Boston analysis

I think Malmo would agree with your analysis. Of course Mutai brought something special to the table. His run was amazing especially his stretch from 30km to 35km. His time was 3 minutes faster than what otherwise be expected on Boston because of the wind (not compared to what he'd run in still conditions on a flat course).

That's why time has never been the focus on Boston and shouldn't be.

Where is everyone getting this "three minute advantage" number? Did someone make it up out of thin air or is it based on some junk science? Thanks for the clarification.

1983 was also tremendously windy in NYC, right? 630 at 2:46 or better (about 200 in 2008) and many under 2:20. Or, maybe it was just the peak period of American marathons. So, the depth at Boston in 1983 was more a reflection of the era than the conditions. But I agree that Boston with the wind/hills was worth 1 to 2 minutes off of London, Rotterdam or Berlin on Monday, or three to four minutes off of a usual Boston race.

So, that would put the results more like this if it had been in Europe:

Mutai 2:04:10 (a great time for a great athlete but not sub Haile yet)

Mosop 2:04:17 (best ever debut still)

Gebremariam 2:06:10

Hall 2:06:15 pr

Renato's argument, advanced in the other thread was batted down well by Malmo and others.

Simply put, those athletes feeling well and having a good day could take advantage of the excellent conditions. Other athletes, not at their very best when they toed the line, could not ride the wind advantage to new PRs. BUT, for the latter group of athletes, the final time would likely have been even farther off their PRs had the wind advantage not been there.

My only issue with malmo's argument is that he continues to state that G. Mutai would have run 2:06-2:07 at London. He obviously does not understand the level of athlete Mutai is, he would have run 2:04 at London.

Wejo, time has always been a factor at Boston - Bill Rodgers held the American Record at Boston for many years (2:09:25).

wejo wrote:

running one of the fastest 5ks splits ever in a marathon on that uphill 5k (and contrary to what some have posted the 5k stretch in Boston is a net uphill. See here from 18.6 to 21.7

I agree with you premise Wejo, but on the quote above. If you were referring to me I was talking about the 5k from 35-40k which is where Moses caught Geoffery I beleive and ran the single fastest 5k split of anyone (14:08 I think)at any 5k segment of the race. Certainly the 30-35 by Geoffery has very fast (14:11) and is what got him the 50 meter gap on Moses, then Moses used the downhill 5k from 35-40k to catch-up.

As Renato said, they had the strength to attack the hill (heartbreak) and then speed to continue it on the downside.

But certainly part of the reason he could do that at those speeds was the steady tailwind.

The tailwind allowed the runners to attack this course differently than its been run before, and how it has to be run to take advantage of the net downhill of the course.

It was not just if the Boston course xx slower (or faster) than other courses, some it was that the wind (for certain elites) wind allowed it to be run differently and more advantagously.

Someday these guys will run a flat marathon. If they run 2:02-2:04, the Boston times are legit. If they never break 2:04, 2:05 or 2:06 again, I think we can draw a conclusion about how much the wind helped.

Regardless, though, they now have sick PRs from a very hard course.

The more threads that I read the greater respect I have for Kevin Hanson and Renato Canova and the less respect I have for Malmo.

For Malmo it appears to be more important to win an argument than it does to be right.

First of all, let me thank everyone for actually having a decent debate on here instead of everyone just calling eachother a bunch of idiots. With that said, you all are a bunch of idiots!!!

Ok, seriously now. I think the mistake a lot of you are making is the same mistake that ROJO made on another thread. That's taking the wind reading and trying to apply it like it's a 100 meter race. In the sprints, wind readings are taken at the exact time of the race, in the exact direction of the race, and at ground zero. Therefor, a 20mph tailwind, is exactly that. It doesn't work the same for a marathon for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, the marathon is more than 2 hours in duration, and wind is constantly changing in both speed and direction. Its general direction is the same, but not the same as having an exact direction like the 100 meters. Second, the because the wind and runners are constantly changing directions, the wind is rarely pushing them directly from behind. Also, wind readings are taken from 10 meters above ground, in an unobstucted area. The higher up you go, the windier it gets. Don't believe me, wait til a windy day comes around and go stand on top of a three story building, then stand in front of it and decide for yourself. The next factor to come into play is that the wind on a marathon course has a number of obstructions....buildings, houses, trees, people, etc. Because of this, the amount of wind at the runners back is never the same, sometimes more, sometimes less. Add to that the fact of where you are running in the pack will effect the amount of help you get. Ryan Hall, for example, led the pack for much of the fist half. It's fair to say that he got less help than those running at the back of the pack. Much the same way that running at the back of the pack would be beneficial when running into a headwind.

For those of you that want to insist that the runners had a 20mph tailwind the entire way, that is simply not the case. How much help did they receive? Unfortunately, with all of the variables, there is simply no way to tell. In my own opinion, it's probably in the neighborhood of 3 seconds per mile.

Performance Indicates Worth wrote:

The more threads that I read the greater respect I have for Kevin Hanson and Renato Canova and the less respect I have for Malmo.

For Malmo it appears to be more important to win an argument than it does to be right.

Wow, and here what I am getting out of it is that you have a world class coach asserting and defending a completely indefensible position which is disconnected from reality.

Finally someone gets it. Yes, the wind helped (OBVIOUSLY!), but not nearly as much as a lot are saying.

I've run Boston three times and know how much the conditions can change with all the hills, buildings, and changes in course direction. For example, in 2007, even with a tremendous quartering wind all day, Beacon Street is largely shielded by continous street walls of buildings. Though fairly cool up to that point, the wind was quite entirely blocked, and so runners were shedding most layers- Beacon Street was littered with gloves.

.......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 malmo says 15mph from NW (can anyone confirm this?)

2011 strong tailwind.

I think 2008 and 2010 are fairly good benchmarks. Note for the Elites there is about a 4 sec/mile improvement. Keep in mind the quality of the field though and the fact that Hall pushed the pace.

For non-elites about a 3 sec/mile improvement translating to 1.5-2 minute benefit. I would think the top non-elites would be a more constant sample across years, given that they're not tactically racing and there's less variation in quality across years. 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.

The other issue to keep in mind specific to Boston is that you're ~80% more likely to have a headwind than a tailwind - because of the time of year. A sea breeze is far more likely. So that means any historical analysis that took into account every single year would need to control for weather, or you just have to focus on weather-neutral days.

Malmo:

It's good to see that you didn't call Renato an idiot like you called other people idiots for believing pretty much the same thing as Renato.

Here's some thoughts I emailed to some people earlier this week...admittedly not as data heavy as some we've seen ...relies mostly on some "beat the guy who beat the guy" analysis... but unlike Science of Sport I'm using the right data for Kempainen.

-------

I wasn't there this year but I ran Boston in 1994, when the stats indicate that conditions (wind and temp) were just abt exactly the same. And I estimate boost of 2.5-3 minutes.

The data Science of Sport uses for Bob Kempainen are wrong. He ran 2:11:02 (2:22 slower than his wind-aided Boston mark) for 2nd in the NYCM on a warm sunny day 5-and-a-half months before Boston 1994. I was in that race too, and thought that BK's run in NYC was a superior run, largely b/c of the heat factor. The winner of that NYCM was Andres Espinosa, 2:10:04, and he ran 2:07:18 in Boston 1994 for 2nd. Difference = 2:56.

I was 4:09 faster at Boston '94 but I has a much cleaner start (approx 8 sec to cross the start line) than in NYC '93, was absoultely buried in the masses at NYC '93 (33 sec to cross the line, and as you know that doesn't mean you're at race pace with running room when you get there.

Malmo already addressed everything CGHomes just wrote. I thought the river analogy was good. From Malmo in his first post in this thread:

What they felt was real. They are running in the same direction of the wind. Of course they aren't going to feel the wind -- no one does when it's pushing you. But running with the wind is a lot like swimming down a river, there will be vortices and eddies along the way. Sometimes it's caused by a rock the river or in the case of wind, a tall building, but the wind is going in one direction, and you still continue to flow with it, despite feeling a gust across your face. That wind across your face doesn't mean the direct changed its just normal fluid dynamics at work.

I'd say the wind was a huge issue. Sustained winds were out of the west (a tail wind) showed gusts at 8AM, 9AM, 10AM EDT of 22, 24 and 27 mph. It looks like gusts were between 22 and 30 mph out of the west for the period from 5AM to 11AM.

I still don't get why people are ignoring this simple concept: harder course plus tailwind equals normal times for Berlin and London. They are comparable. These times are comparable to times in Europe!

This is exactly why the IAAF doesn't have a wind speed limit for the marathon like they do for track. It is impossible to accurately measure wind for an entire marathon, so they just say that all point-to-point races that are primaraly run in one direction are restricted from being considered world records. If you want to set a world record - find a race that fits within the IAAF standards. If you want to win the most historic marathon in the world - come run Boston.