2:04:11 in 69 degree weather, with dew point of 59. world record-quality performance?

malmo wrote:

69 at 6:30 in the morning isn't the same as running at noon. 59 degree dew Pont is great.

No, conditions were atrocious.

HRE wrote:

And you wrote:

And you are an expert at both?

He's as much an expert at running as you're going to find.

Times don't make you an expert.

If they did, there would be about 10,000 "experts" higher on the chart.

"Running a marathon at 6:30 in Dubai, temperature 69, dew point 59 is not a problem at all, as was clearly demonstrated. Understand yet?"

Why is this guy being so rude?

And obviously it was "clearly demonstrated" to be a problem.

expert ranking wrote:

"Running a marathon at 6:30 in Dubai, temperature 69, dew point 59 is not a problem at all, as was clearly demonstrated. Understand yet?"

Why is this guy being so rude?

And obviously it was "clearly demonstrated" to be a problem.

Come on hotshot.

It was a great run, they went out way too fast and the winner still held on for a 2:04:11. That is impressive. If the conditions were bad the winner would have blown up a lot worse.

incorrect wrote:

malmo wrote:

69 at 6:30 in the morning isn't the same as running at noon. 59 degree dew Pont is great.

No, conditions were atrocious.

+1

Just saying they could be worse, by running in the sun, doesn't make them good.

I live in a place with warm winters. One week we will have a cold snap of 'ideal' temperatures in the 40s, the next week it'll be like Dubai was for the race: ~60 dew point and mid-upped 60s temp... It makes a huge difference, especially with my long runs.

His 2:04:11 probably translates to a 2:03:11 on a more ideal race day.

The real issue was the absolutely rapid first 20k

The weather was not bad. But it was worse than Berlin when the record was set and I think this is the point. The weather was not the best it could have been.

Hilarious!

You almost had me.

3/10

Pretty simple....the conditions could have been much worse, but they were not ideal.

Malmo, no one is denying your science. Youre right, just the temperature isn't going to tell you the whole story. The point is, in no part of the world, at any time of the day, 69 degrees and a 59 dew point is still no good marathon weather at all. As evident by most of the slow times. The optimal weather for a marathon is in the lower 40's. There's no other factors that can justify 69 degrees not being terrible.

I was at a race one May or June with some Ethiopian friends. I was in shorts and a short sleeved shirt. It was cool/mild, full sun but in no way was it "cold". My friends and their other Ethiopian friends were warming up in full sweats and were all chatting about not being able to run fast that day because it was "cold". I would guess that Ethiopians and Kenyans tend to have a different notion of ideal conditions.

Angry Willy wrote:

I was at a race one May or June with some Ethiopian friends. I was in shorts and a short sleeved shirt. It was cool/mild, full sun but in no way was it "cold". My friends and their other Ethiopian friends were warming up in full sweats and were all chatting about not being able to run fast that day because it was "cold". I would guess that Ethiopians and Kenyans tend to have a different notion of ideal conditions.

Once did a winter session with Emmanuel Bett. It was in the UK, in about November. It was likely 8-10°C and we were running 10 x 300m.

I was in shorts and a vest and I kid you not he wore a long sleeve shirt, vest, long tights and a full on puffer jacket on top. He was freezing.

Yes this wrote:

Once did a winter session with Emmanuel Bett. It was in the UK, in about November. It was likely 8-10°C and we were running 10 x 300m.

I was in shorts and a vest and I kid you not he wore a long sleeve shirt, vest, long tights and a full on puffer jacket on top. He was freezing.

clearly these guys are more adapted to the heat than we are (malmo excluded, perhaps). they may even have more capacity for adaptation. they also have incredibly favorable surface-area to mass ratios, which makes cooling a heck of a lot easier, than even for say a guy 5'11, 145. that was part of the point of that post by bad wigins (incidentally, never easy to tell which posts/portions of his posts are legitimate; the construction of his trolling is probably much too intricate for most of the letsrun population).

but to say "he set a course record, the conditions couldn't have been too unfavorable" is an awfully weak argument. we could enumerate all the reasons the dubai record might not have been expected to be all that strong to begin with, or we could just note the weakness of the argument and exclude that guy from the conversation. in the spirit of trump's america, i'll opt for the latter, but welcome input of others.

instead, i'd note this: tola was clearly sweating his balls off by 15k. they all were. and while some of the sweat must have gone somewhere (see the salt on most faces in the lead pack), much of it went nowhere--guy was soaked at the end. compare his finish line pics with kipchoge's or kimetto's. his body was clearly trying to cool itself. presumably that's less blood carrying oxygen to the muscles, etc. maybe he hadn't even begun vasodilating yet, who knows. but to suggest this weather was "great" is probably comical.

malmo wrote:

69 at 6:30 in the morning isn't the same as running at noon. 59 degree dew Pont is great.

DP of 59F is not what you'd want if you were trying to break WR.

funkit wrote:

but to say "he set a course record, the conditions couldn't have been too unfavorable" is an awfully weak argument.

Listen to yourself.

we could enumerate all the reasons the dubai record might not have been expected to be all that strong to begin with,

Please do. Dubai has had world class runners for years. Most have set their PB there. Among others, Haile ran in Dubai when he was still breaking WRs at the marathon.

or we could just note the weakness of the argument

Or even maybe state just the beginning of a point against it.

and exclude that guy from the conversation. in the spirit of trump's america, i'll opt for the latter, but welcome input of others.

I take it you are just trolling. Or incredibly stupid.

This whole conversation is outrageous. People are so obsessed with temperature in the marathon. I'm not going to say things 100% wouldn't have changed if it was 50 degrees there this morning, but neither would anyone arguing the temp wasn't the major factor in this race. The major factor, as stated a dozen times, was the early pace.

Leading up the last marathon I ran, the temp for race day was projected in the mid 50's the whole week before. EVERY. SINGLE. RUNNER I spoke to about it asked me the temp, and then when I told them they said "Ewww, going to be a little warm." Where the hell do you come from to feel that way, Antarctica?! These were not hobby joggers assuming I would be running for 4 hours, these were sub 3 hour marathoners and decent intelligent human beings.

People are obsessed with temperature in the marathon. Smh.

i don't know that the burden is on me, or anybody, here. i'm just posing the question and trying to sort through the useful arguments and the vacuous ones. assistance here probably requires a little more sophistication from you...

dubai's had some good runners, including haile. your take is especially intriguing given that haile never ran particularly fast in dubai, and never ran as fast in dubai as he did in berlin, and several times ran 30 - 90 seconds slower in dubai. your argument is apparently, well, if good guys haven't run that fast previously in dubai, and this guy ran fast this time, it must not have been all that hard to run that fast this time. a rhetorical question - what if it's never been easy, for anyone, to run fast there previously? that's the point you've supported implicitly, and the point i was making.

also note that dubai has NOT typically had the best in the world, despite your claim. the timing of london and berlin basically guarantee that.

but deep down, under your flippant exterior, you know it's true.