Word up, Renato.
Word up, Renato.
Wow, it is too bad to hear that Mr. Canova believes this.
2:04.xx shape at Berlin, Rotterdam, or London is worth 2:06.xx at Boston on a "normal" day. Look at the data in any one of the many threads on this subject. Here's a good one:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4008128&page=0
So if Mr. Canova believes his athlete was in 2:04 shape, he should have run around 2:06 on a normal Boston day. Note that this is very close to the course record, so it would still be an outstanding run. If he actually ran 2:03...well there's your 3 minutes.
Look at this way, Ryan Hall finished almost two minutes behind the winners. Is that about right? Yeah I think so, Ryan Hall is about that far behind the top marathoners in the world. So if they're running 2:04:30 at the fast marathons, I could see Hall at 2:06:30. Sure. But 2:04:57 for Hall. No f'ing way.
Renato do you have an analysis on Mary Keitany run in London. Is she going to run Berlin Marathon? Berlin is her lucky course having set 25km world record.
Renato Canova wrote:
I spoke with the most part of the athletes, after the racem and EVERYBODY told me the wind was not very strong, not always id direction of the race, and the most part of time not significative (some time also against).
After the 1994 (tailwind) Boston, Elana Meyer said, "When you don't feel the wind, it's a tailwind." That sounds about right. (Note that Meyer PRed in her debut that day and never ran faster.)
Davila stated in an interview that they (she & her coaches) felt she was in 2:24 shape (for Boston course). Then, based on the wind they adjusted that goal.
She ran 2:22.
The Hansons do their homework and know what their athletes are capable of running on a particular day.
Heavily weighing that, and looking at all the other data available, 1.5-2 minutes sounds reasonable to me.
Renato. You and I are approaching this thing in the same way. First by looking at their Boston time relative to their PR. And of course you throw out the blow-ups in the metric. Blow ups aren't an indication of the speed of the course they are an indication of individual circumstances, usually fuel crashes, and to a lesser extent, poor fitness.
Add Juan Carlos Cardona, a seasoned veteran with a best of 2:13:29, somehow managed to run 2:12:17 on a slow course....
Obviously it would be unreasonable to to imagine 15 wold class runners to break their PR in any competition, even at Berlin, Amsterdam, or London. On Boston's course, which runs about 2 minutes slower than those speedways it would be unheard of. As it is, 9 of those 15 set PRs on a slow course.
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
You simply cannot extract Mosop and Kamais from the equation because that one ran his debut, and the other (Kamais) you're handing out mulligans on debuts. Do you really believe that either of them would have run any faster than 3 minutes slower than Mondays result without the wind? 2:06:06 and 2:12:50? Really? On a slow course?
9 out of the top 15 set PRs on Boston, a course that runs 2 minutes slow. That's something you'd rarely see in ANY major marathon.
Of the remaining six, three of them missed their PRs by 0.51, 0.59, and 0.37.
So now we have 9 out of 15 runner who PR on a slow course, another three who come within a minute of their PRS.
And three blowups: Yegon, Boirifa and Abe.
I have no doubt that athletes told you that the wind wasn't very strong. Of course, they were running WITH the wind not against it. As runners we already know that, when you go out on a run on the windy day you only feel it when you are running INTO it not against it. But as soon as you turn directions to get back home it;s either in your face and it sucks or is is at your backs and you be crusin'
The weather report doesn't lie.
As far as their reports that the wind was not alwasy in coming from one direction, they are flat out mistaken about what their senses were feeling. The weather report is simple: a strong tailwind from the WSW shifting to the WEST then to the SSW over the course of the marathon. (see the img I've posted) Wind is generated from big pressure gradient differences, with the exception of thunderstorms and tornadoes, the wind simply doesn't change direction much over short periods of time.
What they felt was real. They are running in the same direction of the wind. Of course they aren't going to feel the wind -- no one does when it's pushing you. But running with the wind is a lot like swimming down a river, there will be vortices and eddies along the way. Sometimes it's caused by a rock the river or in the case of wind, a tall building, but the wind is going in one direction, and you still continue to flow with it, despite feeling a gust across your face. That wind across your face doesn't mean the direct changed its just normal fluid dynamics at work.
9 out of the top 15, all seasoned runners set PRs. Three of them by less thana minute, another missed by 2:02, and two of them were blow-ups. On a slow course.
You don't see that happening very often at any marathon. except in 1994, 1983 and 1975.
You don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows.
The analysis of PBs is not valid. Those that ran big PB placed high, and those that had bad days or bad race plans placed lower. If you just take the top 5 or 6, virtually all had PBs.
BUT what you said deep in your post is what I found most revealing. THE MARATHON IS CHANGING BECAUSE IT IS NOT LONGER WHAT YOU MOVE UP TO.
"The reality is that Marathon is changing, with this type of athletes. Till 5 years ago, few athletes able running about 27:00 moved to marathon, and only when old, and no more to run faster than 27:30. The same Tergat (WR holder of 10000m in 26'27") moved to marathon when no more able to run faster than 27:10.
Instead, athletes like Geoffrey and Moses move to marathon WHEN ARE ABLE TO RUN 26:45. This fact provokes different effects :
a) These athletes are younger (so more fresh in their mind and their body) and faster than before"
THIS needed to be said most explicitly for me to really comprehend its truth.
oldenuff wrote:
In similar conditions, Boston is slower - by how much? 1 min? 2 min? Science of Sport suggests approx 3 min. Maybe too much, but if you want to refute those numbers, do some analysis which suggests otherwise.
They said that the historical averages of the winning times were slower by 3:00. That's not the same as saying the course is 3 minutes slower. I think that the author of that article would agree, if he compared apples to apples, that is athletes that have run on multiple courses, you would fin the slowness of Boston is about 2 minutes.
So let me get this straight. It was a slow course by 2 minutes. The wind aided the runners by two minutes. So we should be able to compare this to Europe, no? Sounds like the boys have new PRs.
Syber wrote:
"The reality is that Marathon is changing, with this type of athletes. Till 5 years ago, few athletes able running about 27:00 moved to marathon, and only when old, and no more to run faster than 27:30. The same Tergat (WR holder of 10000m in 26'27") moved to marathon when no more able to run faster than 27:10.
Instead, athletes like Geoffrey and Moses move to marathon WHEN ARE ABLE TO RUN 26:45. This fact provokes different effects :
a) These athletes are younger (so more fresh in their mind and their body) and faster than before"
THIS needed to be said most explicitly for me to really comprehend its truth.
This should be easy to prove. Since this is supposedly the explanation for the fast times (and NOT the tailwind), we should see lots more 2:03 lows, and even 2:02s on faster courses very, very soon.
You know, since the same kind of younger, faster athletes will still be competing in the marathons later this year.
Plus - it's going to be awesome to see Hall crank out another 2:04 in Houston! And if he just improves a little between now and then I can only imagine the time he will be running!
Absolutely, that is the prediction.
The wind no doubt makes a 2:05 effort come out at 2:03. But the sheer number of recent 2:04-2:06 times world-wide on a variety of courses and is what justifies Canova's point.
Was malmo in Boston?
Meb Cope wrote:
You simplistic, binary types don't get it: YES THE WIND HELPED. But it wasn't the only factor, and while it helped improve times COMPARED TO OTHER BOSTONS by as maybe much as three minutes for some of the athletes, it didn't improve PB (loop course) levels by near as much as that. Renato just showed that.
It is likely that the top runners ran as fast as they did because of the wind, the temps, the pacing AND BECAUSE THEY ARE THE FASTEST RUNNERS EVER TO RUN THE COURSE.
This is called "multifactorial basis" and it is something that happens in a place we call the real world. When Mutai drops almost two minutes off his PB when almost no one else did (except Geb G who had slow-course PB from a tactical race), he brought something special to the table, in addition to the ideal conditions.
Excellent point. Agreed.
malmo wrote:
They said that the historical averages of the winning times were slower by 3:00. That's not the same as saying the course is 3 minutes slower. I think that the author of that article would agree, if he compared apples to apples, that is athletes that have run on multiple courses, you would fin the slowness of Boston is about 2 minutes.
According to Ken Young of the ARRS' statistical analysis of the Boston elite results from 1973-2010, the men's race has averaged 0.4 sec/km, or a total of 17 sec, slow:
http://arrs.net/HP_BosMa.htmIn the 1994 tailwind year it was 1.7 sec/km fast, 1:12 fast, for men. In hot 2007 it was 5.8 sec/km, 4:05, slow.
Looking forward to his analysis of this year's race.
Ask a question in English please...
Brett in Tokyo wrote:
According to Ken Young of the ARRS' statistical analysis of the Boston elite results from 1973-2010, the men's race has averaged 0.4 sec/km, or a total of 17 sec, slow:
http://arrs.net/HP_BosMa.htmIn the 1994 tailwind year it was 1.7 sec/km fast, 1:12 fast, for men. In hot 2007 it was 5.8 sec/km, 4:05, slow.
Looking forward to his analysis of this year's race.
Would you find out exactly what he is analyzing? Is he comparing the elites, or the hobby joggers or the Oprahs?
Pretty clear from that link and the body of Ken's work that it is elites.
SomeCoach wrote:
Also, let me explain a little physics to the few who are not informed ... I believe most people on this forum to be fairly intelligent.
1. If you race at 5:00/mile on a windless day you will feel a 12 mph breeze into your face ... you create the breeze.
2. If you race at 5:00/mile with a 12 mph wind at your back you feel as if it is windless.
This may help explain why some runners "didn't feel much of a breeze" ....
Agreed. They might not feel it as much if they were with a lot of other runners or in a pack but I bet they will feel it more going downhill or running alone...I know I have.
I'm not as fast as most runners on here but it seems very logic to me, ie; having wind, no wind, headwind or tailwind. If you ever paid attention while running in general and have encountered with wind, you will know the difference of effort/feel of the run.
I don't know about having a huge advantage of shaving off time but I would bet money that it did help some.
Dan, there's nothing clear about it. Who are the elites and under what circumstances are their results being used in the equation.
Lets take a race like New York for instance. The filed is stacked eveery year with 2:06 marathon runners, a few 2;05s and a Tergat or Geb every now and then.
The gun goes off, a big pack makes it to 1st avenue and suddenly runners explode. The winner runs 2:08, they start coming in 2:08, 2:09: 2:09, 2:10, 2:11. 2:11. 2:12, and at least at least a dozen studs blow up to 2:16 2:18 2:22, or they drop out.
Now if you are taking all of these runners into an average it would distort the data to a point where it is meaningless, it does nothing to tell you about the relative fastness of the course, it only tells you about the circumstances of specific athletes at a specific time in a specific event.
So does anyone know what inputs Ken Young is using for his time bias numbers? dukerdog? SHubbard? anyone?
Renato why did Florence Kiplagat drop out? She went through 30k in 1:42:59. Mary Keitany ran 30k pb in 1:39:11.