They also say this "Let's repeat that this question is unanswerable."
They also say this "Let's repeat that this question is unanswerable."
Actually, it is the lack of wind resistance, which not lack of a relative headwind.
Derderian wrote:
Yes, it is chickens and eggs: do you get the runners, then the money to pay them or the reverse? But Davila's performance that came from the Hansons club system did serve notice to Kenya.
In the old amateur days the Greater Boston Track Club was better than countries, but that can't be repeated without professional organization.
Where might the next and the next professional clubs come from?
Tom
-OTC elite
-Hansons
-Adidas Boulder Running Co
-McMillanElite
-In the Arena
What if we're looking at this wrong? What if...after all this time..Boston isn't the slow course it was set out to be. What if the type of runner who ran this race 10, even 5 years ago was a completely different type from those of today? What if you could develop a runner. Capable of only slowing down 10-15 seconds on an uphill stretch but gaining 20 seconds on the downhill stretch? What if all we have known about uphill and downhill running...Is completely wrong? Imagine a world of imagination, of defying physics, and breaking what all thought possible.
This.....is the Running Zone.
In all honesty, what I have mentioned above actually might be true. I know for me, a course like Boston is faster than a flat course. I am an unbelievable downhill runner, the best relative to my speed of anyone i've known ever besides my father. Gotta love my downhill genetics. I was a pretty good uphill runner too and maybe not the fastest on the flat ground for my speed. What if Mutai, Mosop, Gebremariam, and Hall(training specifically for hills and Boston) have developed into this type of runner.
What if the wind really did only help by 90 seconds, but this type of runner has evolved. Maybe the slow pace has been because of fear of going out fast and not the right type of runner running Boston, not because it truly is a slower course(for this type of runner) So, when Robert K. Cheriyout ran sub-2:06 last year, and the runners this year knew running fast on Boston and not holding back, they just want for it. just laying it out on the table. Maybe the age of hill running has begun.
OKK wrote:So, when Robert K. Cheriyout ran sub-2:06 last year, and the runners this year knew running fast on Boston and not holding back,.
When Cheriyout ran 2:05:40 last year he had an strong wind from the NW, which is off the right quarter.
This year's race produced the 'perfect' storm. A map of Bostons course with the wind diretion marked-up on it.
malmo wrote:
When Cheriyout ran 2:05:40 last year he had an strong wind from the NW, which is off the right quarter.
Left quarter.
I've also considered your last thought here. Cheriyout broke a barrier last year and I think possibly that was part of the equation (along with the lack of headwind of course) ;)
OKK wrote:
So, when Robert K. Cheriyout ran sub-2:06 last year, and the runners this year knew running fast on Boston and not holding back, they just want for it. just laying it out on the table. Maybe the age of hill running has begun.
malmo wrote:
The article goes on to cite two scientific sources who put the benefit at 3:36 and 3:48. Then goes on to provide a statistical analysis that shows Boston to be 3:03 to 3:27 slower than London and Berlin. Now you have a race that is 3-3:30 slower than London and Berlin and now it's suddenly a minute or two faster? The wind? Nahhhh, couldn't be. That's too obvious. Musta been a superhuman effort.
Malmo, although I have agreed completely with your stance on this issue, it is interesting that if one were to accept the 3:48 benefit and then that Boston is 3:03 slower than London and Berlin (meaning one accepts the figures least generous to Mutai and Mosop), then one would have a net benefit of 45 seconds compared to London and Berlin and they both would then still be under Geb's world record, with 2:03:47 and 2:03:51, respectively. Now I will add that I am not asserting this to be the case, but just making an observation based on the numbers from the article. I think we can all agree those men ran incredibly well, and those of us who can think can agree that the wind yesterday allowed them to run much faster than normal.
The Truth Seeker wrote:
If there was no wind it would have been the same as what happened yesterday. The lack of headwind was the factor here not the tailwind. On the ground level there was no more than 10 mph wind (not 20 - 30 that is crazy if you saw any footage or where there). If you are running faster than the wind then it doesn't give you an advantage - it is like running on a windless day. Malmo is just jaded and jealous.
I'm jaded and jealous because mother nature gave runners a gift? You don't make any sense.
The Truth Seeker wrote:If you are running faster than the wind then it doesn't give you an advantage - it is like running on a windless day. Malmo is just jaded and jealous.While I'll offer no opinion on your second claim, I declare the first to be utter nonsense. You don't understand anything about fluid dynamics, or basic physics even, if you believe this to be the case. If the wind is at your back, regardless of its velocity in comparison with your running speed, it provides a net benefit, when compared to running in perfectly still conditions.
Pete is on the mark about this. Others have said "the wind gust in my face" or it came sideways once" or "you don't get benefit unless your at the back off the back".
Running with the wind is just like swimming downstream. The wind is an amorphous parcel flowing in one direction. Just like a river, it too has eddies and vortices, and yes, you;ll feel gusts and swirls coming form many directions at times,but you are still swimming downstream with that wind. Being in a group doesn't block that parcel of air that is surrounding it and moving inexorably forward from the southwest to Boston. All runners in the pack are being pushed by it whether you want to believe it or not.
So would wearing a sail like piece of clothing be cheating? ;)
I wanted to see a runner unfurl a spinnaker and jump on a skateboard!
chet wrote:
Malmo, although I have agreed completely with your stance on this issue, it is interesting that if one were to accept the 3:48 benefit and then that Boston is 3:03 slower than London and Berlin (meaning one accepts the figures least generous to Mutai and Mosop), then one would have a net benefit of 45 seconds compared to London and Berlin and they both would then still be under Geb's world record, with 2:03:47 and 2:03:51, respectively. Now I will add that I am not asserting this to be the case, but just making an observation based on the numbers from the article. I think we can all agree those men ran incredibly well, and those of us who can think can agree that the wind yesterday allowed them to run much faster than normal.
First of all you are trying to combine three separate analysis together into a blender to create a milkshake. Just acept each for what they are worth.
If you actually read the third historical analysis of those marathon courses you should realize that when a statistical mean is used you can be certain that Berlin and London winning times will be stacked up in a leptokurtic distribution, while the Boston times will have a flatter distribution. Not only flatter but I'll bet that the curve is skewed to the right. So when a runner hits 2:06 at Boston their variance from the mean is already large, which means that it's doubtful that they'd run anywhere near 3 minutes faster on the flat courses, perhaps only a minute. While the runners who hit right at the mean at Boston (2:09) are likely to be the ones to have that 3 minute benefit due to the flatter course.
Does that make sense to you?
You should expand the sampling- The wind was constantly from the West all day, the SW readings were anamolous:
Norwood EL 43:
18 12:53 W 17 G 23 10.00 Fair CLR 58 23 29.94 1013.8
18 11:53 W 17 G 22 10.00 Fair CLR 55 22 29.94 1013.7
18 10:53 W 13 G 24 10.00 Fair CLR 52 23 29.95 1014.3
18 09:53 W 20 G 28 10.00 Fair CLR 49 23 29.95 1014.1
Worcester EL 995:
18 12:54 W 16 G 31 10.00 Fair CLR 51 22 29.93 1014.0
18 11:54 W 15 G 30 10.00 Fair CLR 48 22 29.93 1013.9
18 10:54 W 15 G 26 10.00 Fair CLR 45 22 29.93 1014.1
18 09:54 W 20 G 28 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW049 43 23 29.93 1013.9
Bedford EL 125:
18 12:56 W 16 G 22 10.00 Fair CLR 56 25 29.93 1014.9
18 11:56 SW 9 G 20 10.00 Fair CLR 52 25 29.93 1014.7
18 10:56 SW 17 G 26 10.00 Fair CLR 50 25 29.94 1015.1
18 09:56 W 14 G 25 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT055 48 26 29.93 1014.8
Tom, 1983 would have been a great year to run Boston.
1. G. Meyer, MA 2:09:00
2. R. Tabb, OR 2:09:31
3. B. Durden, GA 2:09:57
4. E. Mendoza, AZ 2:10:06
5. C. Bunyan, IL 2:10:54
6. D. Edge, Canada 2:11:03
7. M. Layman, WA 2:11:24
8. D. Schlesinger, MA 2:11:36
9. J. Wells, OR 2:11:42
10. B. Rodgers, MA 2:11:58
11. D. Hinz, MI 2:12:05
13. D. MacDonald, CA 2:12:49
14. B. Coates, PA 2:13:02
15. D. Gordon, OR 2:13:11
16. H. Schulz, CA 2:13:37
17. D. Rinde, CA 2:13:48
18. R. Sayre, OR 2:13:49
19. G. Vega, NY 2:14:01
20. K. McCarey, CA 2:14:09
21. T. Fleming, NJ 2:14:14
22. C. Law, NC 2:14:21
23. D. Matthews, GA 2:14:46
24. T. Shibutani, Japan 2:15:12
25. D. Patterson, PA 2:15:20
26. J. Dimick, VT 2:15:23
27. B. Allen, CO 2:15:36
28. E. Castellanou, Venezuela 2:15:40
29. L. Barthlow, MA 2:15:43
30. M. Mesler, MI 2:15:44
31. M. Pinocci, CA 2:15:50
32. P. Cummings, UT 2:16:05
33. J. Hope, CA 2:16:10
34. J. Anderson, OR 2:16:19
35. R. Serna, CA 2:16:26
36. J. Thomas, MA 2:16:28
37. F. Stonecipher, MO 2:16:35
38. A. Azocar, Venezuela 2:16:38
39. S. Molnar, PA 2:16:41
40. M. Patterson, PA 2:16:45
41. B. Hensley, CT 2:16:50
42. J. Metcalf, OK 2:17:02
43. R. Hagemann, TX 2:17:05
44. F. Torneden, KS 2:17:08
45. A. Cendejas, CA 2:17:15
46. P. Friedman, NY 2:17:17
47. D. Ryberg, NC 2:17:18
48. G. Fanelli, PA 2:17:29
49. A. Treffinger, PA 2:17:30
50. R. Fritzke, CA 2:17:31
...
56. G. Tuttle, CA 2:17:40
...
77. T. Maxwell, CA 2:19:13
...
83. T. Ratcliffe, MA 2:19:51
bfd - you took stats 101
malmo wrote:
chet wrote:Malmo, although I have agreed completely with your stance on this issue, it is interesting that if one were to accept the 3:48 benefit and then that Boston is 3:03 slower than London and Berlin (meaning one accepts the figures least generous to Mutai and Mosop), then one would have a net benefit of 45 seconds compared to London and Berlin and they both would then still be under Geb's world record, with 2:03:47 and 2:03:51, respectively. Now I will add that I am not asserting this to be the case, but just making an observation based on the numbers from the article. I think we can all agree those men ran incredibly well, and those of us who can think can agree that the wind yesterday allowed them to run much faster than normal.
First of all you are trying to combine three separate analysis together into a blender to create a milkshake. Just acept each for what they are worth.
Image:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1vaQhpRRP-k/TayvlJInITI/AAAAAAAACBg/v5oXJzmZBI8/s400/Screen+shot+2011-04-18+at+11.35.01+PM.pngIf you actually read the third historical analysis of those marathon courses you should realize that when a statistical mean is used you can be certain that Berlin and London winning times will be stacked up in a leptokurtic distribution, while the Boston times will have a flatter distribution. Not only flatter but I'll bet that the curve is skewed to the right. So when a runner hits 2:06 at Boston their variance from the mean is already large, which means that it's doubtful that they'd run anywhere near 3 minutes faster on the flat courses, perhaps only a minute. While the runners who hit right at the mean at Boston (2:09) are likely to be the ones to have that 3 minute benefit due to the flatter course.
Does that make sense to you?
It is silly to compare times from Boston to other races and NYC to other races, because they don't have rabbits that will maintain an even pace for the first half or first 30k. So doing things like looking at top ten averages is pretty meaningless.
malmo wrote:
The article goes on to cite two scientific sources who put the benefit at 3:36 and 3:48. Then goes on to provide a statistical analysis that shows Boston to be 3:03 to 3:27 slower than London and Berlin. Now you have a race that is 3-3:30 slower than London and Berlin and now it's suddenly a minute or two faster? The wind? Nahhhh, couldn't be. That's too obvious. Musta been a superhuman effort.
In other words, the numbers are OK to utilize to serve your argument (which I generally agree with), but when I point out that those same numbers would potentially lead to an interesting conclusion that you don't necessarily subscribe to, you eschew them as being misleading...
I don't say that they are misleading stats, becasue it "serves my argument" I simply speculated what the distribution of performances would be like on each of those courses and you simply cannot subtract the differences in the mean performances to establish a time bias difference.
You are following me aren't you?
