strategy for running sub-2:19 at Boston?

Different perspective wrote:

Jogger to be wrote:

Top 20 half time, Final time, 2nd half split.

Asfaw, Gashaw 31 Wollo 1:04:00 2:10:53 1:06:53

Komen, John 32 Marakwet 1:04:57 2:11:48 1:06:51

Lehmkuhle, Jason 32 Minneapolis 1:04:54 2:12:24 1:07:30

Suarez, Alejandro 29 Queretaro 1:04:55 2:12:33 1:07:38

Vega, Antonio 26 St. Paul 1:04:54 2:13:47 1:08:53

Polley, Drew A. 24 Rochester Hills 1:08:42 2:16:36 1:07:54

Baranovskyy, Dmytro 30 Kiev 1:03:56 2:17:15 1:13:19

Johnson, Chad N. 33 Lake Orion 1:08:57 2:17:41 1:08:44

Delaney, Jason C. 30 Golden 1:08:47 2:19:17 1:10:30

Here is the list with the lead pack removed. Still a preponderance of ~2 min. positive splits. My personal opinion is that Johnson is exhibiting the best executed race plan.

If your training is the same as last fall I would strongly suggest heading out no faster than 1:10. If you don't think you are in shape for a 2:17 on the flat I wouldn't target an OTQ at Boston and I especially wouldn't attempt it on a 2+ min positive split. Way too much risk you will end up running a Baranovskyy style 2nd half.

The first half at Boston GIVES YOU 1 minute the second half taketh away.

Has different run Boston?

I agree Tommy D but regardless of the weather the first half is faster and if you are gunning for a time or place not just "feeling comfortable" and hammering in at the end...

The first half will be faster, no?

BTW, we will be at Crossroads Pub Saturday afternoon marathon weekend.

Please join in.

Nice work Bob, sticking it to Ito and malmo. You're my new favorite poster. Not that I'm a 2:20 runner, but I generally run slight negative splits and I ran an 80sec positive split at Boston last year, and I was pressing hard over the last 8mi. Without the crowds screaming it would have been near impossible to keep pace those last 3mi. Again, I was further back in the field but I must have passed a couple hundred faders over the final 10K.

topside wrote:

Nice work Bob, sticking it to Ito and malmo. You're my new favorite poster.

What place did malmo get?

12.) Meyer - 2:17:29

Greg Meyer is NOT Malmo!

Yep you're right. I confused George with Greg, sorry George. I still think Bob is awesome though.

I'm not a sub 2:20 guy (I'm a 2:40:44 guy, to be exact), and I'm targeting 2:37:30 in Boston.

I ran it last year and my quads were twitching at 10 miles and by 15 they were done. I struggled home those last 11 miles... it was the worst experience of my life.

This year, I plan to go through the half in almost an identical time, but arrive at that time in a very different way.

Last year my first 2 miles were 5:46 and 5:49 and my first half was 1:18:16.

This year my plan is to run my first 2 miles closer to 6:15 and 6:05, but still plan on going through the half in 1:18:18.

I plan on about a 1:10 positive split. Figure 17, 18, 20 and 21 will all be about 5-15 seconds slow. That is about 30-60 sec seconds given up over those 4 miles (hopefully closer to 30, clearly). Then the last 5 miles, see what's left. Best case scenario, I hammer home. Hopeful scenario is that I don't lose more then another 5-10 seconds per mile over the last 5 (which if I can get through the hills 30-40 seconds off, would put me at a positive 60-70 second split), hopefully worst case scenario is that I still am able to keep some composure, and get under 2:40:00.

On a related note... does anyone have any advice on how to save your quads? Anything other then taking the first 2 miles easy? Is there anything I could be doing in the last 3 weeks here to prepare myself? I've tried to do most of my workouts over hilly terrain, but after experiencing those downhills last year, still don't feel overly confident that my quads will hold up.

I will give my two cents worth. I am the one that coached the 2 athletes that ran negative splits last year (Drew and Chad).

Let me say that common sense will tell you that the first half of the Boston course is about 2 minutes (maybe more) faster than the second half. That means that even effort would indicate that in order to run 2:19 you would need to run 68:30 and come back in 70:30.

Now let me tell you that common sense is neither common nor sensical.

Common sense does not take into account the disadvantages of the downhills. It is very important to recognize how the downhills hurt the quads and inturn limit what you are able to do in the second half of the race.

I do not believe in the "time in the bank theory". I believe that the marathon is a long lonely event, that is way more lonely in the second half of the race.

So, how do you limit that loneliness? I find that if you have put yourself in a position to run faster than the people around you, it is a great feeling. You are constantly energized by knowing that you are moving faster than nearly everyone. When you see someone with greater credentials than yourself coming back, you will feel great.

My reccomendation would be to go out in 69:30 and recognize that you will be in better shape to attack the second half.

Good Luck,

Kevin

Kevin Hanson wrote:

My reccomendation would be to go out in 69:30 and recognize that you will be in better shape to attack the second half.

Good Luck,

Kevin

OK Kilgore, perhaps you should split the difference and shoot for 1:09 flat.

We will all be pulling for you.

perhaps you should look for the two Hanson runners at the start--Zach Hine and Paul Hefferon---you can almost be sure their splits will be similar to what Drew and Chad ran last year.

you're so helpful.

Derderian wrote:

It was before Hodgie time but it was in 1909 that Henri Renaud ran in 53rd place in Framingham at about 6 miles and passed everyone to win in temperatures of 83°F with high humidity and a following wind at about race pace. He ran 2:53 for the shorter course.

But in 1976 Jack Fultz failed to break 2:20 in winning but was fit to do it because it was at times 100°F on the course.

On the other hand with cool weather and a tail wind Joan Benoit ran a reckless pace early in the 1983 race and got away with it.

You have to take what the day gives you.

Tom

Just when you think Letsrun has turned into the Howard Stern show, you have a thread like this with a quality discussion and all-star contributors. Thanks!

Yes, thanks to everyone who has given thoughtful input, Hodgie-San, Coach Hanson, and others who have good experiences to share.

I particularly value the comments on just relaxing on the big downhill the first few miles. Getting sucked out too fast can kill a whole race.

I don't really like (or believe in) the idea of "banking time", but on the other hand I don't want to put myself in a position where I need to run a second half that is unrealistic for the given course. I was trying to weigh the idea of "even effort" against variable terrain...against real experience. I live in Utah, so have run countless downhill races, but never Boston. (but for the record my 2:19:xx last year was on a flat, sea-level loop course).

Yes, I think I'll be looking at somewhere near 1:09:00 for the first half as a result of this discussion. But I will go slower (1:09:30-1:10:00) if there is a good pack to work with. I have ran negative splits in marathons before, and it is a great feeling. I just wasn't sure if it is reasonable to do so at Boston, but obviously some people pull it off.

Kevin,

I see that Drew's 5k splits were:

16:21

16:24

16:04

16:16

16:24

16:28

15:50

15:40

and Chad's were:

16:22

16:25

16:06

16:25

16:42

16:37

16:08

15:52

Is it possible to provide their mile splits? I'm curious if their miles were fairly even for the first 10k? Also, from 10k-15k, which is a fairly flat stretch, they dropped the pace a bit. Was this intentional?

I would love to model my race after their's (adjusting for the different time, of course) and the more detail and their thought process would be a huge help.

Thanks so much for any more information you can provide (I added my e-mail in case you just wanted to e-mail directly).

Couldn't agree more. It eases the pain of knowing this guy will be done an hour before me!!!

To Bob Hodge's point, I'd gauge that for me an "even split effort" at Boston turns out to be a roughly 90-second positive split. To Coach Hanson's point, though, I'm a good downhill runner, and my quads never really hurt until the next day (when they hurt a LOT)

joe....hood to coast? i am 165lbs of atrophy waiting to get in shape!!

Derderian wrote:On the other hand with cool weather and a tail wind Joan Benoit ran a reckless pace early in the 1983 race and got away with it.

You have to take what the day gives you.

Tom

Reckless might have understated it. As I remember it she was FLYING and might have run faster at 10 miles the the woman's WR at the time. While not nearly the runner or with the direct experience that you have Tom, but with respoect to Joannie I have one unusual feature, I think that at one time (say 1979) our marks for both the 15K and the marathon were the same to the second -- 51:28 and 2:35:15