hey, hey Amby Burfoot

"young" john kelley was amby's mentor.

amby wrote a terrific piece in runner's world a few years ago as a tribute to "young" john (thanks again amby).

That is what marathon racing is all about. The thrill and real challenge of the Marathon is the race and not as much the time trial. Wanjiru's race tied with Abebe's Tokyo 64 race for the best marathon races I have seen. You have to be prepared for the conditions and terrain as well as the competition. The US marathon team did this better than the other teams in Athens.

By the way, after I moved from Toronto to Los Angeles, I began to have trouble in Boston if it was a cold day. I had to learn how to prepare for conditions I was no longer used to.

I always enjoy sharing moments from my "Boston days"....they were a lot of fun! Yes, I recall Bill being "motivated" by the support Drayton appeared to be getting along the course. Being the hometown boy, so to speak, I guess the cheers for Drayton actually motivated Bill to run faster. Interestingly, Drayton dropped out of Boston in 1970 ( Ron Hill's great year ), and dropped out at some point in 1975, allowing me to ultimately get 2nd place. Drayton was a great one, and it illustrates how great Bill's run was to "break" him. Drayton, of course, went on to get his coveted Boston win in 1977 on a warm day, where Bill dropped out. Drayton's well-justified complaints about the lack of water on the course, etc. led Boston to improve itself.

Amby Burfoot was indeed a pioneer in our sport. My first recollection of Amby was when my old friend Ron Daws would mention Amby's accomplishments off of relatively slow high-mileage workouts ( 7- minute stuff!). His speedwork came from all the racing he did, which included some 8:4x 2-miles, etc.! Unfortunately that wouldn't work for most runners; Amby had a gift. My first race against Amby in college was perhaps 1966 or 67 (?). He was a couple of years older than me, very tall and SKINNY, wearing a painter's cap and glasses. He did a very slow jog warm-up, and I have to admit now, he looked a little strange, (even among us strange distance types.) He went on to completely destroy the field, and after that, for a while, we all copied Amby's slow jogging warm-up.....until we figured out that it only worked for Amby!

No need to taunt, I have had a busy non-LetsRun.com sched lately. And if you're looking for me to recant my asser4tion, sorry, I'm not going to do it.

For Woods, 19 wins/37 starts (before the match play this week) is a 51.35% winning percentage. I'm not sure this is the compelling evidence you're seeking.

Another example: Lel has been very hard to beat, but looking at results is a lot different than looking at "a priori" chances of winning. Like the cliche goes (sorry about that), any decent historian can make any past event seem "inevitable."

As for Bekele, as I mentioend, he's the best by so wide a margin, and the race is of such a different character than the marathon, that as I said at first it doesn't meet my criterion more than a small range of possible outcomes -- very thin tails on the distribution.

On Boston, who's your bet? Announced field is Evans Cheruiyot, Deribe Merga, Ryan Hall, Robert Kipkoech Cheruiyot, Daniel Rono, Robert Kiprono (Cheruiyot), Gashaw Asfaw, Brian Sell, Jason Lehmkuhle, Timothy Cherigat, Stephen Kiogora, Solomon Molla, Lee Troop, and Abebe Dinkesa. Maybe someone not annoucned yet...

Pick any guy -- RKC is clearly the favorite but by no means a lock -- looks to me like at least 6 other guys can conceivably beat him -- I'd rate his probability of winning at less than 51.35%. So I'll take the field.

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

No need to taunt, I have had a busy non-LetsRun.com sched lately. And if you're looking for me to recant my asser4tion, sorry, I'm not going to do it.

No taunting intended.

I was anxious to read how one of the more cognitively capable of the denizens would "spin" out of the "Tiger Woods/better than the field" claim.

This is a year I might take the field, but that certainly is not always the case, and it sure isn't the case "almost any year".

The fact is, that in racing, the Champions do rise up, often, NOT ALWAYS, but the Champions beat the field enough times to make your statement incorrect.

The field simply does not win "almost any time" and it is not "a safer bet" to always or *almost always* take the field.

You misapplied the wagering adage. What you should have stated was that over a large enough series of wagering events you will be ahead if you bet the field.

You would be wrong to apply that method if you are limited to a single wagering event or even a small number of events; you will be burnt.

I had fun with the idea of predicted favorites and the Boston Marathon over the years while I researched and wrote the book on it. I did not analyze predictions and results for the entire history but anyone who wants could read through and do that. It's only 600 pages.

I know that in Burfoot's year, 1968, the newspapers expected a couple of Mexicans to win.

But as reporting and racing improved in accuracy and frequency, fewer winners come out of nowhere. But as performances get closer to each other, little problems for a runners make big differences in the results.

Tom

Tom,

Thank you for sharung with us some of your vast knowledge of our sport.

It appears to me that the United States runner of today has no ideal of the real impact that John J. Kelley has had on marathon running in this country. Some may know that John won Boston once and was United States Marathon Champion eight times but who realizes that he was second in the Boston Marathon five times and was in the top ten four other years. John ran Boston well over 30 times and ran 2:55.30 at age 52 in 1983. John won many many other races over a very long running career. We know that Amby was greatly influenced by John J. Kelley but, I believe, many other very successful American runners profited from that same personality and knowledge.

HRE wrote:

Why do nationalities matter?

it doesn't. what matters is how many f'ing fast guys are in the race.

I think Amby is acknowledging that the new africans have changed the game. The top american guys now are not pussies compared to the old guys from the golden age. those old guys just didn't face this kind of competition.

Incidentally, Amby passed me twice in Boston in 1967. I remember that he was moving very well the second time. I guess that he had just had a bit of a rest.[/quote]

The "bit of a rest" Amby spent sitting in the smallest room of a gas station vowing never to eat apple butter on the morning of a marathon. He had to stop twice.

Those of us who knew that he had run 2:28 regardless of the "problem" knew he would be a contender, but most people picked the Mexicans.

These days someone would have recorded the stops and posted them on UTube.

Tom

dont be a dumbass wrote:

[quote]HRE wrote:

Why do nationalities matter?

it doesn't. what matters is how many f'ing fast guys are in the race.

I think Amby is acknowledging that the new africans have changed the game. The top american guys now are not pussies compared to the old guys from the golden age. those old guys just didn't face this kind of competition

I don't know how old you are. I'm old, and ran in the "golden age" ( your words) you refer to. Competition is always relative, and there's no one happier than myself that the huge number of highly talented Africans wasn't around in that era. Still, we had very talented Japanese, Mexicans, Finns, Brits, Australians, Kiwis, etc. to contend with. Point is at the world class level, competition is always fierce. Always has been, whether, you are talking about winning times in the 2:30s, 2:15s, 2:08s.... I'm sure that Johnny Kelley worried as much about Les Pawson, Tarzan Brown, and other elites in his day. I'm sure that Bill Rodgers worried as much about Toshihiko Seko or Jerome Drayton as Ryan Hall does about the Kenyans and Ethiopians. The elites today are definitely faster, but that doesn't make them necessarily tougher than the elites of other eras..

My experience with U.S elites today (males, at least) is NOT that they are pussies (your word). Far from it! What it is usually is that to run a certain race, they must check with their agent, coach, sponsor, etc. In the "golden age" that you refer to, a guy like Bill Rodgers would run virtually any race he wanted, regardless of the field. Bill welcomed the competition, and he didn't have to get clearance from anyone. Granted the quantity and quality has changed in the last 30 or so years, but it seems like today's elites will only race when it's to their advantage. In some ways, you can't blame them as there is a lot of money at stake. However, it gives the perception that they sometimes back away from the toughest competition. Having said all this about the merits of the "golden age", there will be no one pulling harder for Mr. Hall and Ms. Goucher at Boston this year than myself and other "golden agers". We appreciate their talent and toughness.

Average_Joe wrote:

Don't feel bad. I've tried 5 times and I've flopped miserably every time, never within 10 minutes of my marathon PR (admittedly far slower than 2:15). I live in the area, train on the course, get in the right mileage, hit the hills, etc but Boston just owns me.

Your own self-testimony says that you didn't "get in the right mileage, hit the hills, etc."

If you think guys like Steve, Bill Rodgers, Shorter were "pussies" you're either incredibly stupid or you're being deliberately provocative. In either case there's no point in debating you.

Rich,

If you reread what he said, he does not call anyone pussies.

"The top american guys now are not pussies compared to the old guys from the golden age. those old guys just didn't face this kind of competition."

I think his comment was a commentary on the oft said, "We were much tougher then, these young guys don't race as much / don't train as much, etc.

Wayne

AMBY: "You're asking almost for the impossible. How does someone stand on a start line with five Kenyans on his left, five Ethiopians on his right and think, 'I'm going to take it to these guys today.' The odds are 10 to 1 against you if you're equal, and it's hard even to convince yourself you are equal."

Um, there is absolutely nothing factually wrong with what Amby wrote(except he should have said one only has a 1 in 11 chance of winning, and since the big marathons split up the best athletes, one won't face 5 top ethiopians and 5 top kenyans generally).

He said: IF you are equal to the other 10 guys, then there is a 1 in 11 chance of you winning. And since the best East Africans have run much faster than anyone else, and have won more big races, then yes, it is hard to convince oneself that you is equal to those guys. He was saying the odds are tough to beat them all.

What are you guys arguing about?

Then I really, really, apologize to him. Thanks for interpreting for me Wayne.

dont be a dumbass wrote:

[quote]HRE wrote:

Why do nationalities matter?

it doesn't. what matters is how many f'ing fast guys are in the race.

Depth??

2008 TOP FINISHERS

Places & times:

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:07:46

2

2:09:04

3

2:10:35

4

2:10:47

5

2:12:24

6

2:14:13

7

2:14:47

8

2:15:52

9

2:16:07

10

2:16:13

11

2:16:51

12

2:18:40

13

2:18:55

14

2:19:22

15

2:20:57

2007 TOP FINISHERS

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:14:13

2

2:14:33

3

2:14:47

4

2:15:05

5

2:15:06

6

2:16:04

7

2:16:08

8

2:16:41

9

2:17:04

10

2:18:07

11

2:19:04

12

2:19:54

13

2:20:04

14

2:20:10

15

2:20:18

2006 TOP FINISHERS

Place

Official Time

1

2:07:14

2

2:08:21

3

2:09:56

4

2:10:55

5

2:11:02

6

2:11:32

7

2:12:45

8

2:13:26

9

2:13:47

10

2:14:12

11

2:15:23

12

2:16:09

13

2:17:02

14

2:18:26

15

2:19:29

2005 TOP FINISHERS

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:11:45

2

2:12:21

3

2:12:48

4

2:13:39

5

2:14:30

6

2:15:19

7

2:15:26

8

2:16:38

9

2:16:41

10

2:17:32

11

2:18:17

12

2:18:22

13

2:18:57

14

2:19:04

15

2:19:28

2004 TOP FINISHERS

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:10:37

2

2:11:49

3

2:13:38

4

2:14:34

5

2:17:30

6

2:17:45

7

2:18:23

8

2:19:31

9

2:21:24

10

2:22:45

11

2:23:48

12

2:24:06

13

2:25:45

14

2:26:15

15

2:27:15

2003 TOP FINISHERS

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:10:11

2

2:10:34

3

2:11:11

4

2:11:28

5

2:12:45

6

2:15:29

7

2:16:14

8

2:16:16

9

2:17:00

10

2:17:18

11

2:17:50

12

2:18:31

13

2:18:55

14

2:22:06

15

2:23:59

2002 TOP FINISHERS

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:09:02

2

2:09:05

3

2:09:45

4

2:09:45

5

2:10:30

6

2:10:40

7

2:11:39

8

2:11:43

9

2:11:49

10

2:12:28

11

2:12:40

12

2:12:48

13

2:13:04

14

2:13:04

15

2:13:28

2001 TOP FINISHERS

Runners: Men

Place

Official Time

1

2:09:43

2

2:10:07

3

2:10:29

4

2:11:47

5

2:12:01

6

2:12:41

7

2:12:44

8

2:13:54

9

2:14:13

10

2:14:21

11

2:14:47

12

2:15:05

13

2:16:00

14

2:16:17

15

2:17:02

In light of tomorrow’s Boston Marathon, I am bumping this 15 year old thread started by Bob Hodge.

Some legendary posters on this thread, some no longer with us (Orville Atkins and Steve Hoag). It is strange that there was a time when legends of the sport used this forum to communicate with each other.