2011 BOSTON MARATHON: no asterisk and not winded, marks should count

I ran the race today and I noticed a headwind of about 20mph for a large part of the race. I think I could've ran a lot faster than 5:25 without it.

SOMEONE actually GETS IT! Take away the usual crap weather and Boston is a FAST course.

Numb nutz wrote:

I'm not convinced there was a consistent 20 mph tail wind. I am convinced that there was no rain, no freezing temperatures, no unseasonable heat and no consistent headwind. How often does that happen at Boston? Maybe the wind helped, it certainly didn't hurt. The rest of the picture needs to be taken into account.

Anyone who says that they didn't really notice the tailwind (and therefore it did not exist) hasn't run much in their life.

To those of us that have, you learn that you seldom do feel tailwinds. This is very apparent on out and back runs where at the turnaround you face a steady headwind and think "where did that come from?"

hall ran the same as last year

he ll 211 the olympics

THE REASON ITS NOT A WORLD RECORD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WIND!

wilfredo wrote:

Not sure whether these guys plan to keep these times as their PRs.

Why the heck wouldn't they? This is supposed to be a hard course anyway. Why don't all sports hold themselves to running standards from now on? NFL rushing records don't count unless the weather meets a specific perfect standard, etc.

regardless hall ran great 4th in that field is superb.

you will see more sub 2:05's from a few of the runners in this race in future marathons.

why not wrote:

wilfredo wrote:

Not sure whether these guys plan to keep these times as their PRs.

Why the heck wouldn't they? This is supposed to be a hard course anyway. Why don't all sports hold themselves to running standards from now on? NFL rushing records don't count unless the weather meets a specific perfect standard, etc.

If they play on a sloped field, I'm sure that would be taken into account.

If they had a baseball field where the wall was 200 feet from home plate don't you think that would be relevant for home run statistics?

llllll wrote:

This is right.Also as in cross country races if everyone is 2-4 min faster then the course or somthing helped.The same can be said if everyone was 2-3 min slower.Lets see how they would have done with the wind the other way.Still props for all who ran well a 2nd place is a 2nd place no matter what.

You're not going to notice a tail wind that's going around as fast as you are because the wind is not blowing by you. So you can have a tailwind of like 12 mph and not even notice! The hard winds you feel are 20+ mph.

malmo wrote:If Cheruiyot had a 20mph tailwind last year no doubt he have run in the 2:02s.

the letter why wrote:

Do you know how I know that the course was wind-aided?

2:03 X 2

So, In 2003 it was Tergat and Korir both running the two world's fastest times in the same race. This is not unusual.

competition wrote: the win, not the time, in most years. This year they finally seemed to race for the time and I think that's what contributed to the fast race.

You aren't much of a historian are you? It's the other way around. Everyone gets a huge boost from the first 3-4 miles of downhill, then it's flat to the drop at Newton Lower Falls. It's always a death march for the 2nd half, the slowest portion during the final 6 miles of downhill.

I SHOUT LOUDLY!! wrote:

THE REASON ITS NOT A WORLD RECORD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WIND!

Even then the excuse of the course being downhill is so lame. Boston marathon has been run 115 times or 115 years. Did they just realize it is downhill and therefore ineligible for world record purposes? How about they develop a conversion method just like they do altitude times on the track? The great time is not because of the Kenyan phenomenon. Before last year the course record stood at 2:07, and whoever held it(Robert "Mwafrika" Cheruiyot) is not a slodge. Something should be done to make 2011 times valid.

How many times has the world record been set at Berlin? (4) It's one of the world's fastest courses.

Boston? Wasn't last year's 2:05:50 a two minute course record on a course that has been run for years...?

As we saw today, Boston can be fast... in certain conditions. This is precisely why point to point courses are not allowed for record purposes.

...oh come now, Mosop no doubt meant he and the rest were running uphill AND into the wind as well! (Yes, drippin' in sarcasm!)

Hey, did GB's Ron Hill run a 2:09 solo into a headwind 'back in the day' in a pair of paper thin racing shoes??? Just checking!

Makaveli wrote:Something should be done to make 2011 times valid.

Why? Boston's course has historical cache that other course don't, and might not ever have. You win at Boston, it means something. If you finish 5th or 10th it still means something, because everyone knows what Boston is about.

If they changed the course to a flat loop course to be certified, lets say up and down the Charles River, it would become just another marathon.

Hopkinton to Boston. 26.2 miles. a classic sporting event.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the tailwind wasn't beneficial, rather, the extent to which it aided the competitors.

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't know why people who didn't race are so adamant about their conclusions and I also don't know why those who ran are reluctant to acknowledge the factors that contributed to the unusually fast times today. It doesn't diminish the accomplishment, but it helps keep the results in perspective, that's all.

Here are the things that impressed me most today, perhaps moreso than the fantastic times:

- Negative or very close positive splits on aggressive pacing

- Impressive and long sustained surges

- The relative distances between competitors (i.e., that Hall was only seconds behind Gebremariam and over a minute in front of Cherkos, which I think is the most optimistic indicator of his fitness; that Mutai and Mosop were almost two minutes in front... etc)

- Fearless leading

No matter what your opinion about the wind is today, I find those four things hard to argue with. They certainly made today's race exciting!

Finally something we can agree about today! Today's event will only add to the lore: DeMar, The Kelleys, Billy tying his shoe to an AR, Rosie Ruiz, The "Duel In The Sun", The throngs under 2:20, the Kenyan Invasion, and now the "Breath of God" LOL

malmo wrote:

Makaveli wrote:Something should be done to make 2011 times valid.

Why? Boston's course has historical cache that other course don't, and might not ever have. You win at Boston, it means something. If you finish 5th or 10th it still means something, because everyone knows what Boston is about.

If they changed the course to a flat loop course to be certified, lets say up and down the Charles River, it would become just another marathon.

Hopkinton to Boston. 26.2 miles. a classic sporting event.

malmo wrote:

Makaveli wrote:Something should be done to make 2011 times valid.

Why? Boston's course has historical cache that other course don't, and might not ever have. You win at Boston, it means something. If you finish 5th or 10th it still means something, because everyone knows what Boston is about.

If they changed the course to a flat loop course to be certified, lets say up and down the Charles River, it would become just another marathon.

Hopkinton to Boston. 26.2 miles. a classic sporting event.

I second this! Certainly watching/observing Boston since the mid-1960s gives it a history that just is not the same as setting out a time-trial through the streets of Rotterdam or Berlin with a phalanx of pacers.

Running 105 400s at 70 seconds is impressive any way you look at it. Yes, the wind was a factor. I think that it was a double factor. First, it made the race faster. Second, Boston is typically more of a race and less of a time-trial (ditto NYC). This year, however, people knew that they might also get great times and they went for it. Finally, last year's race indicated that maybe if you ran all-out in a controlled fashion (don't kill yourself on that early downhill) you could run a good time under good conditions. (Also, the moved the start up to 10 from noon.)