i read on one of the threads the nyc marathon course was made 2 minutes faster, but having read your post's, you seem to know about this, so i will take your word for it. anyway good luck to ritz, meb gilmore and everyone else in the race.
i read on one of the threads the nyc marathon course was made 2 minutes faster, but having read your post's, you seem to know about this, so i will take your word for it. anyway good luck to ritz, meb gilmore and everyone else in the race.
danzig/mother wrote: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.
Again, you keep repeating your premise as proof that the premise is true. Circular logic doesn't do anything. Either provide facts and a cogent arguement, or don't. I'm all ears.
London is pancake flat and run in perfect conditions. New York is not, and results of topography and atmospheric conditions are reflected in the death marches.
danzig/mother wrote:
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.
GET OFF IT ALREADY! Either demonstrate with facts or not. I'm all ears.
Malmo, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and find an elite marathon more on par with NYC's field but still top notch - so I picked Berlin. Usually it's very top heavy for the top 5-7 like NYC but then the quality of the field drops off from there. This way I/you can feel good about comparing tenth place to tenth place. Below are the 1st place times and tenth place times and the difference in parentheses:
Berlin Marathon
2006 2:05:56...2:19:25 (13:29)
2005 2:07:41...2:12:07 (4:28)
2004 2:06:44...2:11:52 (5:08)
2003 2:04:55...2:10:44 (5:49)
2002 2:06:47...2:10:55 (4:08)
2001 2:08:47...2:11:40 (3:53)
1999 2:06:44...2:13:25 (6:41)
1998 2:06:05...2:12:41 (6:35)
1997 2:07:41...2:10:17 (3:36)
I can't find my TFN for the 2000 Berlin Marathon but if you really think it will make a difference then you can post on tfn.com and get the result from them. The average difference from 1997 to 2006 is: 5:58.55!!! So clearly larger than NYC.
Now I know what you are thinking, "we should throw out Berlin 2006 because that was a weaker field and it makes me look wrong." So let's do that, still the average difference for 1997-2005 which this fudging is: 5:02.25 which is very close to what you had for NYC for those years.
Anyway, my point still stands - NYC is NOT unique in its so-called blowup factor. It may be tough when it comes to the course and sometimes the heat, but it's pretty clear that other marathons experience similar slowdowns or in Berlin's case actually worse than NYC. Get it?
malmo wrote:
danzig/mother wrote: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.
GET OFF IT ALREADY! Either demonstrate with facts or not. I'm all ears.
Well I just presented the facts. But I guess you don't understand the concept of faulty reasoning. Unless you want me to produce diff's for London with twelfth place times is that it? Or you just don't buy my argument that London tenth does not equal NYC tenth?
danzig/mother wrote:
Anyway, my point still stands - NYC is NOT unique in its so-called blowup factor. It may be tough when it comes to the course and sometimes the heat, but it's pretty clear that other marathons experience similar slowdowns or in Berlin's case actually worse than NYC. Get it?
Good, you proved A POINT. At least you offered something. Thanks. You've hung onto this 10th place thing like a pitbull terrior on a bone. I provided the 10th place times "for color," but it was not my point.
Now back to the question -- how many, and what were those runners splits at halfway, and how far did they blow up? Look them up for me, I'm still all ears.
Now do you get it yet?
Just to make you happy with "facts" here are the diff's with London 1st and 12th. Again, I'm right.
London Marathon 1st...12th
2006 2:06:39...2:14:31 (7:52)
2005 2:07:26...2:14:31 (7:05)
2004 2:06:18...2:12:04 (5:46)
2003 2:07:56...2:13:34 (5:38)
2002 2:05:38...2:15:29 (9:51)
2001 2:07:11...2:13:26 (6:15)
2000 2:06:36...2:11:32 (4:56)
1999 2:07:57...2:12:11 (4:13)
1998 2:07:57...2:13:40 (5:43)
1997 2:07:55...2:12:22 (4:27)
Average over 10 races: 6:10.6
danzig/mother wrote:
Well I just presented the facts. But I guess you don't understand the concept of faulty reasoning. Unless you want me to produce diff's for London with twelfth place times is that it? Or you just don't buy my argument that London tenth does not equal NYC tenth?
ARRRRRGH. I want to know how much the runners blow up over the second half of the race. I don't really care about comparing nominal placings to each other. That's NOT been my point. If the winner at Berlin runs 2:06 and 10th is 2:10, I really don't care that the difference is 4:00. If the 10th place is with the leaders in 1:03 and runs 2:10 then he blowsup 4:00. That's what I'm talkin about! If he goes out in 1:05 and runs 2:10 then he didn't blowup, did he?
danzig/mother wrote:
Just to make you happy with "facts" here are the diff's with London 1st and 12th. Again, I'm right.
No. You're just nuts.
Malmo, with spreads as large as we are seeing in London and Berlin, do you really think me spending the time is worthwhile? It is just going to prove you are wrong again. Unless you want to start arguing that the blowup in these races is in the first 10k?
Listen, I have had several arguments here - that London is a non-unique blowup - one of the metrics YOU used is that it is larger than any marathon out there. I have shown that this is a bunch of BS - pick Berlin, pick London (with top 12) they are basically the same or worse in the marathons I pointed out. Looking at first and tenth differentials is something you came up with. I am just arguing in your terms.
Anyway, I am not going to waste my time looking for the splits for these races when 1. i have actually seen these races on tv or live and know this will go in my favor, 2. with the spreads in berlin and london as much as they are (more than nyc), it is hard for me to believe that they won't also exhibit the same trend as the last split being worse than NYC.
My question to you is this - do YOU honestly think that with the facts I have presented above that NYC has a worse last half-mara than these other marathons? Seriously, I'd like to know. Because if you say no then you are basically arguing that people slow down after 10k or 15k for this to be possible. We both know this is hardly the case.
Bottom line is throughout this post you have used totally specious reasoning, come up with unreasonable assumptions and then cherry-picked facts when it suited you. If you really think I am wrong in questioning your last-half assumption, then YOU show me the splits from Berlin and London the last 10years. The stats I presented above coupled with a little common sense make it pretty clear to me, or anyone with a little logic, that NYC's last half isn't anything different from any other major marathon. Given the bs you have presented the last few days, the burden is on you. Prove it to me, because I have been right every step of the way so far.
malmo wrote:
danzig/mother wrote:Just to make you happy with "facts" here are the diff's with London 1st and 12th. Again, I'm right.
No. You're just nuts.
oh please tell me why then. you have never said why london 12th should not be equivalent to nyc tenth. seriously, let's hear it big guy since you think you are wizz with stats. i'm really interested in seeing you explain away your faulty reasoning.
The point has never been to compare nominal time arrangements. The point was the blowups. Look you've ruined one perfectly good thread already. Stop it.
danzig/mother wrote:
Anyway, I am not going to waste my time looking for the splits for these races when 1. i have actually seen these races on tv or live and know this will go in my favor, 2. with the spreads in berlin and london as much as they are (more than nyc), it is hard for me to believe that they won't also exhibit the same trend as the last split being worse than NYC.
I don't need to prove it, I just KNOW I'm right.
Whatever dude.
Just skimming this thread you haven't presented much. You kept claiming that NYC's 10th needs to be compared to London's 12th? Why? Show us some proof that London is so much better that that needs to be the case. You can't say "it just is" and be done with it.
And really, that wasn't Malmo's point anyway. He says NYC is notorious for people in the lead pack dying during the second half...this statement would support his claim that Ritz should not go out with the lead pack. Your response? I've watched London on TV and in person plenty of times - just trust me on this one.
Right.
malmo wrote:
The point has never been to compare nominal time arrangements. The point was the blowups. Look you've ruined one perfectly good thread already. Stop it.
No you have ruined it by producing bs stats. I did the calculations for the blowups in other marathons and shown you are wrong. Unless you want to change your original argument to "people blow up in the end of marathons" which isn't exactly a very compelling point.
night watchman wrote:
danzig/mother wrote:Anyway, I am not going to waste my time looking for the splits for these races when 1. i have actually seen these races on tv or live and know this will go in my favor, 2. with the spreads in berlin and london as much as they are (more than nyc), it is hard for me to believe that they won't also exhibit the same trend as the last split being worse than NYC.
I don't need to prove it, I just KNOW I'm right.
Whatever dude.
Just skimming this thread you haven't presented much. You kept claiming that NYC's 10th needs to be compared to London's 12th? Why? Show us some proof that London is so much better that that needs to be the case. You can't say "it just is" and be done with it.
And really, that wasn't Malmo's point anyway. He says NYC is notorious for people in the lead pack dying during the second half...this statement would support his claim that Ritz should not go out with the lead pack. Your response? I've watched London on TV and in person plenty of times - just trust me on this one.
Right.
Dude I presented stats from Berlin (tenth) and London (12th) that show equal size or more blowups at the end. I can say London is by looking at the fields, would it make you happy if I printed out that startlists and Pr's for each marathon for each year? Or do you think the NYC top ten or top fifteen is just as good as London's? it really isn't. Tenth place at London will often be some former major mara champ who blew up whereas tenth place at London will be some random African who blew up. Look at the names Malmo printed out in the beginning for being in tenth.
And secondly, Malmo's originalty stats (with the half-mara split) are also WRONG. This is amazing but it's true. He works under the assumption that the tenth place guy went out with the leaders and was with them through half-way. Again you can't make this assumption because sometimes guys run in the second group and come in tenth working their way up. So if his original point was "ritz can't go out with the leaders b/c he will blow up" the stats he presented don't really back that up since he never says if that tenth place guy went out with the leaders. Again faulty reasoning on malmo's part.
Bottom line, I am not trying to hijack this thread, but malmo saying "people who go out fast in the marathon could possibly blow up" isn't exactly a mind-blowing conclusion now is it? This is true for ALL marathons. Duh. You don't even have to have run a marathon to conclude that. I am just peeved that malmo posted these stats like it is clear evidence that NYC is a special case, when in fact it really isn't. Malmo does weather stats really well, real running stats, no. Malmo please stick to historical weather stats. Thank you.
What part of "ruining a perfectly good thread" aren't you understanding?
For the tenth time, I posted the 10th place times on this post as a factoid:
"tc, you missed the point. The half splits during those years have been incredibly fast, and there has been a few warm days since 2000.
Here is a summation of the halfway splits since 1999, with the number in the lead pack who finished, the time of the winner and the time of the 10th place finisher. Figure the number in the lead pack to be much greater than the numbers shown, due to attrition."
My point, at least I thought it was clear, was to show the number and times of those in the lead pack at halfway compared to their times at the finish. The "blowup factor". I've said this many times. You keep trying to compare 10th to 10th and 10th to 12th for some reason and you insist on yammering about nothing.
Give it a rest.
2:10:38
2:24.36
that was only ONE of my arguments on how you are wrong. I am sorry if the stuff I keep yammering on about (is yammering even a word?) are directly related to your main point and disprove it. Malmo, just admit you messed up.
danzig/mother wrote:
And secondly, Malmo's originalty stats (with the half-mara split) are also WRONG. This is amazing but it's true. He works under the assumption that the tenth place guy went out with the leaders and was with them through half-way. Again you can't make this assumption because sometimes guys run in the second group and come in tenth working their way up..
WRONG.
I am not assuming anything. The half marathon splits are coming from the historical data on the New York Marathon website, copied to Excel and sorted however I need. An example:
PAUL TERGAT M36 3 NIKE Kenya 1 1 1 2:09:30 30:20:00 1:04:57 4:56
HENDRICK RAMAALA M33 1 NIKE . South Africa 2 2 2 2:09:31 1:04:57 4:56
MEB KEFLEZIGHI M30 2 NIKE CA 3 3 3 2:09:56 1:04:57 4:57
ROBERT KIPKOECH CHERUIYOT M27 23 NIKE Kenya 4 4 1 2:11:01 1:04:57 5:00
ABDIHAKIM ABDIRAHAM M27 14 NIKE AZ 5 5 2 2:11:24 1:04:58 5:00
ALBERICO DI CECCO M31 22 NIKE . Italy 6 6 4 2:11:33 1:04:57 5:01
VIKTOR ROETHLIN M31 10 ASIC Switzerland 7 7 5 2:11:44 30:20:00 1:04:57 5:01
SIMON WANGAI M26 60 NIKE Kenya 8 8 3 2:13:19 30:20:00 1:04:58 5:05
JON BROWN M34 11 ADID . GREAT BRITAIN 9 9 6 2:13:29 31:00:00 1:05:52 5:05
ISAAC MACHARIA M24 28 ADID Kenya 10 10 4 2:14:21 1:04:58 5:07
MATT DOWNIN M28 27 NEWB NJ 11 11 5 2:14:28 1:06:45 5:07
JAMES KIBOCHA THEURY M27 19 Kenya 12 12 6 2:14:59 1:06:44 5:09
JOHN HENWOOD M33 30 NYAC NY New Zealand 13 13 7 2:15:05 1:06:46 5:09
ROBERT CHEBOROR M27 12 NIKE Kenya 14 14 7 2:15:24 1:04:57 5:10
CHRISTOPHER CHEBOIBOCH M28 6 NIKE . Kenya 15 15 8 2:15:34 30:20:00 1:04:58 5:10
MARK SAINA M34 71 ADID . Kenya 16 16 8 2:15:35 1:05:00 5:10
PETE GILMORE M28 29 CA 17 17 9 2:16:39 1:06:49 5:12
RYAN SHAY M26 9 NIKE MI 18 18 10 2:17:14 1:05:52 5:14
KASSAHUN KABISO M22 35 WTC NY 19 19 11 2:18:58 1:07:48 5:18
ANTONI PENA M35 17 Spain 20 20 9 2:20:40 1:04:58 5:22
Or sorted this way:
PAUL TERGAT M36 3 NIKE Kenya 1 1 1 2:09:30 30:20:00 1:04:57 4:56
HENDRICK RAMAALA M33 1 NIKE . South Africa 2 2 2 2:09:31 1:04:57 4:56
MEB KEFLEZIGHI M30 2 NIKE CA 3 3 3 2:09:56 1:04:57 4:57
ROBERT KIPKOECH CHERUIYOT M27 23 NIKE Kenya 4 4 1 2:11:01 1:04:57 5:00
ALBERICO DI CECCO M31 22 NIKE . Italy 6 6 4 2:11:33 1:04:57 5:01
VIKTOR ROETHLIN M31 10 ASIC Switzerland 7 7 5 2:11:44 30:20:00 1:04:57 5:01
ROBERT CHEBOROR M27 12 NIKE Kenya 14 14 7 2:15:24 1:04:57 5:10
ABDIHAKIM ABDIRAHAM M27 14 NIKE AZ 5 5 2 2:11:24 1:04:58 5:00
SIMON WANGAI M26 60 NIKE Kenya 8 8 3 2:13:19 30:20:00 1:04:58 5:05
ISAAC MACHARIA M24 28 ADID Kenya 10 10 4 2:14:21 1:04:58 5:07
CHRISTOPHER CHEBOIBOCH M28 6 NIKE . Kenya 15 15 8 2:15:34 30:20:00 1:04:58 5:10
ANTONI PENA M35 17 Spain 20 20 9 2:20:40 1:04:58 5:22
MARK SAINA M34 71 ADID . Kenya 16 16 8 2:15:35 1:05:00 5:10
JON BROWN M34 11 ADID . GREAT BRITAIN 9 9 6 2:13:29 31:00:00 1:05:52 5:05
RYAN SHAY M26 9 NIKE MI 18 18 10 2:17:14 1:05:52 5:14
JAMES KIBOCHA THEURY M27 19 Kenya 12 12 6 2:14:59 1:06:44 5:09
MATT DOWNIN M28 27 NEWB NJ 11 11 5 2:14:28 1:06:45 5:07
JOHN HENWOOD M33 30 NYAC NY New Zealand 13 13 7 2:15:05 1:06:46 5:09
PETE GILMORE M28 29 CA 17 17 9 2:16:39 1:06:49 5:12
KASSAHUN KABISO M22 35 WTC NY 19 19 11 2:18:58 1:07:48 5:18