Duel in the Sun video clip 1982 Boston marathon : Beardsley v Salazar

Uncle Pervy wrote:I said, well over 60 and I believe over 80.

The big question... why do you care?

I care about the facts. 70 isn't 80. The real question: why does it bother you to be presented with the facts?

The story of the "Duel in the Sun" gets bigger and hotter with every passing year. The meteorological record of the day remains the same every year. It was a great race, mano-a-mano the whole way. There's no need to embellish on what was an already legendary race.

70s guy wrote:

I've run against both guys (beat them both, 1 time when they had bad races), and talked to both guys. I can tell you this. Dick was one of the nicest, most humble guys I ever met; a real pleasure to have known back in the early 80s. Alberto was a egotistical, pompus jackass. (I cut him some slack, figuring it might be that 'east coast-Boston area style edge' in his personality).

Alberto was a ferocious competitor who worked as hard or harder than most athletes of any generation. That demeanor and ethic gave him great confidence. "Pompous and egotistical" are words usually used to describe people who don't live up to the standards they believe they have achieved. Also, Al could never be described as someone who had a "east coast-Boston area style edge" either. However, I can understand how he could be misunderstood. Most confident people are.

Uncle Pervy wrote:

22.84 miles actually... again, if you're going to nitpick.

It's actually less than 15 miles.

malmo, as a trained (fellow) biologist, I would think that you can agree with my analysis of why the combination of direct sun and a tailwind would lead people to recall the PERCEIVED temperature as being considerably higher than 70 (which is in itself at least 10 degeres above optimal, especially in unacclimated runners,as most presumably were on the day)?

So:

-direct sun with high reflectivity from pavement

-tailing wind

-lack of any heat acclimitization in athletes

adds up to:

"Scorcher"!

Suffice it to say, it was warmer than desirable for a marathon and the race was the beginning of the end for both runners.

sartorial cowboy wrote:

malmo, as a trained (fellow) biologist, I would think that you can agree with my analysis of why the combination of direct sun and a tailwind would lead people to recall the PERCEIVED temperature as being considerably higher than 70 (which is in itself at least 10 degeres above optimal, especially in unacclimated runners,as most presumably were on the day)?

Yes, and I've said so many times over the years on this message board. Even 60 degrees directly overhead takes it's toll, which is why New York and Boston marathons can be problematic. That's not my point here. The point is that it was a very chilly and blustery morning, not as "hot" as some here claim it to be. Do you get dried sweat caked to your face? Sure do. The same thing happens when it's 45 degrees and dry. Marathoning is an energy and heat dissipation problem. Heat dissipation counts most in the last 45 minutes of the race, which is why on a seemingly nice day, runners crash due to the direct overhead sun even though the ambient recorded temperature (always in the shade) is low.

My recollection of the day just happens to precisely match the historical recorded weather record.

Another thread.

Uncle Pervy wrote:

22.84 miles actually... again, if you're going to nitpick.

Google Maps wrote:

It's actually less than 15 miles.

Correct. My point of citing Worcester's temps wasn't to say that Worcester and Hopkinton were next to each other. My point was to provide the recorded temperatures of weather stations around the Boston Marathon course on April 19, 1982.

malmo wrote:

Uncle Pervy wrote:

Growing up in Eastern Mass I spent every Patriots Day watching that race. It was well hotter than the 60's and I believe over 80 by mid-day.

80? are you sure it wasn't 90? The other guy from Florida was "getting a suntan" at the start.

The record from weather stations all around the Hopkinton to Boston trek.

Image:

http://i29.tinypic.com/2rghmiq.jpg

Image:

http://i28.tinypic.com/zv9d7o.jpg

Image:

http://i26.tinypic.com/16knqmh.jpg

Image:

http://i30.tinypic.com/2a5193d.jpg

and from Worcester, close to the starting point in Hopkinton

Image:

http://i32.tinypic.com/2rfya3c.jpg

Malmo, you have some nerve. Who do you think you are coming into this thread throwing facts around? The truth does not need to be confused with fiction/fantasy. Give it a rest will ya?

Looking at the actual temperature records for the day (assuming they weren't falsified) it would appear to be the same conditions as 2005 (also a noon start). I ran that one and while it was warmer than ideal it wasn't anywhere near how it's described in the book "Duel in the Sun" or any of the various other stories mentioning melting asphalt and what not. Hell, my '05 Boston time is still my PR. Based on this I would have been very comfortable in the 82 race, if it weren't for the fact that I was 9 years old.

I'm not bothered by the facts... I said all along in this thread I "believed" that it was at least 70 (which you've show it was) to 80.

We had a blizzard the week before so I'll certainly concede that 30 degree temp swing sure felt like 70-80 only if it was 60-70.

You are right... it was a legendary race, which is why I guess we both remember what we were wearing that day.

So... was missing this part of the reason you were toeing the line in NYC 6 months later?

Google Maps wrote:

Uncle Pervy wrote:

22.84 miles actually... again, if you're going to nitpick.

It's actually less than 15 miles.

22.84 according to map quest.

Damn guys, who cares what the exact temperature was. It's just such a thrill to watch the end of that race. Just wondering - did Beardsley lead from 18ish to 25, or did the two of them switch places occasionally? Questions of drafting and race etiquette are on my mind.

I still can't believe the motorcade that was surrouding the runners during the race. If it was warm and I'm running at my max, the last thing I want to worry about is ten motorcycles and a couple press trucks swerving all around. That was totally unneccesary.

Uncle Pervy wrote:

22.84 according to map quest.

If you drive 8 miles out of the way it is.

Worcester to Hopkinton is less than 14 miles, I'd guess. Why do you persist?

Uncle Pervy wrote:

So... was missing this part of the reason you were toeing the line in NYC 6 months later?

Why would I miss that race, I wasn't a marathoner?

marunner wrote:

Damn guys, who cares what the exact temperature was. It's just such a thrill to watch the end of that race. Just wondering - did Beardsley lead from 18ish to 25, or did the two of them switch places occasionally? Questions of drafting and race etiquette are on my mind.

There was no drafting. Dickie had Alberto against the ropes for most of the race, Alberto being as much as 5 meters behind. That's what made his rebound all the more impressive.

No drafting, the wind was at their backs. It was probably more a case of AlSal just staring at Dick's back, trying to hang on until his speed could give him the edge. We've all been there (those of us with a little speed and a little less strength and endurance, anyway).

And to echo 70s Guy, Dick Beardsley is one of the all-time nice guys in running. Now that we're both old farts, I 'pipped' him at the line a few years ago and he laughed and shook my hand.

malmo wrote:

The point is that it was a very chilly and blustery morning, not as "hot" as some here claim it to be.

1. The BAA Boston Marathon doesn't start in the morning.

2. A tailwind can make you overheat very quickly, especially combined with direct sun.

3. However, it was not a "very hot" day. It was warm and difficult to race a marathon - especially one that's not pancake flat like Chicago.

not that it matters... wrote:

1. The BAA Boston Marathon doesn't start in the morning..

Ya think? And neither was it hot at noon.