Kudzu- it is heresy to suggest that anything affected the results other than the simple Newtonian vector of the wind. Any quantum theory involving "inspiration" or any other human (or more subtle physical) element must be kept to yourself. There were nothing but simple 160cm cylinders being pushed down the road by 6.2m/s wind vectors on monday.
Along the same lines, I was not surprised by the time that was run. I looked at the prize purse weeks before the race and noticed that there was a bonus (I think 50,000) for a "World Best" time in addition to a course record bonus (25,000). When I saw the "World Best", I chuckled to myself about how unlikely that would be at Boston. However, the day before the race, having seen the forecast, I fully expected that someone out of the fantastic group of runners assembled would go for it all on Monday--the Boston victory, the course record, and the world best time. I think many people on the board are foolishly trying to quantify what cannot be quantified. The top guys stepped to the line knowing that they were running in once in a lifetime conditions, and they ran once in a lifetime races-no fear, a fast and steady pace right from the start and obviously favorable conditions allowed them to approach a very challenging race with that mindset. I think it's worth noting that the "wind affect" seemed to have a disproportionate impact on a few select male elite runners, yet I have seen no evidence that the field as a whole ran 3-4 minutes faster. The elite women certainly didn't seem to run outrageously fast, and there was only 1 new men's Trials qualifier. The wind definitely helped, but the formulas people have been throwing around completely ignore the human factors that allowed these times to happen.
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 earlier in this 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).
malmo wrote:
keep it simple wrote:I am sure you are not going to understand this so let's use an example. Athlete A runs 2:06 in a fully rabbited race in London. Not much variation in pace. Then runs Boston the next year, may be in the same conditioning but without rabbits, the race goes out in 1:05 and there are surges and the same athlete runs 2:09. To top it off, London had a much more elite field while Boston wasn't as competitive at top. Two reasons why the finish time is slower, on top of the course differences. Unless you control for rabbiting, pacing, and overall field quality, making conclusions off of comparing times in the manner you keep doing is a useless endeavor.
You're right, I do understand what you wrote, mostly becasue it bears little resemblance. Boston doesn't go out slow like you want to imagine, and rabbits really don't have much of an effect on marathon running. Marathon paces, even at WR record pace requires little effort and concentration. It's a fuel problem.
You missed the boat completely. If you think non-rabbited races can be can be directly to rabbited races, that is your illusion. If you think races with better guns can be compared directly to races with lesser guns, also your illusion. In rabbited races with A-guys who are looking to break the WR it is more likely every time that the race will be fast, unlike in NYC and Boston where these conditions aren't automatically in place. A big part of why London and Boston haven't been as fast comparatively over the last decade are for these two reasons. If you don't control for that in an analysis, then your analysis is bunk.
Solid data and analysis Malmo. The only data that makes sense. I know Mutai had a blast. Notice how he finally left his shirt untucked the last 10K?
malmo wrote:
keep it simple wrote:I am sure you are not going to understand this so let's use an example. Athlete A runs 2:06 in a fully rabbited race in London. Not much variation in pace. Then runs Boston the next year, may be in the same conditioning but without rabbits, the race goes out in 1:05 and there are surges and the same athlete runs 2:09. To top it off, London had a much more elite field while Boston wasn't as competitive at top. Two reasons why the finish time is slower, on top of the course differences. Unless you control for rabbiting, pacing, and overall field quality, making conclusions off of comparing times in the manner you keep doing is a useless endeavor.
You're right, I do understand what you wrote, mostly becasue it bears little resemblance. Boston doesn't go out slow like you want to imagine, and rabbits really don't have much of an effect on marathon running. Marathon paces, even at WR record pace requires little effort and concentration. It's a fuel problem.
Exactly.
you are just "jealous" !!
Mosop is a seasoned track runner with bests of 12:54/26:49/59:20.
I believe this guy is an 2'03 marathoner anyday! with ou without wind !!
boulder boulder elite wrote:
Mosop is a seasoned track runner with bests of 12:54/26:49/59:20.
I believe this guy is an 2'03 marathoner anyday! with ou without wind !!
Great logic.
Tergat is a 12:49/26:27/59:06 runner
Gebrselassie is a 12:39/26:22/58:55
Tadese is a 12:59/26:37/58:23
All of them infinitely more credentialed than Mosop. Should be able to run 2:02 anyday without wind, right?
One might add Samuel Wanjiru, with 26:41 and 58:33...Wanjuri's effort at the 2008 Olympics is more impressive than Mutai's at the 2011 Boston Marathon.
chet wrote:Wanjuri's effort at the 2008 Olympics is more impressive than Mutai's at the 2011 Boston Marathon.I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Wanjiru's Beijing performance remains the most impressive marathon run of all time.
Oh wait, I guess I must be hating on him because I am suggesting that the quality of his performance should realistically account for conditions. Oops.
boulder boulder elite wrote:
Mosop is a seasoned track runner with bests of 12:54/26:49/59:20.
I believe this guy is an 2'03 marathoner anyday! with ou without wind !!
On a course that is consistently 2-3 minutes slow? That would make him a 2:00 marathoner at London using your lack of logic.
kudzurunner wrote:
As someone once said to the whore in an old locker-room joke, "We've already established that. We're just arguing over the price."
I may be mistaken, but isn't this usually attributed to Winston Churchill, with the woman being Lady Astor?
If a 5MPH win can launch a sprinter going 28 miles an hour for the 100 meter dash to a sub 9.7 and be considered wind aided.
But a 19-30mph steady wind at the back of a marathoner going about 17-20mph isn't wind aided?
chet wrote:
Wanjuri's effort at the 2008 Olympics is more impressive than Mutai's at the 2011 Boston Marathon.
I'm thinking Sammy would have won this in a more impressive fashion
Well there is always this wrote:
Wanjiru's Beijing performance remains the most impressive marathon run of all time.
Oh wait, I guess I must be hating on him because I am suggesting that the quality of his performance should realistically account for conditions. Oops.
There are many races worthy of consideration, but one that impressed me was the guy who pulled away from two of the best distance runner kickers in all of history, Geb and Tergat, with 3K to go. Just flat out great competition and great racing on a big stage. Still gives me chills.
malmo wrote:
Great logic.
Tergat is a 12:49/26:27/59:06 runner
Gebrselassie is a 12:39/26:22/58:55
Tadese is a 12:59/26:37/58:23
All of them infinitely more credentialed than Mosop. Should be able to run 2:02 anyday without wind, right?
Tergat was a 12:49, 26:27, 59:06 runner.
Geb was a 12:39, 26:22, 58:22 runner.
When did Geb run 58:22?
The Saint wrote:
malmo wrote:Great logic.
Tergat is a 12:49/26:27/59:06 runner
Gebrselassie is a 12:39/26:22/58:55
Tadese is a 12:59/26:37/58:23
All of them infinitely more credentialed than Mosop. Should be able to run 2:02 anyday without wind, right?
Tergat was a 12:49, 26:27, 59:06 runner.
Geb was a 12:39, 26:22, 58:22 runner.
No, Geb was NOT a 58:22 runner. But you have failed in your point even without your other problems. Mosop ran 12:54 five years ago and 26:49 four years ago. I suppose it depends on what the definition of "is" is...but either way you're a moron.