runn wrote:
I wish people would just drop the Boston crap. Boston was always considered a tough course- there are uphills and the downhills often mess people up.
If the IAAF didn't come up with those stupid restrictions no one would even think about it.
Watch the "Dual in the Sun" video- they talk about the WR, didn't Joan Benoit set a WR there? No one questioned it and she went on to run fater.
Boston times are legit.
...
The only "strange notions" are those that question times at Boston.
This is silly. The performances at Boston last year were, of course, massively aided.
Although I'm less certain than the original poster seems to be about Mosop's chances of a WR at Rotterdam, I also find some of the assessments of Mosop's marathoning ability difficult to square with publicly available information. His PR at Chicago, although a course record, was only slightly faster than KK's performance in 1999, and only a little more than a minute and a half faster than Steve Jones's unrabbitted time in less-than-ideal conditions way back in 1985. And while people can debate what his Boston performance might be "equivalent" to on a record-quality course, it's hard to ignore that there was someone else who ran faster that day. As for his track times, it's hard to say what other top marathoners might run for that rarely-raced event, and his PRs at other track events are getting a bit old. His cross-country and road performances have often been impressive, but not clearly indicative of WR ability.
Mr. Canova obviously knows much more about Mosop's training and condition than most of the rest of us do, but I agree with the original poster that Mr. Canova does not seem entirely objective on the matter, as some of his comments about the aided Boston performance seemed to suggest. But who knows? Perhaps Mr. Canova has assessed Mosop's current condition exactly right.