Is Boston really such a slow course?

You're right, it isn't record-worthy.

Names: Salazar, Rodgers, Kempainen, Durden, Mendoza, Wells, Virgin, Meyer, Beardsley, O'Reilly, Fultz, Layman, Thomas, Schlesinger.

As late as 1979, no Olympic medalist had won Boston. Lets do a search and find out which great runners were eaten up by the Boston course. I'll start with Abebe Bikila, Mamo Wolde and Frank Shorter (although Shorter was only 90% fit for that race). What does you in is your early pace, the first ten miles of rolling hills and especially the last 5 miles that go gently down. After what had come before that slope kills you. The day after my first Boston Marathon race I had to go down the Hotel Lenox steps on my seat. I could not walk.

If you train for the course and run it properly, the course can also be good to you. I have had three races there right at my best time and two poorer races. On my first time running Boston I went through ten miles within a minute of my personal best for ten and then just hung on for a very successful race. The course can be beaten but I found out that first year that it is not an easy course.

Todays winner was awesome!

Your assessment is delusional, sirrah. Time to acquaint yourself with the facts:http://www.usatf.org/statistics/all-time/Marathon/men.asp

malmo wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

The race's history is also full of athletes who ran faster in Boston than they did anywhere else, including record-worthy courses like Chicago and NYC.

Nonsense

St. George would eat up any runner, great or not, if he runs that course incorrectly.

Red Glare wrote:

You're right, it isn't record-worthy.

Names: Salazar, Rodgers, Kempainen, Durden, Mendoza, Wells, Virgin, Meyer, Beardsley, O'Reilly, Fultz, Layman, Thomas, Schlesinger.

I still don't get your argument.

So a guy like Meb runs his first marathon in Chicago and improves and learns the distance over 10 years. Then he runs faster at Boston and you think the course is the reason for it?

I wonder how many of those fast times were run with a tail wind or at least no wind.

Did you see Meb among the names listed?

??????????? wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

You're right, it isn't record-worthy.

Names: Salazar, Rodgers, Kempainen, Durden, Mendoza, Wells, Virgin, Meyer, Beardsley, O'Reilly, Fultz, Layman, Thomas, Schlesinger.

I still don't get your argument.

So a guy like Meb runs his first marathon in Chicago and improves and learns the distance over 10 years. Then he runs faster at Boston and you think the course is the reason for it?

Most were run with a tailwind, I'm sure.

Since I wrote the book on it I will comment.

In the history of the Boston Marathon the weather is excellent and fast about one year in ten. One year in ten the weather is bad and slow.

The same figures apply to the tactics and pacing of the top runners.

The same figures apply to the quality of the runners contending. (fast, fit, and good at downhills)

So multiply the probabilities and you see that idea conditions are possible, but rare.

Tom

of course I meant to type "ideal", sorry.

[quote]Red Glare wrote:

Your assessment is delusional, sirrah. Time to acquaint yourself with the facts:

http://www.usatf.org/statistics/all-time/Marathon/men.asp

[quote]Red Glare wrote:

There is a great example on this list, 'Brain Sell.' His fastest marathon was at Chicago (2:10:47), while his Boston race was a 2:10:55. A mere 8 seconds difference between the 'fastest' course in the country and the 'slow' Boston course...

Red Glare wrote:

Your assessment is delusional, sirrah. Time to acquaint yourself with the facts:

http://www.usatf.org/statistics/all-time/Marathon/men.asp

You're the one whose delusional. The reason why you have so many Boston PRS is that 30 years ago Boston was the biggest, and most important race you could run. It was THE race in the US. Also, 1983 was blessed with a strong tailwind which skews the PRs by a lot.

What follows is an analysis of the New York Marathon elites fields from 1999 to 2005. Specifically, I was interested in the performances of those marathoners who competed in NYC and one or more of the remaining four "Majors" in an attempt to establish an empirical performance bias across venues. Not surprising, the results confirmed what was already known anecdotally: there are fast courses (Berlin, London. Chicago) and there are slow courses (Boston, New York).

The career results of 87 elites who competed at NYC marathon (99-05) were meticulously recorded and analyzed, paying attention to their performances at the 5 Major Marathons: New York, Boston, London, Berlin, Chicago.

OVERVIEW

Of the 87 elite marathoners who ran New York, 27 ran London, 28 Chicago, 19 Berlin, and 31 Boston

2:09:56 Average PR for 87 runners

2:14:22 Average best time at NYC (87)

2:10:35 Average best at London (27)

2:11:55 Average best at Chicago (28)

2:10:33 Average best at Berlin (19)

2:12:24 Average best at Boston (30)

4:27 New York avg from PR

0:39 London avg from PR

1:59 Chicago avg from PR

0:38 Berlin avg from PR

2:28 Boston avg from PR

3:48 London overall avg bias over New York (3:01 headsup)

2:28 Chicago overall avg bias over New York (1:22 headsup)

3:49 Berlin overall avg bias over New York (6:58 headsup)

1:59 Boston overall avg bias over New York (0:29 headsup)

VENUE TO VENUE COMPARISON

For those runners who've run at each event

New York vs London 27 runners

2:08:40 average PR

2:10:35 (1:55) avg. London best

2:13:36 (4:56) avg. New York best

-------

3:01 time bias to London over New York

New York vs Chicago 28 runners

2:09:40 average PR

2:11:55 (2:15) avg. Chicago best

2:13:17 (3:37) avg. New York best

-------

1:22 time bias to Chicago over New York

New York vs Berlin 19 runners

2:09:32 average PR

2:10:33 (1:01) average Berlin best

2:16:30 (6:58) average New York best

-------

5:57 time bias to Berlin over New York

New York vs Boston 30 runners

2:09:39 average PR

2:12:24 (2:44) average Boston best

2:12:53 (3:14) average New York best

-------

0:29 time bias to Boston over New York

Just for kicks, I've thrown out from the data set all of the time differentials over 7:00 on the theory that large time differences would be heavily weighted towards circumstances and not the course differences. The results were as follows:

New York vs London 22 runners

2:08:30 average PR

2:10:24 (1:54) avg. London best

2:12:20 (3:50) avg. New York best

-------

1:56 time bias to London over New York

New York vs Chicago 25 runners

2:09:49 average PR

2:11:49 (2:00) avg. Chicago best

2:12:53 (3:04) avg. New York best

-------

1:04 time bias to Chicago over New York

New York vs Berlin 12 runners

2:09:38 average PR

2:10:41 (1:03) average Berlin best

2:13:34 (3:56) average New York best

-------

2:53 time bias to Berlin over New York

New York vs Boston 27 runners

2:10:05 average PR

2:12:11 (2:06) average Boston best

2:13:24 (3:19) average New York best

-------

1:13 time bias to Boston over New York

Kinda figured you'd break out the stats on us Malmo.

A few issues:

You say 1983 was blessed with a strong tailwind, which skews things. Well yea, but wind is part of the course. A modern track that is always windy will on average give slower times than a slightly older track that is built somewhere more advantageous.

Also, people don't go to Boston looking for a fast time. If they wanted a fast time they would go to Chicago, London, Berlin, Rotterdam, etc. They go to Boston to win, mostly because on most days, it IS a slow course. Without a tailwind, it's not a fast course. Without good weather, it's not a fast course. Without specific training for the downhills, it's not a fast course. On the average day for the average runner, Boston is not a fast course.

In track, does anyone run the Olympics in world record times, or even personal record times? Not often, because such races are often tactical and there is a lack of rabbits. Same with Boston.

But on a day where there is the right weather conditions, correct pacing, and with a runner who absorbs the downhills well, it can be a PR type course. It just doesn't show up in your data because more often than not it isn't one.

Red Glare wrote:

[quote]wrote:

[quote]Red Glare wrote:

Did you see Meb among the names listed?

You're just trolling. You know exactly what he meant, either answer the question or knock it off.

Red Glare wrote:

With cool conditions and a tailwind this course is aided.

This is correct. More precisely, with cool conditions and a tailwind, many runners can (and do) run faster at Boston than they can run on a loop course.

That's not to say that any given runner in any given year is likely to run faster at Boston than he could on an unaided course. Weather conditions, along with the quirks of the course, have always made Boston a bit of a crap shoot, and have often produced slow finish times and DNFs. But in years like '75, '83, and '94, the downhill course, the cool weather, and (at least in '75 and '94; I remember some debate about the direction of the wind in '83) the tailwind made the race conducive to times that were faster than what would have been run on a loop course.

Because of the point-to-point and net downhill nature of the course, everyone knows that Boston is "technically" an aided course (particularly because of the potential for a tailwind), but I would agree that the hills are the "x" factor and make comparisons spurious. Perhaps more importantly, the recovery from Boston is more difficult. Nonetheless, Boston, like most of the other majors, is now a 2:05 course on the right day. There's no getting around that basic fact.

Durden raced Houston and Rodgers raced Houston and raced Fukuoka. Salazar raced Fukuoka, NYC, Rotterdam, Kempainen raced Twin Cities, NYC, LA. None came very close to replicating their PRs from Boston.

A favorable wind is also an "x" factor. So is smart, disciplined execution.

KnowItAll wrote:

Durden raced Houston and Rodgers raced Houston and raced Fukuoka. Salazar raced Fukuoka, NYC, Rotterdam, Kempainen raced Twin Cities, NYC, LA. None came very close to replicating their PRs from Boston.

______________________________

Yes, and none of those races gave as much media attention as Boston. Most runners get pumped up for Boston like no toher race. I doubt anyone would say Boston is a faster course than Rotterdam