...rules are rules...
I'm sorry, but there's something that makes by brain go into convulsions whenever I see this STUPID FREAKING STATEMENT. Cats are cats. Fish are fish. Hummus is hummus. What sort of retarded, idiotic moron ever came up with this statement? I would smack him upside the face.
Rules are arbitrary! Rules only hold merit if they can be enforced. They're not ideologies; they're not religions -- they're simply statements! Geez you're dumb.
broke down quad wrote:
resdredff wrote:if any marathon course could be used, someone could just set up a marathon with 8000 feet of elevation drop on a point to point course, easily resulting in a wr.
You obviously have never run a truly long downhill. The course you describe would be one of the slowest in the World.
You obviously have never trained over a period of years to stand up to the demands of such a downhill course.
resdredff wrote:
the reason a point to point course isn't eligible for a wr is because there can be a tailwind that aids in a way a loop or out and back course does not. This doesn't mean there will be a tailwind every year, or even every 115 years, but as seen from Boston yesterday there was one that gave an unfair time advantage as compared to a marathon not on a point to point course. Boston should remain ineligible.
It's amazing to me that so many people seem unable to grasp this point.
I've occasionally suggested, half-seriously, that the Boston marathon should be changed to a race of indeterminate length, like the Falmouth Road Race or many cross-country races, so that people will accept it for what it is -- a great race with a great tradition -- instead of trying to pretend that it's run on a record-quality marathon course or that it produces times that are directly comparable to those run on a record-quality marathon course.
For all the conversation about how ideal the conditions were, the average finishing time (3:49:54), was actually slightly slower than in 2009, and within 1 minute of the last average for the last 5 years. So there could be an argument that the tailwind wasn't the huge advantage some people (virtually all of whom did not run it yesterday) claim it was.
resdredff wrote:
the reason a point to point course isn't eligible for a wr is because there can be a tailwind that aids in a way a loop or out and back course does not. This doesn't mean there will be a tailwind every year, or even every 115 years, but as seen from Boston yesterday there was one that gave an unfair time advantage as compared to a marathon not on a point to point course. Boston should remain ineligible.
luv2run wrote:
zax wrote:I agree that courses like Boston should be grandfathered in. The Boston course is not the same as some schmuck inventing a marathon with a 8000m elevation loss. This movement will not be successful, I fear, but I wish it would be.
Getting to the start of a marathon that has a 8000m drop would be a huge challenge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander
Haha, yep, I meant feet obviously, in reference to a poster above. It would be difficult to get there, but not impossible! People have done it. Dunno if they tried to run a marathon though.
This is a tough one. I can honestly see both sides. Alberto Salazar was quoted in todays NYT saying that he felt like the wind was worth 2 minutes and therefore should NOT be counted as a WR.
That is certainly one side of the coin. However, I also see the other.
The reason that Boston is a POINT TO POINT course is because members of the BAA ran in the original marathon that was to honor the running of the messanger (Phidipides sp) and then returned to Boston to replicate that race. A MARATHON by definition (or at least by historical measures) is a ONE WAY EVENT.
It is a little odd that the ORIGINAL MARATHON would not be eligible for a WR. Or that Phidipides would run in a circle to deliver the message "hail we conquer".
I don't have the answer but I certainly see both sides.
Kevin
publicity stunt
If your running 3:49, you are not racing. Your hobby jogging and who cares if you run 3:40 or 3:59
flashback wrote:
For all the conversation about how ideal the conditions were, the average finishing time (3:49:54), was actually slightly slower than in 2009, and within 1 minute of the last average for the last 5 years. So there could be an argument that the tailwind wasn't the huge advantage some people (virtually all of whom did not run it yesterday) claim it was.
resdredff wrote:the reason a point to point course isn't eligible for a wr is because there can be a tailwind that aids in a way a loop or out and back course does not. This doesn't mean there will be a tailwind every year, or even every 115 years, but as seen from Boston yesterday there was one that gave an unfair time advantage as compared to a marathon not on a point to point course. Boston should remain ineligible.
vdawg wrote:
publicity stunt
And it's working.
http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/news/story?id=6389297If nothing else, more sports fans will learn about marathon racing.
resdredff wrote:
the reason a point to point course isn't eligible for a wr is because there can be a tailwind that aids in a way a loop or out and back course does not. This doesn't mean there will be a tailwind every year, or even every 115 years, but as seen from Boston yesterday there was one that gave an unfair time advantage as compared to a marathon not on a point to point course. Boston should remain ineligible.
Take individual performances - of those who have run Boston and have run an IAAF certified course - and do a Student's t-test.
p > 0.05.
asasdfas wrote:
If your running 3:49, you are not racing. Your hobby jogging and who cares if you run 3:40 or 3:59
Not much different from saying "if you run 2:03:02 at Boston, you aren't really running for time" is it?
Wind aided WR, yes. WR ineligible course, no.
If Boston was a constant, steady descent from Hopkinton to Boston, it would be a fast course. But it isn't. The downhills are easy to run fast on at first. But the pounding to your quads catches up to you and makes the descent from Newton very challenging. And the uphill sections are merciless. The fact that it is a net downhill is like saying that St. Andrews is way easier than Augusta National because the yardage is shorter. Net downhill is a single measurement that is completely arbitrary when you do not consider the physical toll of all the uphills and downhills that go on between mi 0 and 26.2.
Are they going to grandfather in short tracks too?
brogan1 wrote:
Are they going to grandfather in short tracks too?
Rieti has had records set on it for years ...
LTA wrote:
It is hilarious. People have no idea what they're talking about in terms of courses, weather, net elevation changes, etc.
This record should be eligible simply because it's a road race.
Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that Mutai might not have actually run 42.195 km? He probably didn't. It might have been 42.199 or 42.187. Why hasn't anyone brought up that the fact that there was perceivable wind in Geb's WR in 2008? Was it more noticeable than in Boston? Geb didn't run exactly 42.195 km, he actually ran 42.1944094 km. It rained the day before Geb's marathon - the friction coefficient of the roads was slightly lower. Geb's coefficient of drag * frontal area is lower than Mutai's, so Mutai gets the record. The wind shifted in Berlin, giving Geb a tailwind for 87% of the race.
When people make races ineligible for records because of semantic bulls**t then our sport becomes bulls**t. It's a road race. Road races aren't held under laboratory conditions. They're not reproducible. They're not really even comparable to one another.
Either it should count as a record. Or there shouldn't be marathon world records. All of them should simply be "fastest times" run. Or, we should only have course records.
It is absolutly astounding the amount of bullshit that people have been trying to pass over the last two days. Now Geb's WR run at Berlin, a two loop course was "87 Percent" tailwind?
You win.
Look at those stiff-as-a-board flags blowin' in those gale force winds!
Kevin Hanson wrote:
The reason that Boston is a POINT TO POINT course is because members of the BAA ran in the original marathon that was to honor the running of the messanger (Phidipides sp) and then returned to Boston to replicate that race. A MARATHON by definition (or at least by historical measures) is a ONE WAY EVENT.
It is a little odd that the ORIGINAL MARATHON would not be eligible for a WR. Or that Phidipides would run in a circle to deliver the message "hail we conquer".
I don't have the answer but I certainly see both sides.
Kevin
Well Kevin, your understanding of history is incorrect. There was no messenger that ever did this.
http://2008olympictrialsakatommyleonard.shutterfly.com/533Why 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.phpLook at those stiff-as-a-board flags blowin' in those gale force winds!
I was talking to a guy about this today on the phone who doesn't know a lot about running.
By discussing the hills we are confusing the issue. This Boston race was really about one thing- the 20mph tailwind at the runners' backs. That is the issue.
Obadele Thompson (now Marion Jones husband) ran a 9.69 when I was in college with a huge wind at his back. No one even bothered to consider it a world record.
For a while many people said "world best" instead of "world record" for the roads, and I think now "world record" is used. Whatever you call it, I don't think you'll find a track stats man who will call Boston the world record. World record" has an official meaning with various sports body and Boston clearly doesn't fit the definition. Boston was what it is, "the fastest marathon ever run."
No shame in calling it that.
Here's a good discussion on the wind's effect. The authors believe it made a 3-4 minute difference off of a normal Boston, some are saying 2+ minutes.
@Kevin (Congrats, BTW!)
There are two sides, sure, but you can't agree with Alberto on this one. I simply won't allow it. Of the world record courses in my lifetime, London was first run in 1981, Rotterdam 1984, Chicago 1977, Berlin 1974, which means that Boston pre-dates them by over 75 years. It's ridiculous that Boston isn't considered for records. It is THE marathon! It wasn't designed for speed and it normally is not fast.
Boston should be grandfathered in.