Boston analysis

How many roads must a man run and PR down, before you call him a man?

The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, is blowing in the wind.

(encore: put wind gauges on every corner, srs, records aren't certifiable with a certain wind)

From the "Lore of Running" by Tim Noakes, pg 61...

"Davies found that the effect of a tailwind was about half that of a headwind (although obviously this effect was to the athlete's advantage). Thus, as discussed, a tailwind of 19.8 km per hour is of little assistance to runners running slower than 18 km per hour, but a tailwind of 19.8 km per hour would assist a marathon world record attempt by increasing the runner's speed .5km per hour. Higher tailwind speeds of 35 to 66km per hour would improve running speeds by 1.5 to 4km per hour."

Most people underestimate the effect of wind. Either they don't pay much attention to it or they just don't have the experience. And then there's the human ego which loves to lie to itself.

Malmo has it right...like it or not. Renato, sailing is not in your future...

I take slight issue with comparing Monday's finishing times of the top 15 men and women with their PRs.

I think the Top 15 finishers were all vying for the win ie, staying with the lead pack as long as they could and then dropping off as they exceeded their ability which would explain the large differences in those that ran PRs on Monday and those that didn't. Probably need to look at finishing places #50 - #100 since these people know they are not going to win and are essentially time-trialing. I wonder how that analysis would look?

I side with those that say that the wind helped push those runners to better times than they would have run without it.

That is the most interesting analysis so far. Looks like 2008 and 2011 were VERY similar with the last 15k being where a lot of the variation comes in. That could be 1 of 2 things (or both):

1) weather. A tail wind would help you to conserve energy early and rip the last 9 miles. Most of those next tier guys aren't going to get fooled into going out too fast because of the tail wind. They are savvy enough racers to know the downhills are the downhills and that going "with the wind" could prove a death sentence. Instead, they decide to go out at the same pace but because of the wind, hope that it they are running easier and can run harder once they get to the Newton Hills. I know for a fact that many had this strategy.

2) Us middle tier runners are generally upping our training levels, and this is leading to faster marathons, much of the difference coming late in marathons. I know I was running 80 miles a week in 2009 and now I am running 100 miles a week because, well, because you have to. I would have faded a lot harder in 2008 then in 2011 because of this training change.

Under Ultra wrote:

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.

When did I ever say that that Mutai would have run 2:06 - 2:07 at London?

You don't understand English.

Trying to assign a number to "the wind" is what's idiotic. People aren't machines or robots. The consequences of the wind (and weather) allowed Hall's usually misplaces tactic of front running until he dies to work (somewhat). It allowed the runners to charge down the first part of the course without using all their fuel. It spread the field enough that a lot of cat and mouse surging wasn't necessary. In other words, how the race played out seemed to take full advantage of the weather conditions.

So is Hall a 2:04 marathoner? Why not, all that matters is he thinks he is. Was a world record set? Maybe not "officially" by a somewhat arbitrary set of rules, but certainly every serious marathoner has 2:02 in his sights now.

Numb nutz wrote:

but certainly every serious marathoner has 2:02 in his sights now.

No one is going to run 2:02 in a very long time.

OBNN wrote:

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.

Renato and to a lessor degree, Kevin Hanson, are merely mistaken. Both have horses in this race. Renato is blinded, not by science, but by passion. Both have proven to me their knowledge over the years. The rest of you are idiots.

Yes there is a new breed of runners. Highly talented and hard working tiny little racing machines who are capable of running 2:06-2:07 on a normally perfect day at Boston (windless), or 2:04-2:05 at London, Rotterdam, Amsterdam or Berlin.

What is glaringly different is their lack of graciousness for the Breath of God at their backs, and their stubborness not to acknowledge the reason why they ran ridiculously fast on a slow course.

New skool racing machines says, "I didn't feel a wind."

Old skool racing machine says, “ 2:09.55? Honest? This is absurd. I can't run that fast. This is ridiculous” said Bill Rodgers in 1975. "But conditions were perfect today. The wind just blew me along. And the noise, the crowd support, helped a great deal. Kept me going when I felt like quitting, when ordinarily I would have quit. 2:09.55."

"When you don't feel the wind, it's a tailwind." Said Elana Meyer, who finished 3rd in the 1994 Boston. Meyer 2:25:15 in her debut that day and never came closer than 1:36 of that. Pippig won 1994 in 2:21:45 never came within 3:26 Valentina Yegorova, 2nd, ran 2:23:33 never came within 2:54 Alena Peterkova 2:25:19, 4th, never came within 1:41.

If Usain Bolt were to run a 9.45 100m with a 9.0 mps wind (4+ times more than allowable) and any of you claimed it was legit, you'd be laughed at mercilessly for saying so. That's exactly what happened on Monday.

jjjjjjjjjj wrote:

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.

The depth itself if a reflection of the times, but the magnitude of it was a reflection of the tailwind. It was simply a parade of PRs.

New York marathon in October of 1983 also had a tailwind.

Did you read my post?

I estimated 3 seconds per mile for top 60 nonelites (who were not tactically racing) compared to other weather neutral years (08 and last year). That's 78 seconds. The wind obviously helped.

The fact of the matter is that Boston is more likely to have bad weather than good, so you have to look at fair weather years to come up with some kind of standard. Keep in mind that a headwind hurts you more than a tailwind helps, so times will be skewed towards slow. Not to mention the lack of pacers, etc.

You know what?

When you have a marathon course that starts and ends at the same place, it nullifies any discussion like this.

You know that a net elevation drop can have an aiding effect.

Also, any course with hills is slower than a completely flat course.

So a hilly enough course can negate a gain from an elevation drop.

You know a consistant wind at your back can have an aiding effect.

How much of an aid is always debatable.

This race had all of those factors.

This is what jumps out at me:

Last years' winner set a course record and the top American set an American course record.

This year's winner ran almost 3 minutes faster and that same American ran nearly 4 minutes faster than these course records.

What factors can cause this?

Wind- which would be an aiding factor

Other weather- such as temperature, overcast, etc. not technically aiding

Fitter athletes

Racing strategy/pacing effort

Just the idea of having an aiding factor disqualifies the result as a comparable performance.

The other factors, particularly fitness and racing strategy, should be given merrit as well, though.

The problem is that the performance is unlikely to be repeated without help from the gods of weather.

bostonpublic wrote:

2010 malmo says 15mph from NW (can anyone confirm this?)

2011 strong tailwind.

I confirmed it. This is not a State's secret. The weather record is there. I've posted an hour by hour juxtapositioning of this years event over the course map. Maybe I'll make another purdy picture for you.

Can someone explain who malmo is and why he has the right to call everyone aside from Keith and Renato 'idiots'?

How fast has malmo run? What are his credentials?

Nate Pennington wrote:

Can someone explain who malmo is and why he has the right to call everyone aside from Keith and Renato 'idiots'?

How fast has malmo run? What are his credentials?

George Malley. Former American record holder in half marathon and steeplechase.

MarathonMind wrote:

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.

It was an ESE wind, which is coming into your face, not from behind you, People were peeling off clothing because the air was completely saturated by a massive storm system, therefore no cooling effect.

Now I can see why he is sought out. 2.12-half marathon AR. I'd pick your brain too malmo.

Malmo, I just don't undestand why you put 2:06-2:07 values on Mutai when the record was 2:05:52 already by Robert Cheroyiot. To be fair, its ok to assume Mutai is better than RK, so why would he be slower?

Also, look at the Boston course compared to London or Berlin. If they can take advantage of the downhills, the course should be faster than London and Berlin. The old idea of Boston being a slower course can now be discounted consider the top five times are:

2:03:03/ 2:03:06/2:04:55/2:04:57/2:05:52

Aid of wind or not, the course is not slow.

MarathonMind wrote:

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.

malmo wrote:

It was an ESE wind, which is coming into your face, not from behind you, People were peeling off clothing because the air was completely saturated by a massive storm system, therefore no cooling effect.

Agree completely. In 2007 I was trying like hell to hide behind people. Going through Framingham and Natick all of us runners were just a big long line, all trying to draft off one another. This year we were all over the road, trying to catch the breeze behind us. It was like being being thrown forward. I wished I'd had a sail.

BamBam wrote:

Malmo, I just don't undestand why you put 2:06-2:07 values on Mutai when the record was 2:05:52 already by Robert Cheroyiot. To be fair, its ok to assume Mutai is better than RK, so why would he be slower?

Also, look at the Boston course compared to London or Berlin. If they can take advantage of the downhills, the course should be faster than London and Berlin. The old idea of Boston being a slower course can now be discounted consider the top five times are:

2:03:03/ 2:03:06/2:04:55/2:04:57/2:05:52

Aid of wind or not, the course is not slow.

It's like you didn't even bother to read the thread before posting this.