Boston analysis

No disrespect intended to Mr. Canova, who makes wonderful contributions to this forum, but it is palpable that he is unable to be objective here, and has a pattern of this when discussing his own athletes. Mr. Canova has written on this board that Shaheen (Cherono) could run 48.5 for 400 meters. I know, the morons will swallow this. It is not true. Then, Mr. Canova writes the following crap:

"At least, everything has a logic explanation, and to do wrong analysis for justifying something out of the normality is an exercise that has the only effect to create limits in the mind of the athletes, and excuses for their poor performances."

I don't care whether the effect is to "create limits in the mind of the athletes," as the truth is what many of us are interested in, not some pablum concocted to create confidence predicated on falsehoods...The truth is that Mutai and Mosop are phenomenal, but they are not 2:03:02 and 2:03:06 marathoners on other courses and certainly not on Boston without the aid of the wind. IF you cannot accept this, then there is no point discussing it any further. Mr. Canova, perhaps you are great at instilling confidence in your athletes, and they sure do run well, but that doesn't mean your b.s. is necessarily going to be welcomed by the more intelligent among us...I still enjoy your posts...

I am sure you should subtract -2min for the wind and that

the winner was really capable of 2.01 on that day.

So to put the Monday Boston performances in the context of a paced Rotterdam/Berlin, the overall consensus appears to be:

Subtract 2 minutes for the slower Boston course but add 2:40 to 3:00 min for wind aid = net 0:40 seconds to 1 minute need to be added to the Boston times to get a comparable Rotterdam/Berlin time. So Mutai that day was up for a 2:03:45 on a Rotterdam/Berliner, while Hall similarly could have pasted a 2:05:40 on such a course.

However, because Hall did a lot of the early pacing in the historic Boston race, which he wouldn't have to do in a paced Rotterdam/Berliner, he gets the benefit of at least another 30-40 seconds. Therefore, Hall would probably have pasted a 2:05:03 that day on a paced Rotterdam/Berliner.

Factors

Course: The Boston course has it's share of hills including a downhill first 4 miles, 4 rough hills between 16 and 21 miles and another downhill section from 21-24 miles. The net result is a net downhill of 400+ feet (120+ meters). How this effects each persons time will differ depending on conditioning, tactics used and physiological make-up. I agree with Renato that stronger built runners have an advatage (i.e. De Castella ran 2:07 at Boston).

Weather: This includes wind, temperature and humidity. Temperature and humidity on Monday were condusive to good marathoning. The wind was perfect - strong sustained tailwind but not unreasonably hard.

Tactics: Runners often benefit (probably more emotionally than physically) from being able to have someone else lead them at an approriate pace. History has shown us that the fastest races are usualy run with either even or slightly negative splits. While the elite men did not have a rabbit, they did have a runner (Hall) that was willing to lead them at what turned out to be Geoffery and Moses' ideal pace (allowing a slightly negative split performance) through the first 15 miles of the race.

In my humble opinion all of these things played a signifcant role in what we saw in the elite men's race. We saw two men who's physiological make-up and conditioning where well suited for the Boston course. Alot has been made of their very fast 5k split after the top of heartbreak hill. But they where well suited for that, they have good speed (sub 27:00 10k speed as Renato pointed out) and that 5k is a significant down hill, and they where in the second half of a negative split performance (i.e. the first half didn't take it all out of them). This is where they had a huge advantage over a someone like Hall who's 10k fitness is a minute slower than theirs. Hall, no matter how strong, can't produce a 5k that late in the race at that close to his 5k best, while Geoffery and Moses where not nearly as close to theirs.

I think the top 2 men where signifciantly better suited for the Boston course than most runners (as Renato stated). Strong enough and fast enough to take advantage of the 400+ net downhill, and most specifcally the downhill from 21-24 miles.

Next the tailwind was definately a factor, how much is almost impossible to tell. Renato estimates 40 seconds and others 3 minutes. Who's right? I think it depends on the person, their size, weight, if they ran in a pack or out in the open, etc. We can use some math and science and come up with average advantage but to apply an average to any 1 individual may be misleading.

Tactics: As Geoffery said after the race, Hall has to be credited with a superb job as rabbit. He wasn't trying to rabbit them but in essense that is what he did for the top 2 men. Without Hall in the race I think it likely the end result would have been 1-2 minutes slower. I have often said that I think the key to a fast Boston time is to arrive at the top of heart break with enough fuel left in the tank to take advantage of the downhill from 21-24 miles. The top 2 runners did just that.

So where does that leave us? With this wonderful thread where we all debate that which isn't quantifable or knowable. We can come up with averages for each variable but that doesn't tell us how factors affected a specifc individual.

For what it's worth, my opinion is that I don't think Boston is a particularly slow course for certain runners who run certain tactics. It's a net downhill course, so one would think that if you are conditioned and run in such a way, you can take advantage of that or at least negate the effect of the hills. I think Geoffery and Moses did just that. I think the tactics they used (thanks again to Hall) was spot on, a slightly negative split arriving at the top of heart break hill ready to take advantage of the down hill section (21-24). Lastly I think the wind helped significantly, I would estimate in the neighborhood of 1-2 minutes. This puts Geoffery and Moses in the 2:04-2:05 range with no wind, consistent with Renato's expectations and Geoffery's history.

Anyways that is my 2 cents for what it's worth.

+1

I remember a similar clamour when Uta Pippig ran a 2:21 in 1994 in Boston with a huge tailwind. Suddenly the talking heads were chattering that a women's sub-2:20 was just around the corner ... ignoring the positive effects of the tailwind.

Pippig's 3 Boston wins were as follows: guess which one had the tailwind.

1994 Uta Pippig Germany 2:21:45

1995 Uta Pippig Germany 2:25:11

1996 Uta Pippig Germany 2:27:12

(The 3-4 min rule mentioned on another thread will be lengthened the longer the duration of the performance.)

It took some time for that women's first sub-2:20 to come. For the record it was run by Naoko Takahashi in Berlin in 2001 with 2:19:46, although it must be noted that Tegla Loroupe came close twice with 2:20:47 (Rotterdam 1998) and 2:20:43 (Berlin 1999).

Kevin Huynh wrote:

Renato why did Florence Kiplagat drop out? She went through 30k in 1:42:59. Mary Keitany ran 30k pb in 1:39:11.

I believe she ended up getting taken to the hospital, and was going to stay an extra day or two to make sure she was okay.

Now the IAAF is fudging its own rules re: what constitutes a downhill course.

Here are the 2010 world marathon listings with Boston included with legal courses, not in the separate listings for downhill courses at the bottom:

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2010/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

Here's 2011, and suddenly Boston is a downhill course. What happened? The course didn't change.

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=2011/sex=M/all=n/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

If they want to consider it a downhill course fine, but they should at least be consistent in the application of their own criteria.

Actually, though, the use of net downhill is itself pretty seriously flawed. To take an extreme hypothetical case, say you've got a marathon course with the finish point 100 m lower than the start point. Net downhill, not record-legal. Now say that course rises enough that someone who would be running 3 min/km pace (2:06:35) would lose 10 sec/km (i.e., running 3:10 pace). 30 m climb/km, say, through 40 km. That's 6:40 lost time and 1200 m climb. Now the last 2.195 km go downhill, 1300 m worth. There is no way to make up the 6:40 deficit on that downhill. It is a net downhill course but significantly slower than a flat course.

Make it a more gentle uphill, one where you're losing 5 sec per km, and it's still a 3:20 deficit to make up in 2.195 km, i.e. you would have to run 1:29/km after 40 km. Not likely. Work it back down to more realistic courses and you still come out with net downhill courses with no time advantage over a flat course. In other words, an invalid regulation.

The Great North Run isn't the fastest course around, but it has too much net downhill, which is why Paula's world best there wasn't a world record.

Besides being downhill, Boston is also point to point.

malmo wrote:

Again, it doesn't say what the algorithm is. Brett, you seem to know a little bit about it, why don't you find out the details? thank you.

The regression analysis IS the algorithm!!!!

Nice to meet you Mr.Canova

Question.

Geoffrey and mosop post marathon recovery?

Thanks for making an "obvious" point that almost everyone seems to have forgotten!

So wind has no effect on performance, EPO/blood transfusions have no effect on performance?

Next you'll be saying it has nothing to do with natural talent of the runner, it's just 100% pure Italian coaching genius.

He never said the wind didn't have a difference, in fact if you look at his math, it seems like he is figuring 1-2min. But he does not agree with 3-4. But he (like the Science of Sport guys) say you can't really figure it out so when people come on here and call others idiots for not agreeing with 3-4 it is a joke. They can't prove it either so it's just this unsubstantiated guess.

Benoit did have a tailwind in 1983 for her 2:22. That's why Tom Ratcliff was 83rd in 2:19:51.

I have to discount Renato's account of his athlete's assessment of the wind and agree with Malmo that the running athlete is not a good wind gauge.

Someday I am going to write an essay on on "Long Distance Running and the Art of Self-deception." One day when we were young my training partner. Larry "Bobo" Barthlow and I went out to the seacoast for our usual 2 hour run. Yes, it was snowing in a Northeast storm but we were tough guys so didn't mind. We ran and chatted and were surprised when we got to the turn around in 45 minutes instead of a hour. We just thought were in great shape until we turned. On the way back we could not talk, ran all out in alternating single file squinting into the painful snow and wind and took 1:20 to get back. We were stupidly oblivious of the storm at our backs.

Tom

Above is a elevation comparison of Boston to other major's.

Now:

Was it the wind as the primary reason for the fast times? OR

How the TOP runners attacked the downhill course (very fast at 10k and HM)?

It should make sense that if two of the biggest talents in the marathon take a HAMMER approach to the Boston course, then times would be incredible. I don't DISCOUNT the wind in assisting, but I do say it was not the PRIMARY reason for the performance.

If you have athletes with high eccentric strength (this is where most athletes CANT take advantage of crushing a downhill course)

Fast 10k/HM abilities (this is where every past Boston result is not of good comparison, bc the talent levels is just TOO different: Rodgers 10k PB = Mutai's 4th 10k. Weather it was Rodgers 'true' 10k pb or not, just not the same talent level anymore)

They attacked without fear, had the abilities to take advantage of the downhill, and ran very fast marathons.

Renato,

I highly respect your contributions to this board but disagree to your post in two major points:

1. PERCEPTION OF TAILWIND

You say the athletes told you the wind wasn't very strong. Now, please keep in mind that elite athletes are running at almost 13mph. The wind was about 20mph from behind. 20mph-13mph=7mph. 7mph NET doesn't feel like a significant wind. But what it really means is that there not only is NO wind resistance at all for the runners (as it would be on a treadmill) but rather a nice gently push from behind. Now look at the opposite: headwind of 20mph. Running at 13mph (ok, no one can do that). 20mph+13mph=33mph. I hope you understand now.

2. COMPARISON OF BOSTON 2011 RESULTS WITH INDIVIDUAL PR

You can not just compare the Boston 2011 results to the individual PRs of the runners. In other words the benchmark you are looking at is: Did every single runner outperform their PR? More realistic would be to compare the Boston times to the AVERAGE time of the runners in their 3-4 Marathons before.

trollism wrote:

So wind has no effect on performance, EPO/blood transfusions have no effect on performance?

Next you'll be saying it has nothing to do with natural talent of the runner, it's just 100% pure Italian coaching genius.

I hate to agree w/ a poster named trollism, but I think he is correct. Renato is just taking a ridiculous position here.

malmo wrote:

Weldon, people aren't suddenly running the marathon differently. 25 years ago Steve Jones took it out in 61:40 and he didn't have the benefit of a 20 mile an hour wind at his back.

With all due respect to Steve Jones, Mutai crushes every single one of his PR's. Mutai is significantly faster even in events that he doesn't specialize in. Mutai's marathon PB was over two minutes faster than Jones before this race. We shouldn't be surprised that he can hold 61:40 pace longer than Steve Jones.

And, additionally, the world record for the marathon has been broken, on average, about every other year since 1998. Why should that stop now? Is it any more outrageous than Lopes chopping almost a minute off the record in '85? Or Geb chopping off almost minute from the record and dipping below 2:04 in five years? And since it is pure speculation, at best debatable, about which marathon major course is "fastest" on each given day, given that there countless variables that we don't even understand yet, Mutai's record should be recognized.