it ranks first - he won the race
it ranks first - he won the race
Here's a question (surprised nobody mentioned this already)
Can't we use others in the race besides elite men and women as an indicator of whether the wind was a huge factor or not?
My cursory glance through the results suggests that it was NOT:
-only 2 American men besides Hall ran under the 2:19 OT standard, and I think both of them were already qualified for the trials (Zach Hine 1:03 half-marathon a couple months ago, Chris Pannone I'm pretty sure was already qualified)
-I just looked through 3 guys I know who are 2:30-2:40 types and were in the race, and all 3 of them ran what I would call average or below average races for them.
Anybody else looking through results finding other relevant stuff? ie, did any sub-elite ladies get OT qualifiers here or run particularly fast races?
the dude with the funny hat wrote:
Can't we use others in the race besides elite men and women as an indicator of whether the wind was a huge factor or not?
My cursory glance through the results suggests that it was NOT:
-only 2 American men besides Hall ran under the 2:19 OT standard, and I think both of them were already qualified for the trials (Zach Hine 1:03 half-marathon a couple months ago, Chris Pannone I'm pretty sure was already qualified)
-I just looked through 3 guys I know who are 2:30-2:40 types and were in the race, and all 3 of them ran what I would call average or below average races for them.
Anybody else looking through results finding other relevant stuff? ie, did any sub-elite ladies get OT qualifiers here or run particularly fast races?
it's been brought up before - by posters and by Mutai in his post-race interview - but I think the central factor for the elite men (not for the other waves of runners!) was the combination of Hall pushing the pace as well as a smaller pack. Wind will simply not be as much of a factor when the pack is larger or when you are running amongst a horde of people.
that being said, Mutai and others have credited Hall, rightly so, with keeping the pace fast and honest. Whether that was Hall's intent, I don't know, but him pushing the pace through the first half of the course is a major reason why the elite men ran so fast.
Wind + Hall + small pack = fast time.
Hall deserves major props for a great performance, wind or no wind.
Hall also deserves serious credit for consistently keeping the pace honest which was a big factor in those folks running 2:03.
The wind was a major factor, probably worth 3 - 4 minutes.
These three statements are not self-contradictory.
So what was Hall's "keeping the pace honest" worth? Seems like you have to tack on at least 20 to 30 seconds just for that.
rojo wrote:
[quote]Greatest Ever wrote:
Multiply that by 421.94988 (there are 421.95 100 meter segments in a marathon)to get the total time for the marathon of 7523.36636 seconds or 2:05:24.
.
Improper use of Significant Digits
MarathonMind wrote:
So what was Hall's "keeping the pace honest" worth? Seems like you have to tack on at least 20 to 30 seconds just for that.
Pacer.
'Nuf said.
Bottom line:
Mutai is a 2:04 guy who ran 2:03
Hall is a 2:06 guy who ran 2:04
Kilel is a 2:22 gal who ran that
Davila is *now* a 2:22 gal that ran that
Kara is a 2:25 gal that ran that
In a "normal" Boston year (unfavorable heat,rain,cold,humidity,headwinds) most of the runners above would have run 1-3 minutes slower than their "normal" PRs.
The women needed a Ryan Hall to set the mid-race pace if they were to take advantage of the wind. The African guys have repeatedly cited Hall as the factor that set up this kind of time (implicitly to take advantage of the unusual conditions).
One more thing:
A tailwind while running a decently steep downhill in a marathon is of little benefit. You are already limited by biomechanics, not wind resistance. It is on the flat and uphill sections that the benefit is available. It is apparent that the men were able to capitalize on that (largely due to Hall), whereas the women weren't (Smith had dropped and they were all probably dawdling, relatively speaking, looking at each other (Desi mentioned this), until Desi finally took over in the final (downhill) sections. By that time the tailwind was pretty useless, the course is steep enough.
Your delusional if you don't think the tail wind helped on the downhill. Have you ever run downhill with a tail wind and then run downhill with a head wind or no wind?
Crimea River wrote:
One more thing:
A tailwind while running a decently steep downhill in a marathon is of little benefit. You are already limited by biomechanics, not wind resistance. It is on the flat and uphill sections that the benefit is available. It is apparent that the men were able to capitalize on that (largely due to Hall), whereas the women weren't (Smith had dropped and they were all probably dawdling, relatively speaking, looking at each other (Desi mentioned this), until Desi finally took over in the final (downhill) sections. By that time the tailwind was pretty useless, the course is steep enough.
.......Elites. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .|Top 60 non-Elites
.....2011.2010.2009.2008.2007|2011 2010 2009 2008 .2007
..5k 5:09 5:05 5:03 5:12 5:18 |5:32 5:31 5:32 5:32 5:33
10k 5:03 5:10 5:09 5:03 5:17 |5:32 5:37 5:34 5:33 5:36
15k 5:09 5:07 5:13 5:06 5:17 |5:33 5:36 5:39 5:35 5:40
20k 5:13 5:12 5:17 5:10 5:27 |5:36 5:38 5:41 5:37 5:45
25k 5:12 5:13 5:19 5:14 5:17 |5:34 5:40 5:42 5:38 5:46
30k 5:20 5:24 5:25 5:26 5:29 |5:42 5:47 5:51 5:46 5:56
35k 5:27 5:33 5:42 5:43 5:36 |5:51 5:54 6:02 5:56 6:05
40k 5:39 5:47 5:47 5:47 5:52 |5:52 5:54 6:02 5:55 6:11
Avg 5:16 5:20 5:23 5:20 5:27 |5:39 5:42 5:46 5:42 5:49
2007 was the Noreaster so it was a slow year
2008 was very ideal conditions
2009 Warm
2010 had a very slight tailwind (3ish mph)
2011 strong tailwind.
I think 2008 and 2010 are fairly good benchmarks for a still day. Note for the Elites there is about a 4 sec/mile improvement, for non-elites about a 3 sec/mile improvement translating to 1.5-2 minute benefit. A 3-4 minute improvement would be 6-8 sec/mile improvement. Even at the 5k pace splits there is rarely this much pace difference - maybe the 2nd 5k and last 5ks only. 3-4 minutes seems a bit too much - looks more like 1.5-2 minutes.
Crimea River wrote:
One more thing:
A tailwind while running a decently steep downhill in a marathon is of little benefit. You are already limited by biomechanics, not wind resistance. It is on the flat and uphill sections that the benefit is available. It is apparent that the men were able to capitalize on that (largely due to Hall), whereas the women weren't (Smith had dropped and they were all probably dawdling, relatively speaking, looking at each other (Desi mentioned this), until Desi finally took over in the final (downhill) sections. By that time the tailwind was pretty useless, the course is steep enough.
You have a ridiculous explanation for everything. It's that tail wind over the last 6 miles that brought them home when atthetes normally breakdown.
Maybe for Mutai, Mosop and Hall, at a large range of 14:07 - 14:51 from 35K - 40K. But it does not appear so much for anyone else. Gebre at 15:11 for that stretch (with Hall catching him)(what was his comparable split in New York - probably equally fast on the hills?), no one else much under 2:10 pace. Check out this link, it is interesting. http://raceday.baa.org/2011/cf/public/wnd_iAthletesWindow.cfm?Checkpoint=40K&HomePageCategory=M
malmo wrote:
You have a ridiculous explanation for everything. It's that tail wind over the last 6 miles that brought them home when atthetes normally breakdown.
sadfsadds wrote:
Your delusional if you don't think the tail wind helped on the downhill. Have you ever run downhill with a tail wind and then run downhill with a head wind or no wind?
No, in 40 years/60K miles of running I have never had the opportunity to run downhill under any conditions.
Anyone posting here as if it makes a difference is delusional by default, yet I am the only one to offer ANY reasoning as to why the only the top 6-7 runners seemed to obtain disproportional benefit from the conditions. Every firsthand account of the race buttresses the fact that other than those select few, everyone ran to what their fitness/PR's would predict. If you can explain that more plasibly, I'm all ears (eyes).
An interesting question I've yet to see anyone pose...
Of these three, which is the greatest marathon performance.
-Mutai @ Boston
-Geb's WR
-Wanjiru in Beijing
I'm sure there's other great ones that may add to the debate, but of these three it's a tough call. My personal nod goes to Sammy in Beijing '08.
hell yeah wrote:
Huge tailwind but still 2:03:02!! Mutai should thank Ryan Hall for setting the early pace.
He DID
this kenyan get wild
Maximus wrote:
yourendisnear wrote:I thought world records don't count at Boston. Net elevation drop?
Nobody in the previous posts before yours said it was a world record.
Did I say anyone said world record in my post?
Ughh. You know what grinds my gears ... road racing is like cross country - times don't matter, places do. But, somewhere along the line people started wanting to post times.
You get on the track to post a pr. You step on the roads or xc course to run a race. They should just turn off the damn stop watch.
I'm going to design a 5k loop track that they can run around in the most boring way possible. I'll hold meets on this track once a month. You have a shot to run a marathon PR once a month.
Until that day, can we forget about the times and focus on a 4th place finish against stacked comp.?
what it comes down to is that these men ran really fast. if they did this in Berlin, London, or Rotterdam you would all be praising them. but typical Letsrun snobs have to nit pick every little detail. Mutai ran the fastest marathon ever (period). To boot he ran it on a course that no one thought would ever go that fast, on a course that is older the governing body which tells us there cannot be a point to point and net downhill course for a WR. The way I see it until somebody runs faster then 2:03:02 that race is the gold standard.
Would you take away Solinsky's AR 10k at Stanford because it had "perfect" conditions? Never.