Boston analysis

Renato Canova · 2011-04-20T17:23:57-04:00

I'm now in Kenya, just arrived from Boston. I read a lot of comments about the influence of the wind, and frankly I find the nost part of these without any fundation. At first, we go to see the difference between the times of the best men and women and their PB, with some comment for everybody. MEN 1) Geoffrey Mutai 2:03:02 2:04:55 - 1:53 2) Moses Mosop 2:03:06 Debut 3) Gebre Gebremariam 2:04:53 2:08:14 - 3:21 4) Ryan Hall 2:04:58 2:06:14 - 1:16 5) Abraham Cherkos 2:06:13 2:07:29 - 1:16 6) Robert Cheruiyot 2:06:43 2:05:52 + 0:51 7) Philip Sanga 2:07:10 2:07:11 - 0:01 8) Chimsa 2:07:37 2:07:54 - 0:17 9) Daba 2:08:03 2:07:04 + 0:59 10) Robert Kipchumba 2:08:44 2:08:07 + 0.37 11) Peter Kamais 2:09:50 2:14:58 - 5:08 12) Cardona 2:12:17 13) Gilbert Yegon 2:13:00 2:06:18 + 6:42 14) Migidio Boirifa 2:13:45 2:09:07 + 4:38 15) Abe 2:15:48 2:13:46 + 2:02 Without calculating Mosop and Cardona (of course PB being their first marathon), we have a total time of + 15:49 for the athletes not running their PB (6 in top 15) and a total time of - 13:12 for the athletes running their PB (7 in top 15), with a balance of + 2:37 SLOWER THAN THEIR PB considering the top 15 (157.0 : 13 = 12.0 of average SLOWER THAN THE PB OF THE ATHLETES. Of course, this mathematic calculation is ridicolous. Infact, if we speak technically, we must cancel (because don't have any real signification) the performances of the following athletes : PETER KAMAIS (PB of 5:08) because Boston was his second marathon, the first was NY last year, when he finished jogging after trying to stay with the leaders for 35 km. So, the PB of last year was not his real value. The expecation of his coach Claudio Berardelli was of 2:07 / 2:08 for Boston. At the end, PB slower than the expectation. GILBERT YEGON (worse than his PB of 6:42). He tried to stay with the leaders, but his shape was not the best, and at the end he paid. His value could be about 2:08 with an even race, but in his current shape was penalized by the pace of yje race. MIGIDIO BOURIFA - His PB is of long time ago. His current value, in any case, is about 2:12. So, he ran slower than the expecrarion, but not too much. If we cancel the above athletes, we have a final balance of - 3:35 cumulative for 10 athletes, that means a difference with their PB of 21" each one (and I don't want to cancel Gebremariam, but of course his PB in NY last year was not his real value, being the first marathon and a difficult course). WOMEN 1) Carolyne Kilel 2:22:36 2:23:25 - 0:49 2) Desirèe Davila 2:22:38 2:26:20 - 3:42 3) Sharon Cherop 2:22:42 2:22:43 - 0:01 4) Caroline Rotich 2:24:26 5) Kara Goucher 2:24:52 2:25:53 - 1:01 6) Dire Tune 2:25:08 2:22:44 + 2:24 7) Workenesh Kidane 2:26:15 2:27:15 - 1:00 8) Caballero 2:26:17 9) Alice Timbilili 2:26:34 2:25:03 + 1:31 10) Ruban 2:27:00 2:27:44 - 0:44 11) Tsegaye Tirfi 2:27:29 2:22:44 + 4:45 12) Girma 2:28:48 2:27:51 + 0:57 13) Mugo 2:29:06 2:27:16 + 1:50 14) Skvortsova 2:29:14 2:26:24 + 2:50 15) Pushkaryeva 2:29:20 2:26:14 + 3:06 This means, for the 13 athletes already with a PB in Marathon, totals of + 17:23 slower than their PB, and of 7:17 faster, with a final balance of + 10:06 distributed between 13 athletes : that's mean the average of the top 15 was 46.6 SLOWER THAN THEIR PB. I spoke with the most part of the athletes, after the racem and EVERYBODY told me the wind was not very strong, not always id direction of the race, and the most part of time not significative (some time also against). The numbers I wrote before seem to confirm their theory. The PB (excluding the debutants) among the top 15 men were 6, while other 7 didn't improve. Inside the women race, the PB were 6, against 7 that didn't improve (same like men). Of course, the direction and the strength of the wind was measured at the start, and during the race there were a lot of variations. Also, the real component in direction of the race was between 20 and 40% of the strength of the wind, and in many cases (when the athletes were in the middle of buildings) the wind didn't arrive to the runners, because, coming from one side, the buildings created a barrier for the wind itself. So,every LINEAR calculation is a pure and, excuse me, very stupid speculation, because there is no a CONSTANT that is at the base of any physical analysis. Of course we can find some small advantage, but to speak about 3-4 minutes is simply crazy, and has nothing to do with the reality. I have the idea that US people were shocked by the performances of Ryan and of Desirèe, losing the contact with the reality. Of course, if in the mind of American runners you continue to look at 2:28 for a woman and 2:10 for a man like unbelievable performances (for the most part of people not possible without doping... how stupid and sad behavior !), you don't believe possible, for your runners, to have times of 2:05 and 2:22 without a lot of external aid. But I can tell you something. I knew Mosop was in a shape of 2:04, as Geoffrey, from what they were able to do. Of course, I didn't know what Ryan Hall could be able to do, and his 63:55 in NY HM didn't authorize anybody in thinking he could be in his best shape. Now I say my explanation for what happened. 1) In a course without rabbits, nobody supposed that one athlete (Ryan) could go from the start at so fast pace, without any mental inhibition. Ryan was wonderful as personality and as interpretation of the race, knowing his only chance is in a very fast but even pace. Of course, he didn't know the potentiality of Geoffrey and Moses, and he tried his best. Without him,probably the race could be a normal competition, with a final time about 2:05. 2) Geoffrey and Moses never looked at the watch, so were not afarid about the speed because they didn't want to know it. Honestly, we feared Gebremariam, and the tactic, involving Geoffrey, Moses and Robert Cheruiyot, was in any case to push very hard immediately after 30 km. 3) Without any mental conditioning, Geoffrey hammered in incredible way, running 28:24 between 30k and 40k. But wonderful was Moses, having a max gap of 8.0, never thinking to look for maintaining the second position only, but always concentrated on Geoffrey. His ability to stay in the race, in his first marathon, closing the gap after being 50m behind, was something really unbelievable (14:07 between 35 and 40k). And they were still able to finish last 2195m in 6:14 Geoffrey (exactly 2:50 per km) and 6:18 Moses (2:51.7). 4) They average was 2:55 per km, and this is possible only for athletes able running at the moment 10k under 27:00. The reality is that Marathon is changing, with this type of athletes. Till 5 years ago, few athletes able running about 27:00 moved to marathon, and only when old, and no more to run faster than 27:30. The same Tergat (WR holder of 10000m in 26'27") moved to marathon when no more able to run faster than 27:10. Instead, athletes like Geoffrey and Moses move to marathon WHEN ARE ABLE TO RUN 26:45. This fact provokes different effects : a) These athletes are younger (so more fresh in their mind and their body) and faster than before b) Their training changed. I use very high intensity for extensive workouts (for example, Moses ran 40k 3 weeks before Boston in 2:07:15, on rough road, start and finish in the same place, and heavy training shoes), and of course I need to give more days of recovery between one specific wokouts and the next one. In this case, Moses had the next training on track (10 x 1600m with 2' recovery in 4'35" / 4'32" with the last in 4'17") exactly 6 days after his 40k. c) Their level of intensity NEVER goes under 85%. This is a big difference, because in Kenya and Ethiopia the post-race behavior is to relax without doing any alternative training for rebuilding speed and muscle strength, so everytime the athletes prepare a new marathon they start again from a low level. Instead, Geoffrey using competitions, Moses using training, both of them maintain a high quality also short time after the marathon. We saw this last year with Geoffrey and Wilson Kiprop, this year with Mary Keitany. d) Physiologically speaking, this type of athletes are able running a HM near 6 mml of lactate, and their marathon is near 4 mml. In other words, if till 5 years ago the best marathon runners were DIESEL ENGINES, now are TURBO DIESEL (whar already happened with Paula Radcliffe). 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.

Training Advice/Discussion

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 19 of 21

1 18 19 20 21

Next Last

15 years ago 04/26/2011 12:43pm EDT

re: A Better Question

First I'll re-ask, what is it that you think ARRS is supplying that needs to be critiqued? The data is all publicly available.But as you can see, no one from ARRS is reading this forum. Asking many times serves no purpose.However the answer to many questions are at their website. The only claim attributable to ARRS is that the results are "statistically valid". Rather than guessing what that means, and over-reacting to wrong conclusions, all you need to interpret it is explained on the home page: http://www.arrs.net/ under the notes.This homepage answers two questions:"What does 'statistically valid' really mean?""Does 'statistically valid' mean it should be a world record?"You look silly concluding that they think it should be a world record, especially when they never said it, and what they mean is clearly explained on their homepage.You don't need the algorithm for most questions. You do need the algorithm if you doubt that the times are 1:37 fast for men, 1:42 fast for women, and 13.5s slow on average. But everyone can do it for themselves independently, and compare their results. The data is publicly available. Everyone can compute expected times, and compare them with actual times, defining whatever filters for outliers they want, and compare the results.There is actually quite a lot of information about which data is included, and criteria for excluding data, and how the data is used.Did everyone asking the questions read the website? What question do you have that actually needs the algorithm?

A Better Question wrote:
How about ARRS being more specific? How many times do people have to ask for this? Actual algorithm and actual data is what is required to allow others to critique what ARRS is supplying. Without this, it amounts to nothing more than "Hey, just trust us and shut up". Not very convincing.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 12:52pm EDT

re: Vegan Quoter

It is really getting funny. The flat earthers, oh I mean no winders, are either getting unbelievably desperate, or they've just been replaced by pure trolls, trying to keep a non-debate going.

I can hardly wait to see what they come up with next. Perhaps proof of alien ray guns slowing down these runners, otherwise they would have run 5 minutes faster!

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:01pm EDT

re: Vegan Quoter

Heh. This are independant reporting stations, nothing official. You can zoom right in and see them in satellite view. Both of these are small buildings, likely houses, in residential areas surrounded by trees.

I claim no knowledge of how these weather stations work - you got me currious so I zoomed into the one Malmo used for his charts (KBOS). Here's where the wind is measured - I presume at the top of that tower:

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1t0h292h0w6&lvl=19.648362001507973&dir=0.3573473691438799&sty=b

That's not going to be very indicative of the wind 20 miles inland - at gound level. I checked most every station I could find along the course - the ones I posted were among the higher wind measurements between Hopkinton and Boston.

Obviously (to me) the marathon was aided - but that graphic based on this weatherstation overstates the magnitude of benefit - I can't find anything inland that substantiates there was near that much wind along the course.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:03pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
First I'll re-ask, what is it that you think ARRS is supplying that needs to be critiqued? The data is all publicly available.

Normally you are a methodical and dispassionate poster, but this is getting ridiculous.

People are asking a straightforward question and you appear to be trying to give Ken Young cover, which leads me to believe (perhaps erroneously) that you are either close to Young, or you are Ken Young himself? Carrying someones water for them is one thing, but carrying an empty bucket is quite another.

The questions that need to be asked are obvious: Who, what, when, where, why and how?

1) Which athletes are being analyzed and for which events and over what period?

2) Who is the data being analyzed? What is the methodology?

3) What is the rational behind the choice of the data set and the methods used to analyze the data?

4) How is the conclusion related to, and supported by, the data?

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:04pm EDT

re: malmo

malmo wrote:
By definition, clerical errors due to data entry ARE inconsistent. That's what makes them data entry errors.

True, I just found it strange that they made the same error over and over again. At first, I assumed they had just mistakenly included the 2010 results with the non-aided ones. But actually they did this for 6 of the past 10 year-best lists.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:10pm EDT

re: inconsistent

inconsistent wrote:
True, I just found it strange that they made the same error over and over again. At first, I assumed they had just mistakenly included the 2010 results with the non-aided ones. But actually they did this for 6 of the past 10 year-best lists.

Actually, what I found strange were the 3 years 2004-2006 in the middle where they appropriately separated them from the main list, but then went right back to making the same error in 2007.

Also that they correctly separated the 2006 results on the year list, but then included it on the all-time list.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:18pm EDT

re: kayry

kayry wrote:
I claim no knowledge of how these weather stations work - you got me currious so I zoomed into the one Malmo used for his charts (KBOS). Here's where the wind is measured - I presume at the top of that tower:
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1t0h292h0w6&lvl=19.648362001507973&dir=0.3573473691438799&sty=b
That's not going to be very indicative of the wind 20 miles inland - at gound level. I checked most every station I could find along the course - the ones I posted were among the higher wind measurements between Hopkinton and Boston.
Obviously (to me) the marathon was aided - but that graphic based on this weatherstation overstates the magnitude of benefit - I can't find anything inland that substantiates there was near that much wind along the course.

The Wellesley station you linked to, the guy has stuff about it on his blog. It's kind of cool actually.

http://geekdoctor.blogspot.com/2011/01/weather-station-lessons-learned.html

From what I gather, the readings for temp, humidity and baro pressure should match pretty close to known values (these shouldn't vary by much at all from nearby stations) but for wind readings, there's a lot of latitude granted.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:20pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
First I'll re-ask, what is it that you think ARRS is supplying that needs to be critiqued? The data is all publicly available.
But as you can see, no one from ARRS is reading this forum. Asking many times serves no purpose.
However the answer to many questions are at their website. The only claim attributable to ARRS is that the results are "statistically valid". Rather than guessing what that means, and over-reacting to wrong conclusions, all you need to interpret it is explained on the home page:
http://www.arrs.net/
under the notes.
This homepage answers two questions:
"What does 'statistically valid' really mean?"
"Does 'statistically valid' mean it should be a world record?"
You look silly concluding that they think it should be a world record, especially when they never said it, and what they mean is clearly explained on their homepage.
You don't need the algorithm for most questions. You do need the algorithm if you doubt that the times are 1:37 fast for men, 1:42 fast for women, and 13.5s slow on average. But everyone can do it for themselves independently, and compare their results. The data is publicly available. Everyone can compute expected times, and compare them with actual times, defining whatever filters for outliers they want, and compare the results.
There is actually quite a lot of information about which data is included, and criteria for excluding data, and how the data is used.
Did everyone asking the questions read the website? What question do you have that actually needs the algorithm?
A Better Question wrote:
How about ARRS being more specific? How many times do people have to ask for this? Actual algorithm and actual data is what is required to allow others to critique what ARRS is supplying. Without this, it amounts to nothing more than "Hey, just trust us and shut up". Not very convincing.

OK, I'm sorry but I just have to ask - are you a comedian? Seriously.

You write: "You look silly concluding that they think it should be a world record, especially when they never said it"

I will admit this ^ is simply genius. I never concluded that they think... If you think I did, please re-read my post (which you've conveniently copied). So, I look silly concluding something that I never concluded because they never said it?!? Pure genius.

Oh, and how about this: "You don't need the algorithm for most questions. You do need the algorithm if you doubt that the times are 1:37 fast for men, 1:42 fast for women, and 13.5s slow on average.:

Ummm...pretty sure that this is exactly what is being doubted. That this is being doubted hasn't really been kept a secret now has it?

Now, about that algorithm...

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:27pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
First I'll re-ask, what is it that you think ARRS is supplying that needs to be critiqued? The data is all publicly available.
But as you can see, no one from ARRS is reading this forum. Asking many times serves no purpose.
However the answer to many questions are at their website. The only claim attributable to ARRS is that the results are "statistically valid". Rather than guessing what that means, and over-reacting to wrong conclusions, all you need to interpret it is explained on the home page:
http://www.arrs.net/
under the notes.
This homepage answers two questions:
"What does 'statistically valid' really mean?"
"Does 'statistically valid' mean it should be a world record?"

What? The notes on the ARRS website says less than the words that Obama reads from his teleprompter.

ARRS website says:
NOTES
Road performances are classified as "record quality", "statistically valid", or "statistically invalid" based on the start/finish separation and the net drop of the course.
Record Quality
.....Start/finish separation is less than 30% of the race distance and the net drop is less than 1.0 m/km
Statistically Valid (suffix "a")
.....The net drop is less than 5.0 m/km and the net effect of tailwind and/or drop does not exceed 5 sec/km
Statistically Invalid (suffix "x")
.....The net drop is 5.0 m/km or more
.....The course has been shown to have been short on remeasurement
.....The course is suspect based on an analysis of the race time bias that exceeds 5 sec/km faster than expected (-5.0 sec/km)
Only record quality performances are included in national and world road record lists. Record quality and statistically valid performances are included in rankings lists.

Again, very straightforward questions:

1) Which athletes are being analyzed and for which events and over what period?

2) Who is the data being analyzed? What is the methodology?

3) What is the rational behind the choice of the data set and the methods used to analyze the data?

4) How is the conclusion related to, and supported by, the data?

ARRS website says:
Statistically Valid (suffix "a")
.....The net drop is less than 5.0 m/km and the net effect of tailwind and/or drop does not exceed 5 sec/km

Taking out the fact that ARRS, a self-appointed authority on what is aided, uses an elevation drop that is FIVE TIMES more generous than what is permitted by the IAAF.

Now, with that said, do they even understand that this is the biggest stinking pile of self-referential, circular reasoning, shit imaginable? Universities around the world should be suing this as a template for the logical fallacy.

How can can anyone take their opinion seriously? It changes the meaning of the 'giggle test' to the 'falling down on the floor laughing so hard my ass has fallen off test.'

The ARRS should simply stick to what they do best: collect results from events around the world. Create updated all-time and record progression lists for catagories like 'World', "Country', "year", and "Event".

That's what they do best.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:34pm EDT

re: Its Getting Comical

Its Getting Comical wrote:
It is really getting funny. The flat earthers, oh I mean no winders, are either getting unbelievably desperate, or they've just been replaced by pure trolls, trying to keep a non-debate going.
I can hardly wait to see what they come up with next. Perhaps proof of alien ray guns slowing down these runners, otherwise they would have run 5 minutes faster!

"No-winders" -- I like it. This deserves its own thread.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 1:56pm EDT

re: Vegan Quoter

The Wellesley station you linked to, the guy has stuff about it on his blog. It's kind of cool actually.
http://geekdoctor.blogspot.com/2011/01/weather-station-lessons-learned.html
From what I gather, the readings for temp, humidity and baro pressure should match pretty close to known values (these shouldn't vary by much at all from nearby stations) but for wind readings, there's a lot of latitude granted.

Interesting stuff - I'll have to go look up the weatherstations around my house that my software has been extracting data from into my workout log.

I followed that blog into quality controls and ended up finding this weather station at about the most wide open space on top of a building at Wellesley college just off the course:

http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/D7311

Wind is still probably higher than what is seen at ground level but better than the airport (or someone's backyard) - speed from 1-10 mph from about 7-9 o'clock:

Date Time mph direction° o'clock

4/18/2011 10:01 5 267 7.4

4/18/2011 10:11 10 293 8.1

4/18/2011 10:21 6 286 7.9

4/18/2011 10:31 6 292 8.1

4/18/2011 10:41 6 301 8.4

4/18/2011 10:51 4 311 8.6

4/18/2011 11:01 1 266 7.4

4/18/2011 11:11 5 274 7.6

4/18/2011 11:21 6 270 7.5

4/18/2011 11:31 3 311 8.6

4/18/2011 11:41 3 288 8.0

4/18/2011 11:51 3 308 8.6

15 years ago 04/26/2011 2:34pm EDT

re: malmo

Why don't you just email Ken Young and find out? This has been going on for several days and no one thought to do that? Really???

15 years ago 04/26/2011 3:38pm EDT

re: one thought

Hey, why didn't I think of that? Because Brett from Tokyo represented that he knew Young and that Young would be posting his methodology on this board, that's why...

15 years ago 04/26/2011 3:43pm EDT

re: kayry

The whole tailwind thing is overblown.

Fast course + fast runners = fast times.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 4:08pm EDT

re: kayry

Since I'd done a split by average elite male and top 60 non-elites - I thought I'd look at one more split of the boston marathon data - the split for the winners for the last 5 years:

Winner Pace (mpm)

k . 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

5 4:41 4:48 4:42 5:03 5:16

10 4:43 4:55 4:49 4:44 5:14

15 4:44 4:47 4:55 4:45 5:12

20 4:49 4:55 5:02 4:49 5:25

25 4:41 4:46 5:06 4:46 5:02

30 4:53 4:50 4:47 4:46 5:13

35 4:35 4:45 4:58 5:00 4:59

40 4:35 4:44 4:51 5:04 4:46

42.4:34 4:47 5:21 5:10 4:59

Avg4:42 4:48 4:55 4:53 5:07

I have no idea if this adds anything whatsoever to the wind discussion (and I don't really care since the thread title is "Boston analysis") but damn that run in from 30k to the end (including 2 newton hills) looks awesome.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 6:02pm EDT

re: Renato Canova

Seems to me the strongest argument for the non-winders is that Hall took the race out under 1:02 at the half. The pack was how strong then? More than 15 guys? In the end, 12th place was over 2:12, meaning very few could handle the pace, even with the wind. I was a happy wind-believer at first, just marveling at a great, but aided, race. Now, Canova has me thinking that it was Hall that was the divine wind, pulling (not pushing) Mutai and Mosop to greatness. As Gebremarium stated, “He pushed it, he pushed it all the time. He was like a pacemaker; he helped us a lot.”

Should it be a WR? No. Was it better than 2:03:59? I'm starting to believe so. We'll see if a mental barrier has gone down, and faster times come quickly. Hall's legacy may not be as a champion, but as a king-maker!

15 years ago 04/26/2011 6:09pm EDT

re: King Maker

King Maker wrote:
Seems to me the strongest argument for the non-winders is that Hall took the race out under 1:02 at the half. The pack was how strong then? More than 15 guys? In the end, 12th place was over 2:12, meaning very few could handle the pace, even with the wind. I was a happy wind-believer at first, just marveling at a great, but aided, race.

I feel off my chair backwards when I read that. There were 15 guys together at the halfway mark at 1:02 so that makes it proof that the wind didn't help them?

15 years ago 04/26/2011 6:15pm EDT

re: Zero Gravity

Zero Gravity wrote:
The whole tailwind thing is overblown.
Fast course + fast runners = fast times.

Yup, this course has never really been run before by fast runners.

And it's always been a really fast course.

Now why didn't that occur to me before?

Thank you, Zero - you really put this controversy to rest.

15 years ago 04/26/2011 6:31pm EDT

re: A Better Question

Some people find me funny, sometimes when I'm trying to be, and sometimes when I'm not. But I can not make a living as a comedian.When I said "You look silly ...", I didn't mean "you" specifically, but more like a "royal You", because it seems to me like that's the main controversy. Sorry for causing that confusion -- I'll take full blame for that, but will also accept credit for being a genius.My impression though is that the exact magnitude of the advantage (the only reason to ask for the algorithm) is not "exactly what is being doubted" by the ARRS quotes. Most people seem to be jumping to a conclusion that a claim of "statistically valid" means "lobbying the IAAF for world record status". My point is that by including the times in their database, the ARRS is not unilaterally arbitrarily declaring, nor lobbying the IAAF to accept, the Boston times for world record status.If you want to argue that 1:37 should really be 2:37 or 3:37, I will not stop you. I do not have the ARRS algorithm, just a few hints at what it might be, and some definitions about what it is not. Everyone can keep asking here, but it seems to me that it's not falling on deaf ears so much as falling on no ears. Like everyone else, I also do not have my own personal algorithm to cross-check the results, nor, like most others, any other deep insight, to say that 3:00 is a better estimate than 2:00, for any local wind/weather advantage.

A Better Question wrote:
OK, I'm sorry but I just have to ask - are you a comedian? Seriously.
You write: "You look silly concluding that they think it should be a world record, especially when they never said it"
I will admit this ^ is simply genius. I never concluded that they think... If you think I did, please re-read my post (which you've conveniently copied). So, I look silly concluding something that I never concluded because they never said it?!? Pure genius.
Oh, and how about this: "You don't need the algorithm for most questions. You do need the algorithm if you doubt that the times are 1:37 fast for men, 1:42 fast for women, and 13.5s slow on average.:
Ummm...pretty sure that this is exactly what is being doubted. That this is being doubted hasn't really been kept a secret now has it?
Now, about that algorithm...

15 years ago 04/26/2011 6:45pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
If you want to argue that 1:37 should really be 2:37 or 3:37, I will not stop you. I do not have the ARRS algorithm, just a few hints at what it might be, and some definitions about what it is not. Everyone can keep asking here, but it seems to me that it's not falling on deaf ears so much as falling on no ears. Like everyone else, I also do not have my own personal algorithm to cross-check the results, nor, like most others, any other deep insight, to say that 3:00 is a better estimate than 2:00, for any local wind/weather advantage.

My question is common sense. What possible algorithm could possibly be used to proclaim a wind blown marathon statistically valid(sic) (or not?)

What the hell does statistically valid mean?

Page 19 of 21

1 18 19 20 21

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Boston analysis

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Boston analysis

Jump To A Page

Follow kayry

Block kayry

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow kayry

Block kayry

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow kayry

Block kayry

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.