Boston analysis

Boston depends on weather conditions, which are usually a given on other fast courses. The 5mph tailwind through Newton helped neutralize the hills. The last time the course was a fast course was in 1994(last year Cherouiyot was fast, so maybe the course was too, but he was blown out by this year's guys). This field was way faster than any available back then.

A Better Question wrote:

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.

Hey Renato,

I was just wondering if you could share what a typical daily diet looks like for Geoffrey or Moses? How large of a factor do you think the food that a runner eats effects his/her running?

Thanks!

renatohelp! wrote:

Hey Renato,

I was just wondering if you could share what a typical daily diet looks like for Geoffrey or Moses? How large of a factor do you think the food that a runner eats effects his/her running?

Thanks!

dude, Renato gave up on this thread a week ago.

Here is my common sense question: What is the ARRS doing with the times, that the IAAF is not doing?I think your second question should be answered first. What does statistically valid mean?It means it will appear in these lists:http://www.arrs.net/AllTime/ATB_Mara.htm (ranked by "unbiased" times)http://www.arrs.net/CY_Mara.htmbut not in these lists:http://www.arrs.net/WG_Rec_ENG.htmhttp://www.arrs.net/RecProg/RP_wwR.htmFrom the website: "Only record quality performances are included in national and world road record lists. Record quality and statistically valid performances are included in rankings lists."What does "statistically invalid" mean? If the wind assistance, or the computed race time bias, was more than 5 seconds/km, the data would be rejected completely and would appear nowhere on the ARRS site.The IAAF website does not treat the Boston data differently. The wind blown marathon data also appears at the IAAF website. Do you know what possible algorithm the IAAF used to decide to include the data? Of course the IAAF marked it under a section labeled "downhill", while ARRS marks it with an "a". The ARRS is more consistent, marking every Boston performance in every year with an "a", unlike the IAAF clerics.There are some subtle differences in form, sophistication and presentation, but the ARRS is not doing more with the Boston data then the IAAF is doing, are they?

malmo wrote:

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?

I'm watching the Royals-Indians game tonight (I'm a Tribe fan, yes, light a candle for me) and the sixth home run of the game was just hit. These two somewhat light hitting teams have just caught fire, right? It has nothing to do with the fact that the wind is blowing out to dead center at 15-20 mph, could it? Noooooooooooooo, of course not, suddenly it HOMER TIME!

By all means, put it on your website. Mark it with an "a" if you feel you need to.The wind makes a difference. No one says otherwise.

SomeCoach wrote:

I'm watching the Royals-Indians game tonight (I'm a Tribe fan, yes, light a candle for me) and the sixth home run of the game was just hit. These two somewhat light hitting teams have just caught fire, right? It has nothing to do with the fact that the wind is blowing out to dead center at 15-20 mph, could it? Noooooooooooooo, of course not, suddenly it HOMER TIME!

malmo wrote:

I feel off my chair backwards when I read that.

You need a chair with a back on it when you read the shit on this site, and maybe some knee and elbow pads too. I'm thinking of adding a mouth guard after this past week.

Malmo, I want only to remember that two years ago in London 13 athletes went in 28:33 and 61:30 in the first half, and no other athletes out of this group was able to finish in one of the top 7 positions. And of course the first half of Boston is faster than the first half of London, because, looking at the Boston profile, the real problems start during the second half.

I'm tired to speak about wind, as I don't have the real pictures. But, like me, nobody else has. The data about wind are not minutes after minutes in every part of the course. If it's true that top athletes some times don't feel tailwind (but everybody instead is able to feel a wind 5 m/s favourable...), when they say felt wind on their side, and some time wind against, I need to believe in what they say. Because, when I ask them to analyse their race in order to understand their real sensations and therefore their real value (and this is not for media or for having some advantage, but is for staring immediately to work for still improving, and this is possible only adding something else to their training, so we speak about TECHNICAL analysis with the athletes, not with people OUT of the competition), they don't have any reason to lie to me.

So, tille when we don't have all the data of the wind (speed and direction) for every mile at the right time, we cant have any analysis, and everything remains an opinion.

It's only an opinion, stupid.

Correct ?

Renato, they do not ask Mr. Bolt what the wind felt like when attempting to determine whether his 100 meters is eligible for a world record. The reason they don't ask him is because his opinion MEANS NOTHING. The Boston Marathon is not eligible for a world record. There is a reason for this. I imagine you expect Mutai and Mosop to be able to run 2:03 at some point. Neither will ever do it, and deep down, you know it.

Chet, I never asked for a WR. I well know the rules (that it seems many other don't know), and the rule clearly speaks about difference in elevation (max 42m) and distance between start and finish points (no more than 21k). So, everybody knows this is the rule, and asking for a WR is a non correct exercise, whatever the reason can be.

My point is a TECHNICAL point. Simply, I don't believe a marathon with a drop of 139m can be 2:00 slower than a flat marathon, and I don't believe the wind can give 3-4 min of advantages in the conditions of the 2011 race. I challenge everybody to compare the edition 1994 with the edition 2011. In 1994 I saw pictures of Uta Pippig having her hair in front of the face, IN THE SAME DIRECTION OF THE COURSE, so the wind was really very much stronger than the speed of the race. This year, nothing like this, and athletes elite (men and women) and amateur (look at this thread and at another thread) told the same thing.

So, on one sidfe there are official reports of wind, NOT IN ALL THE COURSE, not in the real time of the passage of the runners, and not considering the change of direction that the course has, and the specific situations (buildings or free air, level of the wind testing stations, etc.).

So, all your calculations cant be exact, because you do this supposing strength and direction of wind constant, and this is not true. You cant compare a performance lasting more than 2 hours with a competituion lasting 10 seconds.

From what I wrote, when somebody posted the report in some part of the race showing the wind was not so fast, or was not in the right direction, THESE REPORT ARE NOT VALID BECAUSE THE STATION WAS SMALL AND NOT OFFICIAL.

I know there was wind. I know the race was aided. But TECHNICALLY I know the most important fact was the pace from Ryan Hall (probably without him, the first half could be about 64'), and the fact that I removed the watches from Geoffrey, Moses and Robert Cheruiyot before the race, asking them simply to hammer after 30k (that I supposed slower than 1:30, instead the time was 1:28:23).

This is the fact provoking the big difference. And, if you run fast, Boston cant be 2' slower than a flat marathon. And wind didn't help the athletes for 3-4 minutes, may be 1'30" maximum. And who speaks about WR simply doesn't know the rules.

And, at the end, to try to INTERPRETATE in one way only what happened is only an exercise for people in the bar of the sport (like fans of soccer), BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY REAL AND COMPLETE DATA ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY.

So, without real data, any mathematic calculation becomes a stupid speculation, exactly like any idea about the mean of the performances.

There is only one thing to do : to seat, and to wait.

For your information, nobody of these athletes try to beat the WR this year, since Geoffrey goes to NY and Moses goes to WCh. So, we can still discuss till 2013.

How do I know the course was wind aided?

Because the winner ran 2:03:02...

Renato Canova,

So what is more interesting that talking about the wind: Why can atletes like Geoffrey and Moses run a marathon at 4mmol/l average, instead of the 2-2,5 mmol/l that is more usual? Training with a lot extending the intensity?

Please, open another thread about this argument. I don't want to continue in this thread, where we can only speak about fried air.

Renato Canova wrote:

My point is a TECHNICAL point. Simply, I don't believe a marathon with a drop of 139m can be 2:00 slower than a flat marathon, and I don't believe the wind can give 3-4 min of advantages in the conditions of the 2011 race.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but what I've read as the prevailing view is:

Boston 2011 is 3-4 minutes faster than "typical" or "average" Boston. But realize that Boston is typically disadvantaged by weather 1-2 minutes on average. On a still day I think (and I guess I thought most think) Boston is just as fast as a flat course - possibly even faster depending on the argument of elevation drop vs late hills - but most likely at least equal to a flat course.

Take out the "typical" 1-2 minute disadvantage on Boston and focus on the 2011 advantage over a "no-wind" Boston (about like 2010 and 2008) and the wind advantage benefit is more like 1.5-2 minutes. Which if a "no-wind" Boston is about like a flat course that would mean a 1.5-2 minute advantage over a flat course.

I don't speak about weather.

1) The fact that Boston is considered a marathon slower than a flat marathon of about 2 minutes is something not connected with a precise fact, but with a statistic analysis of times run through the years. This doesn't depends on the course only, but on several factors, the two most important are THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RACE, and the WEATHER. Since these to factors can influence the final performance of 5-7 minutes, and are part of casuality, we cant have a statistic average on scientific basis. Because in the mind of the athletes Boston always was considered a very tough marathon, the most part of times the interpretation was very prudent during the first half, and this of course didn't allow very fast times. So, in my opinion, this year the RYAN HALL factor was determinant in changing the development of the race, and is something few times happening in the past.

At the end, in my opinion, Boston is a marathon not slower than flat marathons, if the start is fast, for athletes very strong and specifically prepared for hilly courses.

2) This year, with big difference from the past, in the race there were some athletes at the moment between the top five in the World. Too many times, in the past, there were TOP NAMES, but not really top runners at the time of the marathon. This fact could maintain at top level the fame of the marathon, but, technically speaking (same in NY), many editions were not very strong, BECAUSE ARE THE ATHLETES AT THE MOMENT RUNNING, not their old palmarèes.

With all the respect for the past, in 2011 there were in Boston 2 athletes among the top 3 at the moment. Before, never this happened, and we cant compare the times of weaker runners with the time of faster runners, for showing if the race is wind aided or is fast or is slow. One question : do you think if Samuel Wanjiru 2009 went running Boston instead London his time could be 2:07:15 only ? Or you think could be, at least, as Robert Cheruiyot last year ?

3) So, if we start from the point that Boston is a marathon fast like London (go to control how many athletes in the past were able to run their PB in Boston, for example the Italian Gelindo Bordin, winner in 1990 with 2:08:19 that never he ran before and never he repeated after, and a 2:09:27 of Gianni Poli, also his PB, in two editions without any wind), and that these athletes can run very close 2:04 (this was my evaluation about Moses Mosop, before the race Geoffrey told me he was in better shape than last year when already he ran 2:04:55, and during the race he showed really a big jump of quality under the mental point of view), we can suppose the real aid of wind was about 1:30, not more.

Of course, if everybody put as fix point that Boston is 2:00 slower than any other marathon, we can speak about 3 or more minute of help. Simply, I don't share this vision, but the final result is the same :

Normal marathon with 1:30 of aid : final times 2:04:32 - 2:04:36 - 2:06:23 - 2:06:28 (very normal)

Tough marathon, slower than the others of 2:00, with help of wind of 3:30 : same results.

That's the reason because we continue to speak about fried air.

Renato Canova wrote:

we can suppose the real aid of wind was about 1:30, not more.

Of course, if everybody put as fix point that Boston is 2:00 slower than any other marathon, we can speak about 3 or more minute of help. Simply, I don't share this vision, but the final result is the same :

Normal marathon with 1:30 of aid : final times 2:04:32 - 2:04:36 - 2:06:23 - 2:06:28 (very normal)

Tough marathon, slower than the others of 2:00, with help of wind of 3:30 : same results.

That's the reason because we continue to speak about fried air.

I'm completely in your camp on this one - at least where you are now - in prior posts I thought you were saying nearly none or 40 seconds aid which seemed too low. I think Boston is every bit as fast as a fast course on a still day - those still days just don't come along all that often.

Comparing the sub-elites top 60 (since the elite field may have been both inferior or tactical but top 60 sub elites should stay reasonably constant) to a couple of reasonably still Marathon days (2010, 2008) shows about a 3 second/mile difference which supports the 1:30 of aid.

I have silently read through all of the posters.

Some very interesting stuff.

I was there at the finish line and the following is my opinion:

The stars were lined up.

It was a perfect day. the best I have ever seen and I have been working international road races (including the WC & OG) for over 30 years.

It will be a day that the running community will be talking about for decades.

Men's and women's races ....some of the best ever!

The winners ran that fast because that's how fast they needed to run to beat their competitors.

Is it a record? Of course not. Rules are rules. Are they perfect...no. But they work. Can the rules be improved...always. Look, it took over 10 years just for the evolution and acceptence of the measuring protocol Many of us in the sport have fought long and hard to get the IAAF to accept road records and we did over a decade ago.

Please stop trying to analyze the performances. You are dealing with humans running on the roads influenced by a variety of atmospheric conditions (+ many other factors). They are not rats in a wind tunnel.

Boston, New York, London, Chicago, Berlin & others - thank you for your dedication to taking our sport to the world stage.

I love this sport!

David Katz

Member IAAF Technical Committee

IAAF International Road Race Official

Road Course Measurer - 2012 London Olympic Games

Renato Canova wrote:

Simply, I don't believe a marathon with a drop of 139m can be 2:00 slower than a flat marathon

Yeah I don't either.

The simple fact is that Boston has a 457 foot elevation drop, and is a VERY FAST course to run, all things being considered.

Now, with a strong tailwind, it becomes a 457 foot downhill course that is ALSO wind aided.

[quote]David Katz wrote:

You are dealing with humans.... They are not rats in a wind tunnel.

Brilliant David!