You are reporting the following post to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum
RE: Boston analysis
Analysis of the wind effect that uses a comparison of athletes' PBs to what they ran at Boston 2011 is flawed. It doesn't consider where the athlete set the PB. What is 2:05 at Berlin worth at Boston, weather and pacing conditions being equal?
In similar conditions, Boston is slower - by how much? 1 min? 2 min? Science of Sport suggests approx 3 min. Maybe too much, but if you want to refute those numbers, do some analysis which suggests otherwise.
Let's use a range: is it reasonable to expect that athletes running Boston most years will be, on average, somewhere between 1 and 3 minutes slower than their PB set on a flat fast European course?
Then if we see them running (to use Canova's numbers) 21 seconds FASTER than their PB, we know the wind was a significant help. Ninety seconds to three minutes seems a reasonable, conservative figure.
Hit the submit button below if you want us to review the post.