I think you should race with the conditions that you have and try to win the race.
Although, they should have the temperature factored in to give the elites a chance to set a course record based on a temperature scale to still be able to win the extra money.
Adam,
What was your previous best time? Just trying to see why you thought that 2:17 was realistic. I am sorry about your trip to the hospital but I have a strong feeling that you were simply in over your head and the weather was not ideal. I happen to agree with Coach Hanson.
adamJ2 is right, on the men's side there were ZERO new trials qualifiers (all the guys under 2:19:00 have already qualified). In the past there are usually quite a few....to say that 70+ weather is not going to negatively influence your finishing time is just crazy. A lot of the elites/semi-elites came to chicago to run fast times on a flat course that usually has ideal weather (ie 50). This year there happened to be a "warm spell" that was significantly above the average temperature- it was unusual and part of the game - but no arguing with the facts that it slowed the potential finishing times of the runners...
Now 3 out of the last 4 years it's been hot.
be realistic wrote:
Adam,
What was your previous best time? Just trying to see why you thought that 2:17 was realistic. I am sorry about your trip to the hospital but I have a strong feeling that you were simply in over your head and the weather was not ideal. I happen to agree with Coach Hanson.
Did you happen to run on Sunday, or is this your expert opinion from the sideline?
Global Warming (aka the Greenhouse effect for you reTards!) is real! Everyone go out and buy a Toyota Prius! (or Leaf)
????????? wrote:
Did you happen to run on Sunday, or is this your expert opinion from the sideline?
Thanks. You answered the question for me. Another 2:25 guy that thinks 2:19 is just around the corner.
Al Gore loves this.
be realistic wrote:
????????? wrote:Did you happen to run on Sunday, or is this your expert opinion from the sideline?
Thanks. You answered the question for me. Another 2:25 guy that thinks 2:19 is just around the corner.
And thank you, you answered my question, you didn't run.
And that says it all. Now hold your anger and wait for Malmo to post so you can kiss his ass and agree with whatever he says.
I am with Kevin Hanson on this issue.
You guys should try racing a 10km in BANGKOK sometime....just a 10km!
OTC Biwott DNF
Mammoth Brian Ball DNF
Mcmillan Carney and Bizuneh DNF Nick A runs his slowest marathon ever
Indiana Elite Haas DNF
It was hotter than hell for me. Although I finished, I wish I wouldn't have. I will ask the obvious question. What did the Hanson runners do different than the rest of us? Was it preparation or fueling or what?
I have run a 2:19 (2 years ago though). But PR'ed is other events this spring so it was logical to try and PR Sunday because my build up was very good. My case is a little worse because I train in a mild climate and early morning before work. It's been 55-60 when I do my workouts.
Again, I want to make it clear I am not BlAMMING the weather for anything, it was just a negative factor. I am starting to think it this will turn into a normal letsrun.com crap thread though when people start asking for training logs and PRs. Which is too bad because it was an experience Sunday and I think there are 50 guys in my position that have some interesting/bad/funny stories as the weather did a little sneaking up on athletes.
Some of the Hansons did great, some did not.
OrvilleAtkins wrote:
Marathons in the 1960s were often run on very hilly courses, in the summer noontime heat. There was often no water and gels and aides had not been invented yet. I trained in the noonday heat in a sweat suit. Boston supplied no splits except for the lead group. My first marathon was run in a temperature of 92 degrees with very high humidity. My log shows a temperature of 95 degrees for the August 1970 Santa Barbara Marathon. (I DNFed.)
Marathons seem to have evolved into time trials. Oh yes, there were seldom runners taking over 3 and a half to 4 hours.
Reminded me of this Monty Python classic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyocrashed and burned wrote:
I will ask the obvious question. What did the Hanson runners do different than the rest of us? Was it preparation or fueling or what?
BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO BINGO
Finally someone trying to learn something instead of just bitching and complaining. The problem is that Malmo or Kevin have probably tuned out the whining a long time ago. This question should have been asked right after Kevin Hanson posted. 4 athletes running faster than ever before on a rough day is not a coincidence.
I actually ran and coached athletes on the course. Guys from my team finished in 2:25 (debut), 2:27 (debut), 2:28 (PR), 2:31 (PR), 2:36 (PR), 2:38, 2:39, 2:40 (PR, me).
To say it was not ideal is definitely spot on. Could one run well? Yes, absolutely... I think just about everyone on my team did. Could it have been a better temperature for running 26.2 miles? Yes, absolutely... I think everyone on my team would have benefited if temps were in the 50s. To say otherwise is just plain silly.
Malmo, I don't care what the weather service says, in the sun, exposed, on that main stretch between 18 and 26, it was HOT. Not 70. More like 80+ on the street and in the sun.
I stayed very well hydrated. Took a Gatorade and 2 waters at nearly every station. 1 water for my head, one to drink from. This made a HUGE difference and certainly made it bearable for me. I am light (under 140 at race time, and almost 5'10") and trained at lunch time all summer in NY... so was used to the heat. But I can see how bigger guys, or guys coming from cooler climates would have had trouble.
How much of a difference did the heat make? I have no idea. I would guess for me, personally, not a ton of difference. Maybe in IDEAL conditions it was 15-20 seconds a mile from 22 on. But then again, it could have been raining, and I would say the same thing about having wet shoes. It could have been windy, and I could complain about the stiff wind.
To get ideal conditions is rare. But to say yesterday was ideal, is certainly not the case. It was as good as to be expected. But that is because you can't expect 40-50, no wind slight wind cover, etc.
adamJ2 wrote:
Malmo is wrong on the weather. It was 67 at the start and by the time Sammy W finished it was 74. No one mentioned it was a clear sunny day versus overcast, which impacts heat storage.
I am not sure what Kevin Hanson's point was with saying marathons are not to be run in a bubble and nothing is perfect. Um, cool? Thanks for your wisdom Coach, I did not know that before.
I was in trying for a 2:17-2:18 and went down and ended up in the hospital. Am I sitting here crying? No, I actually flew back home and went to work Monday. That's what happens because you cannot control the weather. It's called a race for a reason. BUT, was the weather a factor? Yes, the weather was too warm but not horrible. I doubt I would have collapsed because of dehydration otherwise. I think every guy trying to qualify is relatively tough. Most guys in my position work 40 plus hours a week while running 120 miles because we are not that good and will never get sponsored. My point in bringing that up is myself and most guys I was with did not make any excuses..........BUT you can logically acknowledge that the weather was a negative factor Sunday. I think that was the reason for the post "people don't seem to realize how bad the weather was at chicago" If it was 88 and humid than it would be obivous, as someone else said on here it was "sneaky bad" Sunday.
It even hurt the Africians. Look at the lead group of Africans. They went out in 62:30ish and other than #1 and #2 guys, the rest were running huge positive splits.
Yep. Neither Malmo or Kevin Hansen know anything about the marathon, but we expect to listen to 'adamJ2'?
Malmo was right on the weather. Kevin Hansen was right.
Official weather downtown chicago.
6:51 57.9
7:30 Start
7:51 59.0
8:51 64.9
9:36 Finish
9:51 72.0
"Look at the lead group of Africans. They went out in 62:30ish and other than #1 and #2 guys, the rest were running huge positive splits."
n00b, all marathons are like that. Lead pack goes out at 2:05/2:06 pace, everyone blows up except a few.
Kevin Hanson is spot on.
And your post is classic.
You, Kevin and Malmo didn't run the race and yet you are all telling the people that were out there that they are wrong.
I was on the sideline spectating/cheering and I thought it was a bit toasty for marathon running. Certainly not impossible to run in, but it was warm enough to slow people down.