JK, Hodge, Derderian, Malmo et al: What do you guys think of today's Boston performances?

I merely took a guess based on 4 decades of observation.

If you want another opinion here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/04/20302-3-to-4-min-what-effect-did-wind.html

Why would only you have had an advantage over the field in '83?

I don't have a tiny marathoners body. Broader shoulders equals more surface area. It would be like hoisting up a spinnaker.

[quote]malmo wrote:

I merely took a guess based on 4 decades of observation.

Well then maybe you should say you are making a guess and not call those who do not share your opinion idiots? Just a thought.

I thought the following comment from the source you cited after the fact was fair.

"But the real meat of this debate is the effect of the wind on the times? Let's repeat that this question is unanswerable."

The New UncleB wrote:

"But the real meat of this debate is the effect of the wind on the times? Let's repeat that this question is unanswerable."

Perhaps you shouldn't edit the article for choice quotes?

He only says that they cannot quantify EXACTLY what the time would have been like on a flat course, as the part that you conveniently edited out says,

"We will never know exactly what Mutai would be capable of on a flat, fast course like Berlin or Rotterdam on a still day. We will never be able to quantify the improvement that might have occurred thanks to the tailwind during today's race."

The article goes on to cite two scientific sources who put the benefit at 3:36 and 3:48. Then goes on to provide a statistical analysis that shows Boston to be 3:03 to 3:27 slower than London and Berlin. Now you have a race that is 3-3:30 slower than London and Berlin and now it's suddenly a minute or two faster? The wind? Nahhhh, couldn't be. That's too obvious. Musta been a superhuman effort.

Why is it that you guys get so upset when the obvious is put right in front of your faces? No one is saying that Mutai, Hall etc did not have great runs. They did. When Obadele Thompson ran 9.69 with a 4.7 meter per second wind behind him, legions of pimple-popping nitwits didn't become enraged when it wasn't accepted as a world record, in fact, people were giggling when they heard that time.

Did Tyson Gay or his friends get angry when his 9.68 at the last Olympic Trials was negated due to the wind?

What is it about yesterday's marathon with twice as strong of a wind that Thompson had makes you go apoplectic? It didn't make Thompson any less of a runner, and it certainly doesn't make Mutai any less of a runner either.

It does, however, make the credibility of your arguments look completely foolish to ignore that elephant in the room.

malmo wrote:

I merely took a guess based on 4 decades of observation.

If you want another opinion here:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/04/20302-3-to-4-min-what-effect-did-wind.html

There is also this from another LRC thread:

Now, to further the analysis a bit, I compared the top dozen finishers here to their PRs (I use a 1:53 PR reduction for Moses Mosop, matching that of Mutai). The total time under PR for these dozen is 13:49 (including those above PR). At London yesterday the corresponding figure was 6:06 ABOVE PR. The difference of 19:55 averages out to 1:40 per runner. So, just looking at times run vs PR it looks like Boston had a 1:40 advantage at this very elite level.

Now, factor in that Boston is generally considered a slower course by 2 minutes? This would suggest a wind advantage of around 3:40.

Clearly this is all inexact but I do think that the numbers suggest a wind/conditions advantage over a more typical Boston marathon of 3 - 4 minutes.

This would suggest that the winner ran the equivalent of a 2:06:30 on a "normal" Boston day. A fantastic time, second only to last year's winner which was considered extraordinary at the time. Going back to the notion that Boston is roughly 2 minutes slower than the truly fast courses, this would suggest that the winner ran the equivalent of a 2:04:30 on a fast course, again an extraordinary, but believable performance.

All in all, an advantage of 3 - 4 minutes over a "normal" Boston is quite credible.

The New UncleB wrote:

"But the real meat of this debate is the effect of the wind on the times? Let's repeat that this question is unanswerable."

No it's not. The effect was faster times.

Boston is Boston, you understand the race in context or you do not understand racing. This all seems simple to me...

If there was no wind it would have been the same as what happened yesterday. The lack of headwind was the factor here not the tailwind. On the ground level there was no more than 10 mph wind (not 20 - 30 that is crazy if you saw any footage or where there). If you are running faster than the wind then it doesn't give you an advantage - it is like running on a windless day. Malmo is just jaded and jealous.

The Truth Seeker wrote:

The lack of headwind was the factor here not the tailwind.

You have just claimed the title of being the author of the dumbest thing ever posted on this site.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that the wind did not have a favorable impact on the times run. I surely am not (despite your attempt to discredit me using this strawman tactic)

My point is this. To state as fact that the impact was 3 to 4 minutes and to call those who disagree with that assessment idiots seems foolhardy.

The question is answerable but it's not quantifiable. Too many ground level variables on the Boston course due to topography and building/street contours. I have still not seen the mile splits but I would bet Beacon Street yielded the fastest splits of the race- miles 22.5 to right before 25 at the Mass Pike bridge due to it's perfect SW/NE orientation and presence of street walls- of course this is also where the leaders tend to make their breaks, not to mention being a long, gradual downhill itself. Also, the turn at the fire station would put them into a crosswind and so combined with the uphill there it would have to be one of the slowest splits.

mplatt wrote:

The Truth Seeker wrote:

The lack of headwind was the factor here not the tailwind.

You have just claimed the title of being the author of the dumbest thing ever posted on this site.

I am forced to agree with this ^ .

Accurately assessing the effects of wind on an individual performance is difficult enough on a track, where you have almost clinical conditions. Was the wind constant in velocity and direction for the full ten seconds? How is the runner's body type and technique affected?

Take this into "the field" such as we are attempting to do for this race, with no wind gauges at ground level, a wind that was gusty and extremely variable at the ground, with packs forming and disseminating, topographical features channeling the wind in various directions, on top of the normal variations of pace (in a race without official pacers), and THEN trying to compare this race to other Boston performances, which are historically affected by dramatically different conditions, and the exercise in futility is virtually complete.

I prefer to fall back on previous performances (on more ideal courses) and conclude that Ryan was two minutes behind a 2:04-high/2:05-flat guy who was having a very good day, while Desi was dueling to the line with a couple of 2:22 Kenyans. This puts Ryan in near-PR shape, and Desi into fresh territory, which is a victory for each, for different reasons.

Malmo, did you just filibuster me?

So we agree that Boston is slow, great. So the wind just cancels out the slower course and we break even. great.

p.s.

..sorry but I would not consider a 2:30 marathoner a "relatively untrained runner".

PresMustache wrote:

anyone who thinks the wind took of 3-4 minutes is an idiot. yes, an idiot.

Apparently some people are too thick to grasp the mathmatics of wind resistance vs. wind-aided. Since I am in an explaining mood let me explain what logically fallacy is. Accusing others of a fallacy in logic that doesn't exist an attempt to discredit them. If you think the tailwind wasn't the primary catalyst for their times you are not intelligent enough to grasp this fact. 2:06/2:26 would have been the winning times under normal conditions: 3-4 minutes.

mplatt wrote:

The Truth Seeker wrote:

The lack of headwind was the factor here not the tailwind.

You have just claimed the title of being the author of the dumbest thing ever posted on this site.

Well, the lack of heat could have been a factor not the ideal temperatures...

The "net downhill" argument is also invalid. The real factor was the lack of a net uphill.

I want to add another thought and reflection. At the press conference after the meet I asked Davila who her coach was and to say something about the program. Of course I knew. But I wanted the regular media to know. It is a terrific thing the Hansons are doing. It would be good for the American professional level of the sport if there were many, many more clubs like Hansons—so many more that club competition would have to become professional, like DI vs DIII, and have a city based system of clubs competing against each other and gathering a support and fan base as do professional sports teams in baseball, basketball, etc.

Yes, it is chickens and eggs: do you get the runners, then the money to pay them or the reverse? But Davila's performance that came from the Hansons club system did serve notice to Kenya.

In the old amateur days the Greater Boston Track Club was better than countries, but that can't be repeated without professional organization.

Where might the next and the next professional clubs come from?

Tom

The Judge wrote:

mplatt wrote:

You have just claimed the title of being the author of the dumbest thing ever posted on this site.

I am forced to agree with this ^ .

+1

I read that post about 5 times, scratching my head, wondering what it was I wasn't understanding. Then it hit me, that was just the dumbest post ever.