Never do you not feel 20mph at your back while running.
Please.
Never do you not feel 20mph at your back while running.
Please.
You are a know it all wrote:
Remember the splits she threw down at that old OTC marathon? Some of them would have made Radcliffe blush.
Also the 222 she ran at BAA in 83 was then recognized as the WR taking down Grete's best.
That said, Malmo what year was it that the IAAF made sure BAA could not be ratified for WR purposes? Thx.
I don't know what splits you are talking about? Joan ran 2:26 at the OTC Marathon. Incidentally I was just looking at the article on that race because I surprised me that both Benji and Rodolfo Gomez ran the OTC only a month before New York. When I find the artcle I'll report back what it says.
Who knows, some kind soul shipped me a 70# box full of running magazines and it's waiting at the post office for me. Maybe there will be some goodies in there?
I don't recall the IAAF ever accepting point to point or downhill races at records.
If they had then they missed Terry Cottons 59:41 way back in the 80s.
PresMustache wrote:
Never do you not feel 20mph at your back while running.
Please.
That's nonsense. Why do you insist?
malmo,
I don't know enough about atmospheric conditions to chip in as to whether I agree or disagree with you on this, but is it safe to say that you cannot be convinced that you might be wrong, and that, no matter how the top men from Monday run in their next marathon, you'll use their results as evidence of your position? That just seems clear from your wording, that you don't meerly disagree with others who have a contrary position to yours, but that they're "mistaken."
If Mutai, Gebremariam and/or Mosop run within the range of their times from Monday at Chicago or Berlin, for example, won't you argue that now they're running those times because they're in better condition on a flat, looped course? And if they run a few minutes slower, won't you argue that their results are clear evidence that the conditions in Boston made that performance an outlier? Hall's going to be in a different boat because I would guess his next marathon will be at Houston.
Fletcher Christian wrote:
malmo,
I don't know enough about atmospheric conditions to chip in as to whether I agree or disagree with you on this, but is it safe to say that you cannot be convinced that you might be wrong, and that, no matter how the top men from Monday run in their next marathon, you'll use their results as evidence of your position? That just seems clear from your wording, that you don't meerly disagree with others who have a contrary position to yours, but that they're "mistaken."
If Mutai, Gebremariam and/or Mosop run within the range of their times from Monday at Chicago or Berlin, for example, won't you argue that now they're running those times because they're in better condition on a flat, looped course? And if they run a few minutes slower, won't you argue that their results are clear evidence that the conditions in Boston made that performance an outlier? Hall's going to be in a different boat because I would guess his next marathon will be at Houston.
How do you get "is it safe to say that you cannot be convinced that you might be wrong" and "That just seems clear from your wording"? Could you point me to the post(s) that you are referring to?
To me Malmo is arguing strongly that the wind had a large impact (3 - 4 min?). Not sure where I see him saying he couldn't possibly be mistaken.
Speaking for me, I agree that 3 - 4 minutes for the top finishers is about right. I do not claim to be all-knowing however. So to me Mutai and Mosop ran roughly the equivalent of 2:06:30 at Boston (or perhaps 2:04:30 on a fast course). For Geb and Hall these numbers would be less than 2 minutes slower (let's say around 2:08:15 Boston or 2:06:15 fast course).
If that is roughly what these guys can do their next time out I will feel like, yeah I was right all along. If, on the other hand the top two crack a 2:01 in Berlin then I will think, nope I was wrong. And if they are in between, well then there are shades of gray.
How about you? Do you expect a 2:01 at Berlin (remember Boston is a slow course)? What type of performances would have you thinking that maybe you were mistaken and that there really was such a large wind factor?
Mr. Canova, we all know that Moses Mosop is a great talent. However, on 10/16/2010, he ran 1:01:31 to finish 10th in the World Half Marathon Championships. On 3/6/2011 (about 6 weeks before Boston) he ran 1:01:47 in the Paris Half Marathon, finishing 11 seconds behind Stephen Kibet. I understand that Mosop was probably in heavy training at the time, but he did not look like a world beater at these half marathons. I also understand that Mosop ran 59:20 about 13 months ago, which is impressive. His track credentials, while impressive, are not significantly better than Chris Solinsky's. Even you must acknowledge, if you tried to be objective, that these are not the credentials of a man who one expects to run faster than say, 2:04:50 or so...
I don't understand why people debate on something that no one have a true answer.
The matter of fact is, there are tail wind, period. How much it affect the runners, especially the top 5 runners, who knows.
Comparing the time between Boston and Berlin, or other "flat" fast marathon is plain stupid. Boston has no rabbits, but these "flat", "legitimate" course has. How much does rabbit worth? 1 min? 2 min? 3 min?
How about attitude of the marathon course? How about the temperature? How about the road condition? How about the number of tall buildings along the course? How about the humidity? One can easily find 10+ variables that can affect the time materially.
Ryan Hall probably is the best rabbit in the history of marathon. Without Hall's steady pace throughout the first 15-17 miles, 2.03 would be impossible. Berlin should consider hire him to help Haile to break marathon record this fall.
If wind indeed help so much (3-4 mins), runners whoare known for aggressive running like Alistair Cragg would have up there with the leaders. But with the pace that Ryan was running, Cragg was already in the second group almost from the beginning. If 1.01.45 first half = 1.03 first half as someone might suggest, you think Alistair would be that far back at the beginning?
To me, this just show that there are a handful of top runners who are capable of running 2.03 right now, with perfect conditions. So I agree with Renato's assessment. Focusing on one factor (wind) is simply ignorant.
Post of the day. Thank you.
I haven' time to read the entire thread. Can someone who has tell me whether or not the wind had any significant effect on the fast performances during the 2011 Boston Marathon?
In case you haven't heard (sounds like you aren't paying much attention in general) the first two runners have been disqualified for hoisting sails during portions of the course.
lookielookie wrote:
I haven' time to read the entire thread. Can someone who has tell me whether or not the wind had any significant effect on the fast performances during the 2011 Boston Marathon?
...totally have to agree. The wind is/was a factor, plain and simple.
It's sorta like saying gale force winds weren't responsible for allowing some wimpy batter knock the ball out of the park.
You can bet dollars to donuts had the wind been in their faces, and close to a record, they'd be 'belly aching' on the horrible head wind hurt them...pluuueezzz!
This debate about how the wind affected a runner’s performance on the Boston course made me think of a recent study on how students’ cheating affected their view of their in intelligence. The researchers tested students and provided the key to the answers of the test on the test and surveyed them after about how well they would do on the next test. Those that used the cheating opportunity were likely to engage in self-deception, thinking that their elevated performance was a sign of intelligence and were more intelligent on future test.Of course, I'm not comparing the wind to cheating but the "big picture" of self-deception. (However, could possibly be used to compare drug cheats that absolutely deny any cheating)"This short-term psychological benefit of self-deception, however, can come with longer-term costs: when predicting future performance, participants expect to perform equally well-a lack of awareness that persists even when these inflated expectations prove costly." This is a useless debate. You will not change the mind of those that ran remarkable PR’s. However, we will see them blow, if they gauge by the same pre-Boston training, and attempt to perform with inflated expectations on a future “test” this fall.Chance, Zoe, Michael I. Norton, Francesca Gino, and Dan Ariely. "Temporal View of the Costs and Benefits of Self-Deception." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (forthcoming).
malmo wrote:
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.
Image:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2psg9lf.jpgAs 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.
It seems to me an objective look at the flags in the race video along the course, while the front-runners are in the same video frame, is another very valid piece of evidence as to what the actual race conditions were. The meteorological reports are not representative of the changing microclimatic conditions at course level.
TorontoObserver wrote:
Ryan Hall probably is the best rabbit in the history of marathon. Without Hall's steady pace throughout the first 15-17 miles, 2.03 would be impossible. Berlin should consider hire him to help Haile to break marathon record this fall.
The rabbit who lost in a sprint finish to Tergat when he ran his WR must be the best.
Dear Mr Canova,
First of all congratulations on Moses Mosop's performance. He ran a fantastic race and made a great debute. I watched it on television and the times the first two ran silenced me for a moment. An explanation was required.
I know you have a lot of fans believing your posts without doubt. I could be one of them but this time I think you should have started with the last lines you wrote:
quote Renato Canova:
"So, I really think that we don't have to wait too long time for looking at the first 2:02, also if it's difficult to have all the components favourable like in Boston this year."
"At least, everything has a logic explanation, and to do wrong analysis for justifying something out of the normality is an exercise that has the only effect to create limits in the mind of the athletes, and excuses for their poor performances." end quote
There are two words important in this: "favourable" and "logic".
If you had combined those two you would have the perfect explanation: "because the conditions were favourable the fast times are logical"
The field was strong but not exceptionally that justifies these times. Athletes that fell off the pace badly at 30k still managed to come home in 64-65. That never happens in any Major race. The question is not what makes Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop strong. The question why all others managed to keep the pace up to decent levels explains more?
The race showed what 2:04-2:05 guys can do on the Boston course when conditions are favourable.
By the way: why do you put Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop together? You really have no idea what Geoffrey is doing. He stays in Kapngtuny without a coach. Never comes to any track and trains with some other runners who have run between 2:06-2:11. You probably never saw any training of him. So how can you analyse his success. He is a 2:04 runner and he showed that again on Monday.
Your explanation about Turbo-diesels sounds logical but it's based on much less than the wind-claim who at least has some scientific and historical proof. As you know, the athletes of 1994 never came within 2 minutes of their personal best again. And in 2007 Cheruiyot and Kwambai only managed 2:14 into a headwind. The wind has been measured and can't be denied.
If I am wrong I'll come and apologise but at least till September/October/November of this year I call your explanation BS.
Malmo
Stupid, ignorant, nonsense and some other adjectives that is your normal comment. You think you know all and everyone that disagrees with you knows nothing at all.
Besides you post on this thread and you offend most of us, you said that this year Boston performances are3 done by tailwind, when are done by special training.
Just post your training.
What is your training that does 2:09 instead of 2:03 ?
malmo wrote:
[quote]You are a know it all wrote:
Remember the splits she threw down at that old OTC marathon? Some of them would have made Radcliffe blush.
Also the 222 she ran at BAA in 83 was then recognized as the WR taking down Grete's best.
That said, Malmo what year was it that the IAAF made sure BAA could not be ratified for WR purposes? Thx.
I know it's not strictly IAAF related, but Tom Derderian talks about Boston being ratified for US record purposes in his history of the Boston Marathon book. In the discussion of the 1990 race he says that TAC adopted a rule (one that looks exactly like the current IAAF one) in 1989. Now whether they were leading the way of following IAAF's lead he doesn't say.
But I seem to recall that IAAF did not even concern itself with road records until sometime in the last couple of decades. Is that just in my head?
electric light wrote:
Malmo
Stupid, ignorant, nonsense and some other adjectives that is your normal comment. You think you know all and everyone that disagrees with you knows nothing at all.
Besides you post on this thread and you offend most of us, you said that this year Boston performances are3 done by tailwind, when are done by special training.
Just post your training.
What is your training that does 2:09 instead of 2:03 ?
I'm not sure if I get it. So could you help me out here.
Are you spoofing someone who is exceptionally unintelligent in order to show that Malmo's detractors here are idiots or...ummm...
I will chime in and start out by saying that I am NOT a marathoner.
Conditions definitely helped in this "uber-fast" race, but I think what really played into the top guys running soooo fast was that it really was a RACE. No rabbit, but Hall sure said "the Hell with that." A real pack at the halfway and then some hard (off the chart) surges to the finish. Raced all the way. Just incredible stuff.
There are so many runners on the World level that seem to have their training down-pat and with a wealth of good coaching out there (some better than others). Running has really evolved over the past few years.
I am done.
electric light wrote:
Malmo
Stupid, ignorant, nonsense and some other adjectives that is your normal comment. You think you know all and everyone that disagrees with you knows nothing at all.
Besides you post on this thread and you offend most of us, you said that this year Boston performances are3 done by tailwind, when are done by special training.
Just post your training.
What is your training that does 2:09 instead of 2:03 ?
Most incomprehensible post this week.
