Ritz Marathon Predictions

As I said before, London and NYC get different qualities of elite fields - comparing the two one to one is totally erroneous because London the last few years is typically a better stacked race. So comparing the differences between the first and tenth runner is automatically impairing NYC a bit, and quite unfairly. So you really should compare the 12th or 13th place guy with the tenth place guy at NYC to normalize the depths of the fields. When you do this, you get the same, or even worse spread at London. Just look at the last 4 years:

Take London '06. First was 2:06:39, tenth was 2:09:35 but 12th was 2:14!! (8min)

London '05: First was 2:07:26, tenth was 2:12:49 (this is the five minute diff that NYC has btw!!!) and then twelfth is 2:14:31. (7min)

London '04: First was 2:06:18, tenth was 2:11:30 (again five minute diff!!) and 12th was 2:12. (6min)

London '03: First was 2:07:56, tenth was 2:10:39, 12th was 2:13:34. (6min)

And even if you want to claim (and quite incorrectly) that NYC brings in as a deep a field as London, two of the last four races at London had the tenth man five minutes behind the winner, which is what you were saying is only unique to NYC. Again an error on your part.

People blow up in marathon races, no one denies it. But saying that NYC is significantly worse than other marathons is a huge stretch and manipulation of statistics.

I think a better way of making predictions is place. It can easily be in the 60's and humid at race time. If he finishes in the top 5 under any conditions it is a success, if he runs under 2:10 under perfect conditions it is a success.

We all need to take a step back and realize he is barely 24 years old and this is his first marathon. He may make some mistakes in training or the race itself, we all do. He will learn from them and judging from this weekends race he should have some success in the future, just be patient.

ritzenfan wrote:

...We all need to take a step back and realize he is barely 24 years old...

He is 23 years 9 months old.

Malmo--we are still waiting for the NYC historical weather conditions post!!

I was quick to propose 2:09:30's for Ritzenhein, and he will run that and faster eventually if not at NY, but maybe I was a bit quick. This will be his first marathon- I don't know smoothly anyone's first marathon ever goes. Canova believes that it takes 6-7 years to become a very good marathoner(i believe because of how you have to train your metabolism to work differently), but in 6 years, at the 2012 olympics, Ritz will be almost 30 and if he keeps training for the marathon with some track racing sprinkled in intermittenly, I believe he can be very good. I don't think Ritz will run any slower than 2:12:00 for the NYC Marathon.

Chemistry man wrote:

Malmo--we are still waiting for the NYC historical weather conditions post!!

Chemistry man, it may be later tonight where you live, I don't think its later tonight where Malmo lives yet.

Mea culpa. I saw Malmo's first two posts were from October 1 and and jumped, wrongly, to the conclusion that so was his third. I should say though that the request was partially in jest, because he has provided so many useful details, in this thread and so many others.

Bored and gored wrote:

Chemistry man wrote:

Malmo--we are still waiting for the NYC historical weather conditions post!!

Chemistry man, it may be later tonight where you live, I don't think its later tonight where Malmo lives yet.

danzig/mother wrote:

And even if you want to claim (and quite incorrectly) that NYC brings in as a deep a field as London, two of the last four races at London had the tenth man five minutes behind the winner, which is what you were saying is only unique to NYC. Again an error on your part.

When I spoke of "blow-ups" my intention was to describe the condition of each and every runner in the lead pack. I posted the 10th place times to provide more info, not for it to be definitive. But since you've latched onto the thenth place times for some reason I'll run some calculations on the differentials for 8 marathons of each London and New York. They are:

London

2006 2:54

2005 5:23

2004 5:11

2003 2:44

2002 6:12

2000 4:18

1999 3:16

1997 3:31

Avg 4:11

(please note, I did not deliberatly skip 2001 and 1998, i just don't have the results available to me. I'd gladly recalculate if those results are provided)

New York

2005 3:51

2004 5:23

2003 4:40

2002 5:25

2001 6:38

2000 6:53

1999 4:10

1998 4:07

Avg 5:08

So yes, using YOUR metric, the NYC marathon does have a wider margin on average from 1st to 10th -- by 57 seconds.

But that wasn't my point.

My point was that the lead pack at New York results in death marches to a degree that aren't seen in other major marathons. The way to determine that would be to take the halfway splits and compare them to the second half splits. That information is not available (that I know of) for London. It is available for New York. Here is what I came up with:

Year pack Avg-10th (avg blow up of the pack, blowup of the 10th place finisher and winner) None of the lead pack numbers include those who DNF

NYC

2005 13+ 3:08 4:25 (-0:24)

2004 13+ 4:57 6:13 0:54

2003 23+ 5:17 3:46 (-0:50)

2002 14+ 5:05 5:36 0:29

2001 11+ 5:03 5:41 (-0:01)

2000 15+ 10:18 6:48 3:53*

1999 16+ 4:27 4:32 0:24

1998 half splits NA

The average blowup for the 105 lead runners (who finished) at New York from 1999 to 2005 was 5:31. If you can find similar statistics for London please provide. Thanks.

* 2000 pack was already broken up at 13.1. These are the results of the 15 runners who were clear of the rest of the field

Chemistry man wrote:

Malmo--we are still waiting for the NYC historical weather conditions post!!

Judge Smails: Well, we're waiting!

Last 7 New York Marathons

2:09:30 11-06-05 NYC 57-62 6.9 5.8 SE SSE Tergat

2:09:28 11-07-04 NYC 57-65 4.6 9.2 WSW WSW Ramaala

2:10:30 11-02-03 NYC 61-65 3.5 0.0 NE Lel

2:08:07 11-03-02 NYC 43-45 5.8 12.7 WNW Rop

2:07:43 11-04-01 NYC 53-59 3.5 4.6 W Jifar

2:10:09 11-05-00 NYC 51-50 15.0 11.5 NY NNW El Mouaziz

2:09:13 11-07-99 NYC (50-60, 66hi) Chebet

Alltime marathon lists

2:04:55 09-28-03 Ber 50 55 2.3 4.6 ENE Tergat

2:04:56 09-28-03 Ber 50 55 2.3 4.6 ENE Korir

2:05:38 04-14-02 Lon 45 50 2.3 2.3 SW Khannouchi

2:05:42 10-24-99 Chi 32 39 4.6 4.6 WNW Khannouchi

2:05:48 04-14-02 Lon 45 50 2.3 2.3 SW Tergat

2:05:50 10-12-03 Chi 50 57 9.2 10.4 W Rutto

2:05:56 10-13-02 Chi 40 43 10 14 NW Khannouchi

2:05:56 09-24-06 Ber 60 72 10 17 E SE Gebrselassie

2:06:05 09-20-98 Ber Unknown da Costa

2:06:15 09-28-03 Ber 50 55 2.3 4.6 ENE Munji

2:06:16 10-24-99 Chi 32 39 4.6 4.6 WNW Tanui

2:06:16 10-13-02 Chi 40 43 10 14 NW Njenga

2:06:16 10-13-02 Chi 40 43 10 14 NW Takaoka

2:06:16 10-10-04 Chi 50 59 4.6 15 SE Rutto

2:06:18 10-13-02 Chi 40 43 10 14 NW Tergat

2:06:18 04-18-04 Lon 46 52 12.7 5.8 S Rutto

2:06:20 10-16-05 Ams 46 53 6.9 10.4 E Gebrselassie

2:06:22 10-17-04 Ams 46 48 10.4 9.2 E Cheboror

2:06:33 02-14-99 Tok 43 44 12 5 N Thys

2:06:33 04-05-03 Par 46 50 10.4 15.0 N Rotich

2:06:35 04-14-02 Lon 45 50 2.3 2.3 SW Gebrselassie

(Time Date City StartTemp FinishTemp StartWind FinishWind WindDirection)

2:11:13

Malmo - give us a prediction.

i heard they made the course about 2 minutes faster since juma ikaanga ran his 20801, what did they change, i have not run it since 1978, so i dont know? and if the course record is 20743 and ikaanga ran a 20801 on a 2 minute slower course, with good weather, it may not be that slow a course, even though it is not as fast as berlin, london, chicago, amsterdam, rotterdam and a few others.

For the third time, I'll reiterate this - tenth man to London is not the same as tenth man on NYC because London fields are typically deeper and higher quality. Comparing tenth to tenth is akin to fudging the numbers to fit your point. Please exercise a little more caution when pumping out numbers without thinking about them first. Sheesh. And I'm totally letting go the fact that you stopped at going back ten years. Seriously malmo, did you stop when the average started fitting my point and when it fitted yours perfectly?

Malmo--as always, thanks.

Thanks Malmo always informative.

danzig/mother wrote: Sheesh. And I'm totally letting go the fact that you stopped at going back ten years. Seriously malmo, did you stop when the average started fitting my point and when it fitted yours perfectly?

No. I do not play that way. I've provided that facts that were available to me. If you can dig up more I would be all ears.

You're argueing that your premise is the proof that your premise is true. Either provide some facts (I can't do everything for you), or let some steam out of your ears. I'm listening.

All I am saying is that you are working under some very faulty assumptions saying NYC tenth and London tenth are the same. Therefore any "conclusions" you draw from averaging times from the last ten years has to be taken with a huge grain of salt. All races are not the same depth Malmo and you should know better than comparing NYC and London one to one.

doug225550 wrote:

i heard they made the course about 2 minutes faster since juma ikaanga ran his 20801, what did they change, i have not run it since 1978, so i dont know?

2 minutes faster eh? Where did you hear that from?

They changed the entry into the park. At most, it would be 5-10 seconds faster.

Maybe this will get through your head, say you are comparing two xc races. One of which is a HS crosstown dual meet and another which is the HS state meet. Naturally the dual meet will have a much larger spread in times between the first and tenth finisher than the state meet. It is very faulty reasoning if you claim that these races are equal and therefore you can compare then one to one, and THEN come up with conclusion that it has to be the breakdown factor or whatever you are calling it that is the main reason for the difference. The real reason of course is that the state meet is much deeper.

Of course this is an extreme example as both London and NYC are very good marathons but it just means that saying tenth man is as a quality a person as London's tenth year in and year out is not true at all. And you forgetting about the London "breakdown factor" - sure the race may be pancake fast BUT it often sets out at WR paces and people end up in no-mans land so it shouldn't really surprise you that it has a similar time differential than NYC when all is said and done.