People don't seem to realize how bad the heat was at Chicago

Wow, amazing how what appeared to be an innocent thread turns in to a pissing match. I have no dog in this fight, but I didn't interpret any whining about the heat or do I understand the "grow a pair" comment on the front page. It seems that some of those who actually ran the race commented about the heat, nothing more. I didn't read a bunch of excuses, but comments about it being hotter than people realized. I didn't read any comments expecting perfect marathoning weather. It's great that some of Hanson's runners ran well, even pr'd, but it's obvious others thought it was a bit warm. Another example of why letsrun is often referred to as a "cesspool." Yes, I keep coming back, it's like looking at a car accident. You know you shouldn't, but you do so anyhow.

For the elites - not great conditions - but 55 overcast and no wind would be perfect - 70 at end was ok and not that humid - the first 15 miles is really covered by buildings and some residential streets - but as you head back east on mile 16 the last 10 is in the sun and heat- I saw 84 on the bank - but it was more like 80 but it really played a part in a bunch of DNF's for the 3:30-4;30 crowd - compared to lower temps and no sun. How can anybody sat different - 3 of the last 4 years have been bad last year was perfect and he times were way lower for the middle runners - not the elites

I just went through the thread and it's interesting the the posters who actually ran the race are unanimous in saying it was warmn while the people who didn't, and many being in different states, saying it wasn't bad.

So rojo since you tossed out the "grow a pair" comment. if you weren't out there who the f*** are you to contradict the people who were?

The whole "grow a pair" thing is quite embarrassing. It appears none of the racers on here are making excuses. They are simply confirming that the weather was not ideal (especially for those who cannot handle heat well). I am appalled that individuals who are supposed to be "professionals" in this sport, for whatever reason, are getting defensive (to the point of immaturity) against those who are admitting on a public forum that they had a bad day and that the heat played a part in said bad day. I mean nothing seemed to warrant the kind of emotional and irresponsible responses being seen in this thread and on the front page. I'd like to think we can all be mature enough (especially the "professionals") to realize it was not the lack of guts, heart, determination, balls or whatever else you want to call it that affected a large percentage of the competitors, but probably something that would be a little more logical, such as. . . the weather. There are some legit hard working, hard racing dudes who have posted on this topic (I would imagine painfully so), and for those of you who are supposed to know better, that have come on here and have made, what I believe to be, some regrettable statements that include insulting and undermining the determination of the many hard-working sub elites who had a bad day on Sunday, I am expecting some ownership in how you just represented yourself and the American distance racing community. I have lost quite a bit of respect for some individuals today.

The Chicago is most famous for one thing: being a very fast American course (a rarity unto itself) with top competition. If this was NYCM or Boston the weather would hardly warrant a comment, but for those chasing their PR's and Trials qualifiers last Sunday, the heat was definitely a factor and a big issue when looking at strategy and tactics. Certainly those that ran well should be commended for rising successfully to the challenges posed.

As for the arrogance of the Brojos on this matter, they are just jealous that they didn't have such good conditions for their own marathon PB's.

PapaROTC wrote:

The Chicago is most famous for one thing: being a very fast American course (a rarity unto itself) with top competition. If this was NYCM or Boston the weather would hardly warrant a comment, but for those chasing their PR's and Trials qualifiers last Sunday, the heat was definitely a factor and a big issue when looking at strategy and tactics. Certainly those that ran well should be commended for rising successfully to the challenges posed.

As for the arrogance of the Brojos on this matter, they are just jealous that they didn't have such good conditions for their own marathon PB's.

That is the trouble with modern marathoning - everyone is chasing a Trials qualifier or PR and expect Carey Pinkowski to provide the "perfect day".

Some on here seem indignant about the warm weather...that they were "cheated" somehow.

Remember the old saying "the conditions are the same for everybody".

I ran my first marathon in 1975 and chose a flat fast course and ran surprisingly well compared to what I anticipated. In my second race, I ran 10 minutes slower on the same course in much warmer (not "hot") conditions. Even then we were not afraid to recognize the effects of conditions on times/strategies, etc. (although we didn't have as good of fluid support). Part of the mystique of the marathon has always been the "crap shoot" you play with the conditions on the day which affect your success or failure. This year the gamblers (those that went after time goals) didn't do so well.Don't act as if this is something that the "weaker generations" came up with.And make sure you watch the Monty Python clip linked above. Hilarious and perfectly relevant.

I was there and ran. I don't run in heat well and flew over from the cooler climate of Oregon. Decided I didn't fly over to just finish with an okay time and didn't adjust me pace for the heat. I gambled and lost. Bailed at 21 and decided to find another race in November.

The heat was a factor for me. According to the bank signs and my phone the temps were in the high 60's at the start and were much worse during the second half in the sun.

The comment on the home page is rediculous, and in line with someone that was ill informed. But when you take some of the information from people, who weren't there, as fact it's easy to come to that conclusion too. I'm not sure how they reached their opinion though.

What's this thread about? Did I misunderstand something?

Isn't "willy k" just saying that the Americans did as well as can be expected, considering the less than optimal heat?

It's a pity for those who wanted to qualify for something, or just missed a PB, but what do you want to do, hold a marathon indoors?

"The point for many of us is that if you were right on the cusp of potentially running a qualifier, but to do that you really needed ideal conditions, you should have NEVER run the race."

I think this is a very interesting point. For people that needed/wanted everything to be perfect so that they could hit a particular time, then why not consider waiting another week and running a marathon this weekend (7 days after Chicago)?

I'm doing Grand Rapids (I live here) and the 10 day forecast (3 days before Chicago!) was 43F with no wind or precipitation. That is still the forecast, so things should basically be ideal. Incidentally, the weather has been ideal (or slightly on the cool side) for the past several years. The course has only one small/moderate hill and the race is very well-organized, if a bit small-time. People can and do run fast.

The Detroit marathon is also this weekend and there are others too.

I understand that rearranging one's life to push your marathon back a week is very tough for most people (almost impossible for me!), but I'm surprised more people don't (apparently) do this.

Do some folks have a "backup" marathon in case the weather is poor/not ideal at their preferred one?

People do not drop out of Chicago (or any other marathons) due to bad weather, they drop out because they go out too fast.

M. A. Green wrote:

The whole "grow a pair" thing is quite embarrassing.

K Hanson NEVER said that. That was Rojo. K Hanson also NEVER said that the heat did not play a factor. He simply said that crying about it served no purpose.

I will carry it a step further. If you stressed about the weather prior to your race, then your STRESS caused more problems than the weather itself.

Weldon, Robert,

I am a coach, 7 out of my 9 guys PRd, I had 5 guys who work or go to school full time (45-60 hour work weeks) in the top 55 American men (top 85 overall), 3 in the 2:20s (2 of which had never run a marathon before), I had less "blow ups" then the Hanson's, AND I ran the race, unlike Kevin.

I think that puts me in a better position then Mr. Hanson to comment on the race, and certainly in a better position then you. But that doesn't matter so much, because you're taking Kevin's quote out of context, and he was pretty much spot on.

The discussion of this thread was that the weather was a factor on times. To say otherwise is completely ridiculous. Could you PR, yeah... especially if your PR was soft, you came in very fit, ran smart, stayed hydrated, had some luck, and perhaps had trained in the heat all summer.

Was it ideal? No. Look at the top times, the times across the board for that matter. Growing a pair has nothing to do with running while dehydrated, with heat stroke, etc. If anything, growing a pair with those conditions can be fatal, or seriously detrimental to your health. I would rather my guys not try and be macho and finish a race that could harm their development, recovery, etc., then "grow a pair" and suck up the consequences.

Again, this is coming from someone who had a successful marathon as an athlete and a coach (though I wish I was 45 stinking seconds faster so I could have a 2:39 PR... Oh well).

Bottom line, as Kevin mentioned, the weather was 10 degrees warmer then ideal. For those in the 2:30+ range, it was likely 15 degrees warmer then ideal. That CAN make a big difference in your time, and that is all anyone is saying.

People said NYC was windy last year... I didn't even really notice it. People say it was warm in Chicago this year... but it didn't really bother me that much. That doesn't mean commenting on it, saying it could have been a faster day, etc means that you need to grow a pair. You rarely get ideal conditions, but you hope that you do. I don't see what is wrong with that. Could it have been worse? Absolutely. My worst fear was not that it would get to 80, but that it would be 40, rainy and windy. For me personally, after training in the heat all summer, that would have been much worse.

I thought this was a thread that showed the best that LetsRun can be. (I didn't run.) Bunch of fast guys talking about their experience at Chicago. I don't know any of them who cried about it. Yet they present the useful lesson that it needn't be a scorcher like NY 1984 (which I did start and did not finish) or Chicago 2007 to have heat affect one's race. So maybe next time people will do a few more hot weather long runs to make it easier in case the heat gets a little too warm. I know it'll play a role in my training for next year and I may do a bit more hot-weather training just in case.

A question I haven't seen posed: should Chicago more back a couple of weeks to lessen the chance of non-optimum conditions? New York used to be in late October.

Joe,

What fast guys came on here and said that the heat was a major factor? Who used their real name? I believe that it is a bunch of 3 plus hour marathoners that will not use their real names because they can be looked up.

I have resisted posting on this thread until I saw Wejo & Rojo's quote on the front page this morning. I usually agree with their comments, but this is absolutely insane.

In the interest of full-disclosure, I ran Chicago on Sunday and you can go read what happened to me over on the Marathon Training Thread. In short, I trained harder than I ever have for this race and came in fitter than I've ever been in my life. I was going for a sub 2:40 and I went for it. As others said, the weather was very sneaky in the first half. Running through the city, there was a nice breeze and shade, so you didn't really realize what would be to come.

Sure, I needed better conditions to go sub 2:40, but I knew I wouldn't be happy with running conservatively and coming in at 2:43. I ran the race that I thought would put me in the best position and I paid for it. After 13 miles, I felt as fresh as I did in mile 1, but I also wouldn't step into the sun until mile 17. As everyone else as stated, that's when our worlds changed. I knew I would be in for a rough day at that point, but I also didn't think it would lead to me having a heat-stroke. Based on your comments, that would be because I apparently didn't grow a pair and not because it had anything to do with the weather, right? Oh, and by the way, I live and train in Atlanta. It's not like I am not used to miserable conditions.

In no way am I making excuses for what happened to me. I don't think anyone else on this thread is making excuses either. Those who ran for certain times on Sunday most certainly had a GIANT PAIR. Those individuals said screw the weather and went for the times they had worked toward all summer. Most of us only get one or two shots to go for great times and Sunday was it for a lot of us. How can you not say we didn't grow a pair for battling through it and going for our goals.

Now, Wejo and Rojo, why don't you come on this thread and actually try to justify your comments on the front page to those of us who experienced it first hand? Put up or shut up. Please explain to us how we need to grow a pair, or take that quote down off the front page.

The Wejo/Rojo quote is spot on.

please help me out wrote:

Joe,

What fast guys came on here and said that the heat was a major factor? Who used their real name? I believe that it is a bunch of 3 plus hour marathoners that will not use their real names because they can be looked up.

I may be naive, but I thought from the tenor of the statements that guys who said they were/could be in the 2:20s or 2:30s (let's not quibble about defining "fast") were being honest and straight-forward, which is why I found their observations useful. And Conto's been a straight-shooter.

The only person I followed, who was the second Master, said, as I quoted from her blog, that she came upon lots of people running backwards in the second half. She was racing for a time, and she got it, albeit with a slight late fade.

Are we the only country that makes up the excuse, "I'm a big guy and a sweater" like it is a negative or an excuse?

If you are this so-called "sweater" species, would it not be logical to have an efficient hydration strategy in place? What, did you only find out on race day that you are a "sweater" and thus, this led to your demise, along with your "big-bone" theory?

All of you "big sweater" guys should just hang it up. It the most ridiculous excuse on the board. Be grateful you sweat and are able to cool your body rapidly, but next time, learn your body better before toeing the line. There are hydration stations for a reason.