malmo wrote:
Blah blah blah.
It's getting old. Continually saying it is obvious just makes you look like you can't really explain your position. I really don't care if you disagree with any of the views put out here. It's not the end of the world.
malmo wrote:
Blah blah blah.
It's getting old. Continually saying it is obvious just makes you look like you can't really explain your position. I really don't care if you disagree with any of the views put out here. It's not the end of the world.
Skipping over 14 pages I'll repeat yet again the obvious comments that Renato et al forget:
1)You imply the testimonies are evidence of little wind assistance. Runners don't even notice a strong wind behind you, so of course competitors won't feel it. duh.
2) Using comparative PR's is bunk in marathons. Any running- to-win marathoner who realizes he won't is likely to slack off at least a bit. Hence the winner and maybe second run hard and the trailers might run OK times but why would they kill themselves?
There's so much over analysis of marathon times, mostly pointless.....
Dan K. wrote:
It's getting old. Continually saying it is obvious just makes you look like you can't really explain your position. I really don't care if you disagree with any of the views put out here. It's not the end of the world.
I've continually said it's obvious becasue it IS obvious. I've also explained in great detail what is going on, and offered multiple points of scientific discussion about it. so have many others.
You haven't offered anything at all. Zero Nada Zip Zilch.
Dan K. wrote:
It's getting old. Continually saying it is obvious just makes you look like you can't really explain your position. I really don't care if you disagree with any of the views put out here. It's not the end of the world.
So, where's the beef?
I've been asking.
Where's the analysis on London?
Should Haile and Paula get an asterisk too?
http://www.runnerstribe.com/blog/post/show/id/378-The-Asterisk-A-Column-Len-Johnson
Ha ha ha. Renato: "Duh, I spoke to several runners and they didn't feel any wind." "Duh, I'm Renato Canova so that mean's something.
Letsrun idiots: "Thank you Renato, you are the bomb."
Scientific? Please. Enlighten us with a link to your science?
Every road record should have an *, which is why Boston should count.
Whether it's downhill, windy, perfect, or there are pacers on a pancake flat course, every race has a reason to be fast or slow.
It would simplify the sport if they just let them all count.
Because- when someone comes along and runs a once thought impossible time on New York, then THAT course is going to be called into question, too.
I remember people talking about how tough Boston is and how hard it is to run a fast time because of the Newton Hills and quad pounding downhills.
Let's keep it simple and enjoy the simplicity of these amazing athletes putting one foot in front of another so quickly.
Dan K. wrote:
Scientific? Please. Enlighten us with a link to your science?
Well, you haven´t come up with anything more than babble.
Dorando wrote:
There's so much over analysis of marathon times, mostly pointless.....
Agreed. It's pointless to debate how much the wind helped or didn't help. It was a great performance on the day, why not simply leave it at that? Comparing it to times on other courses in other conditions is just conjecture. Marathons aren't comparable in the same way that track races are, and in my view, that's a good thing.
Your list notes that in 1983, Bud Coates ran 2:13:02.
Bud has run Boston numerouse times since then, includeing a 2:47:38 this year (10th place 50-54).
Might be nice if someone like him would weigh in on whether or not he thought the wind made a difference.
Myself, I think Ryan Hall's pacing (racing) made a huge difference but that having a tail wind allowed them to maintain such a fast pace with (slightly) less effort, which paid off at the end allowing for the 14:0x last 5k splits.
Can we all agree on one thing? Salazar has still not coached a runner to a PB after their debut.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/04/20302-3-to-4-min-what-effect-did-wind.htmlDan K. wrote:
Scientific? Please. Enlighten us with a link to your science?
You still haven't engaged in any discussion. Nada. Zip Zilch.
Historical perspective and prediction circa 2005:
IN MARATHONING, IT HAS A FOOTHOLD ; HISTORY MEANS BOSTON CAN GIVE ANY RACE IN THE WORLD A RUN FOR ITS MONEY; [THIRD Edition]
John Powers, Globe Staff. Boston Globe. Boston, Mass.: Apr 10, 2005. pg. F.1
Quite a challenge
For the past two decades, Boston's modus operandi has been to assemble a deep field with several top names that produces a fine tactical race and enough prize money ($485,000 this year, with $100,000 apiece to the victors) to make it worth crossing an ocean. "It's not about setting a world record," says Morse. "The course won't allow it."
There hasn't been a men's global mark set here since 1947 (Yun Bok Suh) or a women's since 1983 (Joan Benoit). The course record of 2:07:15 set by Cosmas Ndeti in 1994 ranks only 59th on the all-time list. Unless they bulldoze the Newton hills, there won't be another world record in Boston, which marathon traditionalists say is just as well.
"All the marathons now want to be faster and flatter," muses Ken Young, a founding member of the Association of Road Racing Statisticians. "To me, that loses the essence of running, which is head-to-head racing."
Boston's undulant topography and unpredictable weather ("It's like Forrest Gump and the box of chocolates," says McGillivray. "You never know what you're going to get.") make for a unique challenge. "I don't think in the world there is any course I can compare with Boston," says Ndereba, who has run London, New York, and Chicago, where she set the world record in 2001. "People kept on saying how tough the Olympic course was, but Boston is tougher."
@ Renato
- What do you mean with 'c) Their level of intensity NEVER goes under 85%.'?
- How can this type of athletes run their marathon near 4mmol, without reaching glycogen-depletion at 35k, and why do they not run their marathon as 'normal' runners at an average of 2mmol?
Thank you in advance!
likely scenario wrote:
Can we all agree on one thing? Salazar has still not coached a runner to a PB after their debut.
Kara ran a PB- end of story.
the asterisk wrote:
Should Haile and Paula get an asterisk too?
http://www.runnerstribe.com/blog/post/show/id/378-The-Asterisk-A-Column-Len-Johnson
I don't know anything about asterisks. I'm pretty sure that I have not mentioned this term in any of my previous posts (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong).
And regarding the link you provided, as far as I can tell the entire "analysis" regarding Haile is as follows (again, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong):
"And it’s hard to fathom these days how Haile Gebrselassie ever leaves home without one (an asterisk)."
This is substance?!?
So I must ask once again, "Where's the beef?"
malmo wrote:
Dan, there's nothing clear about it. Who are the elites and under what circumstances are their results being used in the equation.
So does anyone know what inputs Ken Young is using for his time bias numbers? dukerdog? SHubbard? anyone?
Not sure but I'd guess KYoung only tracks the elites.