Boston analysis

I can speak about the training phylosophy of Geoffrey because I know what he does in training. Don't forget last year he and Wilson Kiprop were together in training fro 10000m before African Championships, and this means that everybody well knows the training phylosophy of the other. Training phylosophy doesn't mean the particulars of training, but the basic idea of it. Under this point of view, Geoffrey uses the same methodology of Moses Mosop and Wilson Kiprop : high intensity during the extensive workouts, having a continuous eye for maintaining a high level of speed.

What changed in Geoffrey compared with last year is the mind. Now he is very much more confident in himself, and can try some solution last year not possible. He's approaching his best after the marathon run till now (Boston was his 8th marathon), unlike the most part of other Kenyans, running their best inside their first 3 marathon. This means that Geoffrey is able to maintain, and to enhance, his qualities AFTER every marathon, and this is the same phylosophy we used with the great Italian marathoners.

And, please, don't continue to compare the wind of 2011 with the wind of 1994. This is an historical inaccuracy. Of sure, nobody among the runners of 1994 could say "we didn't feel the tailwind", like the most part of athletes said this year. I remember a picture of Uta Pippig with her hair pushed by the wind in front of her face, IN THE SAME DIRECTION OF THE RACE.

However, it's true that the same wind, if against, can give a disadvantage very consistant, braking the speed (expecially uphill) but, above all, making difficult to breath, reducing the ability in taking off Oxygen from the air.

If Geoffrey was a 2:04:55 runner last year, with clear lack of personality (and this year he filled the gap), why cant we suppose he can be now an athlete for WR ? And, when we speak about Berlin 2010, don't forget we know he had some injury before the race affecting his preparation.

Same thing about Moses Mosop. Many people speak without knowing the particulars of their training. For example, last year, before WHMCh, he had one month of personal problems, and never went in training with Wilson Kiprop (this was the plan), so his shape was no better than 70%.

This year, when we went to Paris HM, I didn't change any plan during last week, because I needed a test in HM under training, in order to plan the following period.

Different wasthe situation before his HM in Milano in March 2010. Moses never ran any HM before (like in Boston about marathon). The organiser wanted somebody able to run under 1 hour, and I planned two months before to use Stramilano as debut. In the race I put also two athletes for pacing, and the second of them had to finish (Silas Kipruto, that at the end was excellent finishing in 59:39). The last 3k of Moses were 8:02, and this fact made me more happy than the total time.

I want to say again that coaches have the possibility to know everything can happen to their athletes, and, if they are honest with themselves, can have a real picture about the current situation of the athletes themselves. Other people speak without knowing the reality before the race, or supposing to know what happened AFTER the race.

The most part of times, these are pure speculations, without any link with the real facts. We need to analyse facts, not to give too much room to conjectures.

Renato Canova wrote:

The most part of times, these are pure speculations, without any link with the real facts. We need to analyse facts, not to give too much room to conjectures.

Yes, and the fact is that Ryan Hall ran a time similar to what we might expect the top two to run at London or Berlin...and we have some facts which help us speculate as to why. The main fact is the wind. There have been other marathons with fearless runners and competition throughout the race. The obvious variable here is the wind...

The marathons of Geoffrey Mutai till now :

1- 30.03.2008 Monaco (1) 2:12:40

2- 12.10.2008 Eindhoven (1) 2:07:50

3- 15.03.2009 Seoul DNF

4- 12.04.2009 Daegu (8) 2:10:45

5- 11.10.2009 Eindhoven (1) 2:07:01

6- 11.04.2010 Rotterdam (2) 2:04:55

7- 26.09.2010 Berlin (2) 2:05:10

8- 18.04.2011 Boston (1) 2:03:02

average top 3 : 2:04:22.3

average top 5 : 2:05:35.6

The marathons of Emmanule Mutai :

1- 15.04.2007 Rotterdam (7) 2:13.06

2- 21.10.2007 Amsterdam (1) 2:06:29

3- 13.04.2008 London (4) 2:06:15

4- 12.10.2008 Chicago (6) 2:15:36

5- 26.04.2009 London (4) 2:06:53

6- 22.08.2009 Berlin (WCH) (2) 2:07:48

7- 25.04.2010 London (2) 2:06:23

8- 07.11.2010 New York (2) 2:09:18

9- 17.04.2011 London (1) 2:04:40

average top 3 : 2:05:26

average top 5 : 2:06:08

I would also like to add that if the Boston times were accepted as legitimate for record purposes, then Ryan Hall would now have a faster marathon personal best than Samuel Wanjiru and only three seconds slower than Paul Tergat...If that wouldn't make you wonder whether there are some windy facts which incontrovertibly explain this, then what would?

Mr. Canova, you are rigging the game when you include Boston as part of Geoffrey's top performances. Surely intellectual honesty does not permit this...

Mr. Canova, if we remove Boston, Geoffrey's top three average 2:05:42....

chet wrote:

Yes, and the fact is that Ryan Hall ran a time similar to what we might expect the top two to run at London or Berlin...and we have some facts which help us speculate as to why. The main fact is the wind. There have been other marathons with fearless runners and competition throughout the race. The obvious variable here is the wind...

No, Chet. You are missing it. In all those other marathons the runners were not fearless and did not put out 100% effort. Only on Monday in Boston did we finally see top marathoners giving it their all.

chet wrote:

I would also like to add that if the Boston times were accepted as legitimate for record purposes, then Ryan Hall would now have a faster marathon personal best than Samuel Wanjiru and only three seconds slower than Paul Tergat..

What? You don't think that Ryan is better than Sammy? I mean come on, get with the program!

It's interesting and hopeful for marathoning to have new, young, fresh, athletes, capable of a 26:50 10K, combined with lots of high intensity training, moving up to the marathon while they are still young, paving the way to new incredible world records, in the short to mid-term.

But for me, putting the incredibility of Boston's performances in perspective is made clear when trying to explain Ryan Hall's performance. Not too long ago, the Boston course record was 2:07:14, and was amazingly shattered last year, with a remarkable 2:05:52. If the wind, according to your estimate, only provided a marginal ~40 second advantage, and we see Ryan Hall beat the old course record by 54 seconds, it follows that on a perfect windless day, Ryan Hall would still have beaten the Boston course record by some 14 seconds.

Not saying it's not possible, as there are some recent changes with Ryan Hall's coaching situation, and his race tactic was a little more aggressive.

If you are right about the wind playing a much smaller role than 3-4 minutes, then the next few years should be really exciting.

Ken Young's statistical analysis, just published in the ARRS' weekly Analytical Distance Runner, says the Boston men's race this year was 2.29 sec/km, 1:37 total, fast, versus the historical average of 0.4 sec/km, 17 sec total, slow. This is below the ARRS' threshold of rejection for aided performances, and Young concludes that while the wind did have an effect it was not sufficient for rejection of the performances on that basis. There was less aid than in past years such as 1981 and 1983 but more than in 1994.

For comparison, Young's analysis of this year's London men's race says it was 1.57 sec/km, 1:06 total, fast.

How did he do his analysis? I think the only way to get an idea is comparing all 26 leader mile splits to past years. This would be easy to do with Hall since he has run it fairly consistently- at least as far as the first half of the course goes.

Brett, you keep repeating the same Ken Young bias calcs without going under the hood and and examining it.

It's fast if athletes have had 5 performances in the last year, then a comparison is made to them? Big whup?

The only thing that matters is how fast is Boston compared to Boston.

In thought that Ken Young was going to explain his algorithm?

So Young's analysis puts Mutai's performance ahead of Gebrselassie if I recall the numbers on Berlin right (?). THIS is why this year's race is so important- two guys got in the ballpark with the all-time fastest in terms of performance. No way it should be considered as a world record, but it has to be considered as possibly being very comparable or even slightly better in performance level. Oh, and BTW malmo will have a conniption with the '81/'83 comparison.

Brett in Tokyo wrote:

Ken Young's statistical analysis, just published in the ARRS' weekly Analytical Distance Runner, says the Boston men's race this year was 2.29 sec/km, 1:37 total, fast, versus the historical average of 0.4 sec/km, 17 sec total, slow. This is below the ARRS' threshold of rejection for aided performances, and Young concludes that while the wind did have an effect it was not sufficient for rejection of the performances on that basis. There was less aid than in past years such as 1981 and 1983 but more than in 1994.

For comparison, Young's analysis of this year's London men's race says it was 1.57 sec/km, 1:06 total, fast.

mr.canova.

wilson and geoffrey 10000m training?

Mutai, on his arrival from Boston wondered thus;

“If it was that windy, then it could have helped the women too.

“I still believe the weather and my great shape helped me a lot.

Does anyone have a logical explanation to that. May be Dr. Canova can shed some light.

http://www.nation.co.ke/sports/athletics/-/1100/1148836/-/btgkvy/-/index.html

The wind did help the women...

How fitting that today is "Earth Day," and it's been "The Earth Is Flat Week" on Lets Run.

chet wrote:

The wind did help the women...

How fitting that today is "Earth Day," and it's been "The Earth Is Flat Week" on Lets Run.

Agreed.

In other breaking news, Bud Selig announced that Barry Bonds' home run records will stand without any asterisks. According to Selig: "Just because it is obvious to even an untrained rodent that Bonds had some 'special help' in hitting so many home runs doesn't mean it is obvious to me."

It helped the women, except that on average, they ran slower than their PR's. They ran more of a tactical race, and played "catch up" on the pace at the end, coming up a bit short compared to the men. Without the wind the times would have been even slower. As it was, they ran about the times they would normally run on a flat, fast course.

chet wrote:

The wind did help the women...

How fitting that today is "Earth Day," and it's been "The Earth Is Flat Week" on Lets Run.

If you are right about the wind playing a much smaller role than 3-4 minutes, then the next few years should be really exciting.

No need to wait. It has been happening for the past few years.

World record has dropped to 2.03.59 from 2.05.

Many more runners are now running 2:04, 2:05, 206 when 2.07, 2.08 and 2.09 were the winning times.

Even for American, Ryan Hall's 2.06.17 was a significant drop from 2.08 and 2.09 than the best American born marathons had run.

Men marathoning are progressing by minutes, not seconds, on average.

There is no reason why the new top marathon runners can't improve from 2.04, 2.05 to 2.03 and 2.04 in batches.