65 and a tailwind sounds pretty great, especially coming from AZ. Guess I could understand the complaints if you're someone that lived in a winter climate and never saw much above 45 in the lead up. People from the SW have zero excuse.
the sun and temp objectively and scientifically would slow you down somewhere between 1-2 percent. That’s just a fact. If you adjusted your goal pace 1-2 percent it was doable. Anyone who says you didn’t need to adjust pace 1-2 percent is a hobby jogger fool
Couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the LRC recap of Boston describe the conditions as “an absolutely beautiful day.” Trolling much? The heat felt downright oppressive yesterday, from the start all the way through Newton—save for some brief shaded stretches in Wellesley. The supposed tailwind was hardly noticeable. It did feel a bit cooler near the finish line, but beyond that, the conditions for marathoning were hardly ideal.
I agree with all of this. I got cooked and couldn't put down enough fluids. I understand that there have been way worse running conditions at Boston recently so crying about sunny and 65° is a little weak, but I do way better in the cold, rain, and wind than warm and sunny.
Here's some actual real data to back up the claims. My club (MA based) had a LOT of runners in the race (over 50 total). I did an analysis of all our finishers as we had a spreadsheet with everyones "goal time" (self-reported prior to the race) and their actual finish time. Range of goals was from 2:30 to 4:00 (average = 3:03). The goals were all fairly realistic as this was no ones first marathon and mostly qualifiers.
I determined the actual average finish time was 3:25:00 (vs 3:03) and 3 out of 40 runners were slightly faster than goal pace. Most people were off by more than 10 mins which in any other race would be considered massively weird.
The rest were slower by an average of 22 minutes which is no "accident" A few rather well trained athletes (all sub 3) had spectacular blow ups so these were wave 1 people. Looking at Strava pretty much everyone hit some kind of wall around 13 miles in, you can see the heart rate peg above threshold, they start to slow, then eventually have to take walking sections of various lengths. Some worse than others.
So given we all had similar levels of heat acclimation, I think the data speaks for itself.
What does the data say in speaking for itself?
I think it would be hard to get accurate answers at this point, but a significant question would be asking someone last week what their goal time is, then asking them race how far they’re adjusting that pace.
Weather wasn’t conducive to fast times, and it was one of the sneakier kinds of too warm. That’s the kind of day when even experienced marathoners tend to be a little weak about making good adjustments at the outset.
I think if we had data for a large group of runners who decided race morning to go out 10 to 15 seconds slower than the original goal, we would still see some fades but relatively few who wind up at least 10 minutes off their original goal, and a good number who could hold on to that more conservative pace.
Here's some actual real data to back up the claims. My club (MA based) had a LOT of runners in the race (over 50 total). I did an analysis of all our finishers as we had a spreadsheet with everyones "goal time" (self-reported prior to the race) and their actual finish time. Range of goals was from 2:30 to 4:00 (average = 3:03). The goals were all fairly realistic as this was no ones first marathon and mostly qualifiers.
I determined the actual average finish time was 3:25:00 (vs 3:03) and 3 out of 40 runners were slightly faster than goal pace. Most people were off by more than 10 mins which in any other race would be considered massively weird.
The rest were slower by an average of 22 minutes which is no "accident" A few rather well trained athletes (all sub 3) had spectacular blow ups so these were wave 1 people. Looking at Strava pretty much everyone hit some kind of wall around 13 miles in, you can see the heart rate peg above threshold, they start to slow, then eventually have to take walking sections of various lengths. Some worse than others.
So given we all had similar levels of heat acclimation, I think the data speaks for itself.
What does the data say in speaking for itself?
I think it would be hard to get accurate answers at this point, but a significant question would be asking someone last week what their goal time is, then asking them race how far they’re adjusting that pace.
Weather wasn’t conducive to fast times, and it was one of the sneakier kinds of too warm. That’s the kind of day when even experienced marathoners tend to be a little weak about making good adjustments at the outset.
I think if we had data for a large group of runners who decided race morning to go out 10 to 15 seconds slower than the original goal, we would still see some fades but relatively few who wind up at least 10 minutes off their original goal, and a good number who could hold on to that more conservative pace.
and also, to be honest, marathoners are very often unrealistic in their optimism, even in good weather. missing by 10 minutes is pretty normal in my experience. So to have a good study, you'd have to compare the 'miss' in 2024 against the 'miss' in other years and see if the 2024 'miss' was larger than usual.
anecdotally, from what I've seen from people I know running Boston 24, maybe 20% ran well, half blew up big and the rest somewhere in between. I'd say it was a 3 out of 10 on the weather scale. Doable, but bad for most.
Here's some actual real data to back up the claims. My club (MA based) had a LOT of runners in the race (over 50 total). I did an analysis of all our finishers as we had a spreadsheet with everyones "goal time" (self-reported prior to the race) and their actual finish time. Range of goals was from 2:30 to 4:00 (average = 3:03). The goals were all fairly realistic as this was no ones first marathon and mostly qualifiers.
I determined the actual average finish time was 3:25:00 (vs 3:03) and 3 out of 40 runners were slightly faster than goal pace. Most people were off by more than 10 mins which in any other race would be considered massively weird.
The rest were slower by an average of 22 minutes which is no "accident" A few rather well trained athletes (all sub 3) had spectacular blow ups so these were wave 1 people. Looking at Strava pretty much everyone hit some kind of wall around 13 miles in, you can see the heart rate peg above threshold, they start to slow, then eventually have to take walking sections of various lengths. Some worse than others.
So given we all had similar levels of heat acclimation, I think the data speaks for itself.
"Actual real data" you have to be kidding me, all your data proves is that hobby joggers are bad at estimating their actual times, nothing else.
If you lived in New England, our bodies weren't ready for the day. We've had windy/chilly/cloudy/rainy days for the last few months. Monday was direct (and strong) sunlight, minimal breeze, and temperatures at least 15-20 above what most trained through. The temperatures were at least 5-7 degrees above the forecast.
For those who started Elite or first wave, the challenge created by warmer conditions really hit at halfway and beyond (~10:30-11am). But for those who were starting further back, the conditions were already uncomfortable at the start. This reminds me much of the 2016 year. Forecasts called for warm, but not too bad temps (like this year). Then, when standing and waiting for the gun, you could tell the forecasts underestimated the day's high by a significant margin and you had to adjust immediately or face a blowup in the second half of the race.
Starting out at say 5% slower than your time goal would have been the ideal way to begin the race, and focusing on hydration early so that you have something in your legs after Heartbreak was key.
My compliments to everyone who ran. This was a sneaky tough day to race.
you are pretty dumb huh? wind was 2-4 miles per hour until after 1 pm....get a clue
The race reported a wind of 4 mph from the West. At the start, I also looked i tup on appleweather which had 6 mph, gusting to 12.
About 15 minutes before the men's finish (at 11:30), I looked up the wind on Apple weather and it said 8 mph of the W gusting to 15.
As for the temp, race organizers said it was 56 at the start and I had the temp at 63 at 11:30 (so only haflway for the masses). Running between 56 and 63 is cerrtainly warmer than ideal but it's not hot, even in the sun.
But I'll accept the criticism that it wasn't a perfect day to run fast. Perfect day to spectate. But let's don't ignore the fact the top women ripped a 15:06 5k between 35k and 40k.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Yeah you have it right OP. I think some people (myself included) looked at the weather ~week out & decided it would be ideal. 60s getting up close to 70 isn't ideal except for maybe those coming from the south. It ended up being a day to scale back race goals. Tailwind didn't compensate for the heat. It's not about being tough or whatever -- most people needed to make something like a 5-10s/mile adjustment. Not doing that usually adds way more time the other way. I know it's logistically difficult to get everyone out to the start but year after year Boston let's decent weather go unused in the early morning hours. The sub-3 crowd running at 7am would've had much better days. That's the difference of waiting the amount of time it takes to run a marathon & having to run from 10-1 instead of 7-10.
you would think the harsh winter conditions would create hardened souls, but nope - turns out new englanders are a bunch of whiny brats, the lot of 'em. imagine complaining about running in 60 degree temps LOL
we had exactly this same discussion about the olympic trials marathon weather.
Some people think sunny and 58-65 degrees is decent marathon weather and will laugh at those who don't.
The results seem to show that for elites it's ok weather and only costs them 2-4 minutes. For the rest of us I think the evidence shows it's very hot and costs 5-10 minutes on average.
Boston should really move up its start times. Pros could start between 8-8:30; wave one could kick off at 8:30. Better for everyone.
The logistics of getting everyone to the start line in Hopkinton don't really allow that early of a start. But it definitely could start at 9:30 or even earlier. They drop off Wave 1 at like 8:00 and then you sit there for over an hour before they start lining up the corrals. I typically just take a nap when I get to Hopkinton. I'm lucky enough to be in Wave 1 and finish by 1:00 but I truly feel for the later waves that run even more during the hottest part of the day.
The race reported a wind of 4 mph from the West. At the start, I also looked i tup on appleweather which had 6 mph, gusting to 12.
About 15 minutes before the men's finish (at 11:30), I looked up the wind on Apple weather and it said 8 mph of the W gusting to 15.
As for the temp, race organizers said it was 56 at the start and I had the temp at 63 at 11:30 (so only haflway for the masses). Running between 56 and 63 is cerrtainly warmer than ideal but it's not hot, even in the sun.
But I'll accept the criticism that it wasn't a perfect day to run fast. Perfect day to spectate. But let's don't ignore the fact the top women ripped a 15:06 5k between 35k and 40k.
There's a difference between what was forecast and what it actually was. You can look over the actual historical weather and the tailwind was 2-5mph with 8-10mph "gusts." I'm not saying your anecdotal experience from appleweather is wrong, just that I looked at all of it post-race by town in Boston. I also looked at my phone right before my 10am start time in Hopkinton and then later and it was 59/60. At the finish it was 66. Granted this makes sense as the elites start 25 minutes before the masses and finish earlier too.
I wouldn't categorize it as hot either, but when you are running a marathon of course it doesn't have to be hot to cause cramping, dehydration etc. It just needs to be warm in the sun which it was.
The elite men more of an honest race than the women did, and frankly few ran impressive times relative to their PBs/credentials. Seemed worse than last year, which had a slight headwind/rain but more favorable temps. For the women, the close was impressive. But that's like the equivalent of seeing 29-flat type women jog 31:30 pace in 10K on a hot evening in Paris and then close the last 2K at 14:20 pace. Would that mean the heat wasn't a thing? Or did they just run so comfortably the first 5/6 of the race that they were able to send it the rest of the way without worrying about any effects of the conditions.
Boston should really move up its start times. Pros could start between 8-8:30; wave one could kick off at 8:30. Better for everyone.
The logistics of getting everyone to the start line in Hopkinton don't really allow that early of a start. But it definitely could start at 9:30 or even earlier. They drop off Wave 1 at like 8:00 and then you sit there for over an hour before they start lining up the corrals. I typically just take a nap when I get to Hopkinton. I'm lucky enough to be in Wave 1 and finish by 1:00 but I truly feel for the later waves that run even more during the hottest part of the day.
The first start time (wheelchairs) was 9:02 AM. You're right that logistics are an issue, but not just for getting everyone to Hopkinton. I was a volunteer and had to report at 5:30 AM after a 1 hour drive. I know some volunteers at the starting line had to report even earlier. If the start times are moved up, the volunteers will have to report earlier and I suspect a significant number of them would opt out. The race has a heavy reliance on volunteers and earlier start times might cripple the support system.
Yeah I blew up massively 30 minutes over my PR. The sun was the main culprit I don’t run well in the heat but self-reflection tells me I could have a much better race if I’d played it safe and heat acclimated 2 weeks before …and started a bit more conservatively Hearing CJ talk about having a good race makes me think the hot Trials helped prepare him quite a bit
Again wrong. If u look up temps in hopkinton it was 63 @ 1025 when wave 2 started. Still 2 more waves after that. Sunny entire time. 3 hours later it was 71 in Boston. So if u started in wave 2 or later and ran a 3 hour marathon you had AT BEST 63-71 degree and minimal wind and sun…good luck lol
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.