Statistical Analysis of Boston to Account for Wind?

Where the eff is ventolin??? Did they not broadcast Boston on satellite TV?

rawr wrote:

He said best marathon performance, it was clearly taken out of context. No one is denying that the wind didn't help. but at the end of the day, it was still the absolute fastest time ever in recorded history. There is no arguing that.

Therefore to argue the facts makes you an idiot. He had a good point and multiple people have agreed with him.

Fastest does not equal best, you fvkin idiot.

Um...I think best means fastest. If someone said he ran "the best time" obviously this means the fastest. If someone said he ran the "best performance" this means he had the fastest time. If someone said he had the "best race" this implies that he had the fastest time.

Fastest = best. Synonyms in running. Kthxbai

Rule Britannia wrote:

Has anyone else gone here:

http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html

and entered 10 MPH tail wind. The difference is HUGE (10+ minutes for the chicks). The maths are based on Dr. Daniel's book.

This fails the laugh test -- we are expected to believe that none of these women world-class women could run faster than 2:33-2:40 on a downhill course, give me a break?

Also, while women are lighter, the speeds are 15+% slower (142/123) and for wind resistance that makes a roughly 30% difference on that aspect, so it fails the laugh test a second time.

Incredible effort, wind or not.

But you can't discount the effect.

In the early 1980's I ran a local out and back 12K race in 42 minutes. Out in 21 and back in 21. Sunny but cool day. Almost no wind. Two good hills either way.

The next year I ran out in a minute faster. Right around 20 minutes and it was effortless. There was a strong wind at our backs all the way. Coming back I ran right into the teeth of the wind and it took 24 minutes to get back to the finish.

I am gauging the wind that day to have been around 15-20 mph with some gusts that were stronger.

There was many factors in today performance:

Tailwind - Gave the athlets an additional assitance (but when Ryan was leading with a wall of East Africans sitting behind him, is he getting a lot of assitance from the wind?)

Course- For most people, Boston is hard because it destroys the quads. For the elites with high eccentric strength, they can obviously fly through it.

PACING- Kudos to Ryan for going out in aggressive pacing from early on. This kind of splits have never been seen in marathons.

Talent - Mutai may be the best marathon on any course. Mosop also is proven (26:50 AND 59:40). These are two of the biggest talents in the marathon world today.

Trying to figure out one variable is not possible/ How do you take into account the winds effect on Hall's mentality before the race? If he goes out conservative, the race opens in 1:04, the finishing time is 2:05/2:06. I will argue that the biggest effect the wind had today was on HOW the runner's attacked the downhill course today.

A few grammer mistakes up there^^ But I put today at the end, when obviously I meant yesterday.

Everyone is all the wind made a huge difference...blah blah blah...and yes it looks taht way when you check out the top 4 men...but the first two women were still a solid 7 minutes off the WR time and it's not like they didn't have someone take it out fast (kim smith)...?

I have to say this puts Radcliffe's achievements in an even more impressive light. Does anyone doubt she could have run 2:12 yesterday?

rawr wrote:

Um...I think best means fastest. If someone said he ran "the best time" obviously this means the fastest. If someone said he ran the "best performance" this means he had the fastest time. If someone said he had the "best race" this implies that he had the fastest time.

Fastest = best. Synonyms in running. Kthxbai

Not even close. "Best performance' DOES NOT always mean fastest time. If you think Hall's performance today, 2:04:58 is better than Wanjiru's 2:06 Olympic Gold performance then you are have absolutely no concept of what performance means.

What if Hall run a 2:05:01 into a 20 mph headwind next year at Boston and wins. Do you still think his 2:06 is a better performance?

Are you even a runner?

I will give you that Fastest = best only when talking about performances within the same race.

People get so caught up in trying to argue here that they start a fight off a word choice. Lol. This place is unreal.

Too bad it was only blowing for the men elites.

umwut wrote:Where the eff is ventolin??? Did they not broadcast Boston on satellite TV?

i'm not too sure why all the wild speculation about how much the wind helped

jrm's wonderful calculator gives the best answer providing you know the wind

2"03'02 is 17.495s for 100

you simply add the specified wind to 17.495s & big up result

1 m/s -> 17.651 ->2"04'07

2 m/s -> 17.777 ->2"05'01

3 m/s -> 17.874 ->2"05'41

4 m/s -> 17.940 ->2"06'09

5 m/s -> 17.977 ->2"06'25

6 m/s -> 17.983 ->2"06'27

for faster wind speeds, something funny happens with his calculator & corrected times get faster ?!

anyhows, fwiw, i think best bet is

~ mid-2"06

Because what you just posted is ridiculous.

First of all, your assumption is that there is a consistent tailwind for 430 straight 100 meter intervals...That is beyond ludicrous. Numerous occasions I bet that wind was DEAD at best if not some form of cross/head wind due to the natural deviation caused by cars, crowds, trees, buildings...etc.

The other unreal fact is that this wind seemingly ONLY helped FOUR runners in this entire race. And that is the first four men. It's a miracle how it didn't help last years winner, any of the other top elites, and the women we're still a solid seven minutes off of the WR, yes, this is credit to Mrs. Radcliffe's awesome run but also proof that the wind was not some divine game changer. For how do you only explain it affecting 4 runners out of the thousands? Get rid of the thousands, let it only affect the elites and it still only helps FOUR of them...

To say that the wind was a game changer is ridiculous because the statistic pool is far too small. Perhaps if half the elite field dropped huge PR's... but be serious.

Boston is a slow course, wind doesn't make for a WR course. Perhaps if you added wind at chicago or berlin you'd see another huge WR and then attribute that to the wind, but at Boston, it's just ludicrous, anyone who is saying "The wind is easy 2-3 minutes" as obviously never stepped a foot on that course and hit those hills. I don't care if a damn hurricane is at your back, those hills crush dreams. End of story.

Still laughing at the idea of adding time to the hundred meters and multiplying times 430ish...that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of... haha.

jeez this is dumb wrote:

Because what you just posted is ridiculous.

...

Still laughing at the idea of adding time to the hundred meters and multiplying times 430ish...that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of... haha.

Ventolin may at time be obnoxious. But you are the one who is ridiculous (or dumb if you prefer). Every serious estimate of the wind advantage for the elites yesterday comes out in the 3 - 4 minute range, agreeing with Ventolin.

You also seem to be confused as to what is being said. The 3 - 4 minutes is relative to Boston, not relative to Berlin, London,... If Boston is indeed 2 minutes slower than the fast courses then the times of yesterday would be 1 - 2 minutes faster than on a fast course without such a wind. 2:03 -> 2:04:30. Sounds about right. Great run.

Nothing is dumb about my argument. It is extremely sound. You didn't even dent my hypothesis of 430 consecutive 100 meter intervals being affected by wind... or the theory that it only helped four runners in the mens race while the women essentially had a rabbit and still were seven minutes off the WR...

So the only one dumb here is you for responding without using any evidence to defy my argument while simultaneously spewing anecdotal evidence out of your ass.

Thanks

jeez this is dumb wrote:

The other unreal fact is that this wind seemingly ONLY helped FOUR runners in this entire race.

5. Abreham Cherkos ETH 2:06:13 (previous best 2:07:29, Amsterdam 2010).

You didn't look very far to find more that it helped. The 7th and 8th place guys also improved, but by a smaller amount, but MOST of the top 10 men ran their best ever time.

On any other day the women would have done their usual 2:26 - 2:30 jogathon, so it helped them too.

long sox wrote:

jeez this is dumb wrote:

The other unreal fact is that this wind seemingly ONLY helped FOUR runners in this entire race.

5. Abreham Cherkos ETH 2:06:13 (previous best 2:07:29, Amsterdam 2010).

You didn't look very far to find more that it but MOST of the top 10 men ran their best ever time.

Because in the fastest recorded marathon to date, the fastest American marathoner of all time, Ryan 'The Man' Hall, was doing the heavy lifting when it mattered, as evidenced in the first photo below!

yeah buddy wrote:

Why in the world are these guys sitting up in a crane in those terrific "hurricane" winds?!?

http://jimrhoades.com/11/boston/30k/image35.html

-------

yeah buddy wrote:http://www.letsrun.com/photos/2011/bostonmarathon/imagepages/image16.php

Look at those stiff-as-a-board flags blowin' in those gale force winds!

When a 2:22 woman collapses at the finish after running...wow!...2:22, it's a good indication that there were select opportunities to capitalize on the conditions that the women (and almost everyone not with Ryan Hall mid-race) didn't take advantage of. The top-6 men benefited over their PR's by a minute or two, almost everyone else ran to form. Ask anyone who ran it.