Wellesley
20.92 13 Miles Rte. 135-Central St. Wellesley
21 Km 13.04 Rte. 135-Central St.
(Halfway mark) Wellesley
22 Km 13.67 Rte. 16-Washington St. Wellesley
22.53 14 Miles Rte. 16-Washington St. Wellesley
21.0975 Km 13.1 Mi. Rte. 135-Central St. Wellesley
23 Km 14.29 Rte. 16-Washington St. Wellesley
24 Km 14.91 Rte. 16-Washington St. Wellesley
24.14 15 Miles Rte. 16-Washington St. Wellesley
25 Km 15.53 Rte. 16-Washington St. Wellesley Lower Falls
25.74 16 Miles Rte. 16-Washington St. Newton Lower Falls
26 Km 16.15 Rte. 16-Washington St. Newton Lower Falls
27 Km 16.77 Rte. 16-Washington St. Newton
27.35 17 Miles Rte. 16-Washington St. Newton
28 Km 17.39 Rte. 16-Washington St. Newton
28.96 18 Miles Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. West Newton
29 Km 18.01 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. West Newton
30 Km 18.64 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton/Waban
30.57 19 Miles Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton
31 Km 19.26 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton
32 Km 19.88 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton
32.18 20 Miles Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton
33 Km 20.50 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton/Chestnut Hill
33.79 21 Miles Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton/Chestnut Hill
34 Km 21.12 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Newton/Chestnut Hill
35 Km 21.74 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Boston/Brighton
35.40 22 Miles Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Boston/Brighton
36 Km 22.36 Chestnut Hill Ave./Cleveland Circle Boston/Brighton
37 Km 22.99 Rte. 9A-Beacon St. Brookline
37.01 23 Miles Rte. 9A-Beacon St. Brookline
38 Km 23.61 Rte. 9A-Beacon St. Brookline
38.62 24 Miles Rte. 9A-Beacon St. Brookline/Coolidge Corner
40 Km 24.85 Rte. 9A-Beacon St. Boston
40.23 25 Miles Rte. 9A-Beacon St. Boston
40.57 25.2 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Boston/Kenmore Square
41 Km 25.47 Rte. 30-Commonwealth Ave. Boston/Back Bay
41.84 26 Miles Boylston St. Boston/Back Bay
42 Km 26.09 Boylston St. Boston/Back Bay
42.195 26.2 Boylston St./Copley Square (Finish) Boston/Back Bay at Public Library
calling a trowel a trowel wrote:
No Ks for Felix wrote:They didn't have the K splits and there probably are no K markers in Boston
I notice white posts or conical markers with the KM printed on them on the right hand side of the course. I believe a comment was made about the one that noted the 7km mark.
Significant KM distances are also painted on the rod surface.
When Rawson made a conversion from the mile to the equivalent 1600m split, I laughed out loud. Do we really need to know that a 4:39 mile is a 4:38 1600m? Really? Also... telling us how fast each K is really doesn't have any relevancy in America unless you also give mile splits. Back to back 3:02 Ks means nothing to me until you say that's 2:07 pace.
That being said, I do enjoy Al.