Boston analysis

Renato Canova · 2011-04-20T17:23:57-04:00

I'm now in Kenya, just arrived from Boston. I read a lot of comments about the influence of the wind, and frankly I find the nost part of these without any fundation. At first, we go to see the difference between the times of the best men and women and their PB, with some comment for everybody. MEN 1) Geoffrey Mutai 2:03:02 2:04:55 - 1:53 2) Moses Mosop 2:03:06 Debut 3) Gebre Gebremariam 2:04:53 2:08:14 - 3:21 4) Ryan Hall 2:04:58 2:06:14 - 1:16 5) Abraham Cherkos 2:06:13 2:07:29 - 1:16 6) Robert Cheruiyot 2:06:43 2:05:52 + 0:51 7) Philip Sanga 2:07:10 2:07:11 - 0:01 8) Chimsa 2:07:37 2:07:54 - 0:17 9) Daba 2:08:03 2:07:04 + 0:59 10) Robert Kipchumba 2:08:44 2:08:07 + 0.37 11) Peter Kamais 2:09:50 2:14:58 - 5:08 12) Cardona 2:12:17 13) Gilbert Yegon 2:13:00 2:06:18 + 6:42 14) Migidio Boirifa 2:13:45 2:09:07 + 4:38 15) Abe 2:15:48 2:13:46 + 2:02 Without calculating Mosop and Cardona (of course PB being their first marathon), we have a total time of + 15:49 for the athletes not running their PB (6 in top 15) and a total time of - 13:12 for the athletes running their PB (7 in top 15), with a balance of + 2:37 SLOWER THAN THEIR PB considering the top 15 (157.0 : 13 = 12.0 of average SLOWER THAN THE PB OF THE ATHLETES. Of course, this mathematic calculation is ridicolous. Infact, if we speak technically, we must cancel (because don't have any real signification) the performances of the following athletes : PETER KAMAIS (PB of 5:08) because Boston was his second marathon, the first was NY last year, when he finished jogging after trying to stay with the leaders for 35 km. So, the PB of last year was not his real value. The expecation of his coach Claudio Berardelli was of 2:07 / 2:08 for Boston. At the end, PB slower than the expectation. GILBERT YEGON (worse than his PB of 6:42). He tried to stay with the leaders, but his shape was not the best, and at the end he paid. His value could be about 2:08 with an even race, but in his current shape was penalized by the pace of yje race. MIGIDIO BOURIFA - His PB is of long time ago. His current value, in any case, is about 2:12. So, he ran slower than the expecrarion, but not too much. If we cancel the above athletes, we have a final balance of - 3:35 cumulative for 10 athletes, that means a difference with their PB of 21" each one (and I don't want to cancel Gebremariam, but of course his PB in NY last year was not his real value, being the first marathon and a difficult course). WOMEN 1) Carolyne Kilel 2:22:36 2:23:25 - 0:49 2) Desirèe Davila 2:22:38 2:26:20 - 3:42 3) Sharon Cherop 2:22:42 2:22:43 - 0:01 4) Caroline Rotich 2:24:26 5) Kara Goucher 2:24:52 2:25:53 - 1:01 6) Dire Tune 2:25:08 2:22:44 + 2:24 7) Workenesh Kidane 2:26:15 2:27:15 - 1:00 8) Caballero 2:26:17 9) Alice Timbilili 2:26:34 2:25:03 + 1:31 10) Ruban 2:27:00 2:27:44 - 0:44 11) Tsegaye Tirfi 2:27:29 2:22:44 + 4:45 12) Girma 2:28:48 2:27:51 + 0:57 13) Mugo 2:29:06 2:27:16 + 1:50 14) Skvortsova 2:29:14 2:26:24 + 2:50 15) Pushkaryeva 2:29:20 2:26:14 + 3:06 This means, for the 13 athletes already with a PB in Marathon, totals of + 17:23 slower than their PB, and of 7:17 faster, with a final balance of + 10:06 distributed between 13 athletes : that's mean the average of the top 15 was 46.6 SLOWER THAN THEIR PB. I spoke with the most part of the athletes, after the racem and EVERYBODY told me the wind was not very strong, not always id direction of the race, and the most part of time not significative (some time also against). The numbers I wrote before seem to confirm their theory. The PB (excluding the debutants) among the top 15 men were 6, while other 7 didn't improve. Inside the women race, the PB were 6, against 7 that didn't improve (same like men). Of course, the direction and the strength of the wind was measured at the start, and during the race there were a lot of variations. Also, the real component in direction of the race was between 20 and 40% of the strength of the wind, and in many cases (when the athletes were in the middle of buildings) the wind didn't arrive to the runners, because, coming from one side, the buildings created a barrier for the wind itself. So,every LINEAR calculation is a pure and, excuse me, very stupid speculation, because there is no a CONSTANT that is at the base of any physical analysis. Of course we can find some small advantage, but to speak about 3-4 minutes is simply crazy, and has nothing to do with the reality. I have the idea that US people were shocked by the performances of Ryan and of Desirèe, losing the contact with the reality. Of course, if in the mind of American runners you continue to look at 2:28 for a woman and 2:10 for a man like unbelievable performances (for the most part of people not possible without doping... how stupid and sad behavior !), you don't believe possible, for your runners, to have times of 2:05 and 2:22 without a lot of external aid. But I can tell you something. I knew Mosop was in a shape of 2:04, as Geoffrey, from what they were able to do. Of course, I didn't know what Ryan Hall could be able to do, and his 63:55 in NY HM didn't authorize anybody in thinking he could be in his best shape. Now I say my explanation for what happened. 1) In a course without rabbits, nobody supposed that one athlete (Ryan) could go from the start at so fast pace, without any mental inhibition. Ryan was wonderful as personality and as interpretation of the race, knowing his only chance is in a very fast but even pace. Of course, he didn't know the potentiality of Geoffrey and Moses, and he tried his best. Without him,probably the race could be a normal competition, with a final time about 2:05. 2) Geoffrey and Moses never looked at the watch, so were not afarid about the speed because they didn't want to know it. Honestly, we feared Gebremariam, and the tactic, involving Geoffrey, Moses and Robert Cheruiyot, was in any case to push very hard immediately after 30 km. 3) Without any mental conditioning, Geoffrey hammered in incredible way, running 28:24 between 30k and 40k. But wonderful was Moses, having a max gap of 8.0, never thinking to look for maintaining the second position only, but always concentrated on Geoffrey. His ability to stay in the race, in his first marathon, closing the gap after being 50m behind, was something really unbelievable (14:07 between 35 and 40k). And they were still able to finish last 2195m in 6:14 Geoffrey (exactly 2:50 per km) and 6:18 Moses (2:51.7). 4) They average was 2:55 per km, and this is possible only for athletes able running at the moment 10k under 27:00. The reality is that Marathon is changing, with this type of athletes. Till 5 years ago, few athletes able running about 27:00 moved to marathon, and only when old, and no more to run faster than 27:30. The same Tergat (WR holder of 10000m in 26'27") moved to marathon when no more able to run faster than 27:10. Instead, athletes like Geoffrey and Moses move to marathon WHEN ARE ABLE TO RUN 26:45. This fact provokes different effects : a) These athletes are younger (so more fresh in their mind and their body) and faster than before b) Their training changed. I use very high intensity for extensive workouts (for example, Moses ran 40k 3 weeks before Boston in 2:07:15, on rough road, start and finish in the same place, and heavy training shoes), and of course I need to give more days of recovery between one specific wokouts and the next one. In this case, Moses had the next training on track (10 x 1600m with 2' recovery in 4'35" / 4'32" with the last in 4'17") exactly 6 days after his 40k. c) Their level of intensity NEVER goes under 85%. This is a big difference, because in Kenya and Ethiopia the post-race behavior is to relax without doing any alternative training for rebuilding speed and muscle strength, so everytime the athletes prepare a new marathon they start again from a low level. Instead, Geoffrey using competitions, Moses using training, both of them maintain a high quality also short time after the marathon. We saw this last year with Geoffrey and Wilson Kiprop, this year with Mary Keitany. d) Physiologically speaking, this type of athletes are able running a HM near 6 mml of lactate, and their marathon is near 4 mml. In other words, if till 5 years ago the best marathon runners were DIESEL ENGINES, now are TURBO DIESEL (whar already happened with Paula Radcliffe). So, I really think that we don't have to wait too long time for looking at the first 2:02, also if it's difficult to have all the components favourable like in Boston this year. At least, everything has a logic explanation, and to do wrong analysis for justifying something out of the normality is an exercise that has the only effect to create limits in the mind of the athletes, and excuses for their poor performances.

Training Advice/Discussion

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 7 of 21

1 6 7 8 21

Next Last

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:15pm EDT

re: BamBam

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.

hahahahaha - and the first 4 of those times are from this year! You're joking right?

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:17pm EDT

re: Average_Joe

So you ran considerably further than 26.2?

Average_Joe wrote:
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.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:21pm EDT

re: Numb Nutz

Numb Nutz wrote:
So you ran considerably further than 26.2?

Um... no.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:22pm EDT

re: malmo

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.

My memory of 2007 is getting fuzzy but I remember that the forecast was describing the worst possible weather the day before: heavy winds in the face, cold so that BAA warned against hypothermia, and crazy rain.

By starting time, there was still a significant headwind but it was much warmer and most people were wearing too many layers (me included). Having prepared for the worst, it wasn't all that bad. A PR was out of question for most everyone and I took it a bit easier too. The winner was 2:14. That says it all.

2:14 with headwinds in Boston should help you understand that with the right runners, sub2 is possible in Boston on a day like Monday.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:23pm EDT

re: Surprise!

Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow. Why is a downhill course slower than Berlin anyways? Four times from this year, yes I know that. And one from last year. I just was bringing back up the part that Malmo considers Mutai to be a 2:06-2:07 guy at Boston, but a 2:04-2:05 guy at Berlin/Rotterdamn. If RK was 2:05 already, then you can't give Mutai a slower time.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:24pm EDT

re: BamBam

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?
.

No it wouldn't be fair to say that Mutai would be better than Cheroyiot. Mutai has a best of 2:04:55 on a flat course. Cheeoyiot had a tailwind too last year, but not as strong, nor as direct as Mondays run.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:29pm EDT

re: CGHomes

CGHomes wrote:
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.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:31pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow.

If there is no wind, Boston is around 2 min slower than Berlin. For someone who is not in top shape, Boston course can seriously screw you up an make a difference of a dozen minutes or so...

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:32pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow. Why is a downhill course slower than Berlin anyways? Four times from this year, yes I know that. .

Bamabam, you must be a newbie. Boston's net downhill topography is a hindrance not a help. It's been explained many times before.

Boston's unique topography makes it a NET downhill race on paper, however, it's still certainly not as fast as a flat course. Not even close. Any "aiding" at Boston depends on the capricious nature of the westerly winds. Even with the benefit of a tailwind, the course is such that your legs take an awful beating.

Notice that during the first mile (a) there is a drop of 130 ft. At the end of four miles (b), a net drop of 310 ft. Anyone who's ever run a marathon knows that the first four miles means nothing and any gains during those first four miles are going to be negligible -- especially in world-class fields. From four to 21 miles (b-d) there is an elevation RISE of 50 ft., leading to a quad-destroying drop of 220 ft. over the last five miles (e-f). I cannot name one runner who has ever said that they were "aided" during those last five miles of Boston, can you? To the contrary, the race history is riddled with dozens of runners making it through 21 miles ahead of world-record pace -- facing only downhill ahead -- and then being cruelly humbled by the final descent.

In a nutshell: Minus 310 ft. over four miles. Verdict: small gain. Plus 50 ft. over the next 17 miles. Verdict: a loss. Minus 220 ft over the last 5 miles. Verdict: a big loss.

I cannot stress it enough the two most significant features of Boston's course are the downhills at (c) Newton Lower Falls (-100ft. at 15.5 miles) and (e) St. Ignatious Church (-80 ft. at 21 miles after Heartbreak). That -80 ft. drop at St. Ignatious is more like -100 ft because there is a little rise after it to the 22 mile checkpoint. Those downhills kill the superstars and plodders alike.

Here are the elevations above sea level of the mile marks on the Boston Marathon course.

Mileage City/Town Elevation ft. Netchange

Start Hopkinton 490 N/A

1.0 Hopkinton 360 -130 (a)

2.0 Ashland 320 -40

3.0 Ashland 265 -55

4.0 Ashland 180 -85 (b)

5.0 Framingham 205 +25

6.0 Framingham 180 -25

7.0 Framingham 155 -25

8.0 Natick 180 +25

9.0 Natick 150 -30

10.0 Natick 170 +20

11.0 Natick 180 +10

12.0 Wellesley 165 -15

13.0 Wellesley 145 -20

14.0 Wellesley 130 -15

15.0 Wellesley 160 +30

16.0 Newton/LowerFalls 60 -100 (c)

17.0 Newton 115 +55

18.0 West Newton 145 +30

19.0 Newton 130 -15

20.0 Newton 150 +20

21.0 ChestnutHill 230 +80 (d)

22.0 Boston/Brighton 150 -80 (e)

23.0 Brookline 95 -55

24.0 Brookline 60 -35

25.0 Boston/Back Bay 15 -45

26.0 Boston/Back Bay 10 -5

26.2 Finish 10 0 (f)

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:35pm EDT

re: malmo

On a windless day, you say Mutai would be 2:06-2:07/ all else being equal (pacing, strategy). That's a lot of credit for the wind for a 2:04:55 guy running on a downhill course.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:35pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow.

Well then there's really not much to discuss. History has shown it to be slower than the other majors with the exception of NYC.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:37pm EDT

re: malmo

Just a thought here, but has it occured to anyone that maybe these guys are just that good. Mutai was already a sub 2:05 guy. Hall is a 2:06 low guy. You all are making it seem like these guys came out of nowhere to run these times. The defending champ ran slower than he ran last year. This isn't a situation where the whole field PR'd by 5 minutes. A couple of guys PR'd by less than 2 minutes and you all are acting like it's impossible for that to happen. Part of what made Mutai and Mosop so good was a great pacer in Hall, plus they had eachother the whole way to work off of. Hall and Gebre had eachother as well. Having someone to race against late in a marathon is a huge advantage that isn't always there. When you're dead tired and there is no one around, as is often the case at the front of WR pace marathons, it's real easy to slow down....even if you're not trying to.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:40pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
On a windless day, you say Mutai would be 2:06-2:07/ all else being equal (pacing, strategy). That's a lot of credit for the wind for a 2:04:55 guy running on a downhill course.

Bambam, you are even in the discussion if you don't understand why Boston is a slow course.

This is probably a better forum for you.

http://www.runnersworld.com/community/forums/runner-communities/beginners

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:43pm EDT

re: Surprise!

Malmo, I understand the effect of downhill course have on the legs (CIM for example). This is where the ability to absorb the stress (eccentric strength play a big role). When their quads or leg strength is not a limiting factor, the course can be crushed. History doesn't show this very well because most people are simply limited by the downhills impact on the legs. These athletes aren't (evidence shows with the fastest 5k being net UPHILL). So I'll post the link to Boston compared to other courses:

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/course/elevations/

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:46pm EDT

re: CGHomes

CGHomes wrote:
Just a thought here, but has it occured to anyone that maybe these guys are just that good. Mutai was already a sub 2:05 guy. Hall is a 2:06 low guy. You all are making it seem like these guys came out of nowhere to run these times. The defending champ ran slower than he ran last year. This isn't a situation where the whole field PR'd by 5 minutes. A couple of guys PR'd by less than 2 minutes and you all are acting like it's impossible for that to happen. Part of what made Mutai and Mosop so good was a great pacer in Hall, plus they had eachother the whole way to work off of. Hall and Gebre had eachother as well. Having someone to race against late in a marathon is a huge advantage that isn't always there. When you're dead tired and there is no one around, as is often the case at the front of WR pace marathons, it's real easy to slow down....even if you're not trying to.

No one said they were good runners. They are GREAT runners. They didn't come out of nowhere, their performances did.

I explained it before, when 9 out of the top 15 set PRs on a slow course, something you'd rarely see in any legit flat course, you don't have to be a genius figure this out.

Dude, you're just pissing into the wind.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:50pm EDT

re: BamBam

Malmo, you need to get out. You'd get better results trying to teach my dog how to do calculus.

WHY, oh WHY, would you give the credit for an amazing 5k split to the athletes' "not being limited by the downhill impact on the legs", and NOT to the tailwind blowing them forward?

Why doesn't someone start a point to point race somewhere with a consistent north wind, and have it run due south, and I will fly to that place and PR for whatever distance it is. This is really simple stuff.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 1:55pm EDT

re: edumacator

Why don't they start a course that goes with the prevailing winds: 1) it is stupid 2) it is not a legitimate marathon course.

Any more dumb questions?

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:02pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
Not really. I just don't believe the concept of Boston being slow. Why is a downhill course slower than Berlin anyways? Four times from this year, yes I know that. And one from last year. I just was bringing back up the part that Malmo considers Mutai to be a 2:06-2:07 guy at Boston, but a 2:04-2:05 guy at Berlin/Rotterdamn. If RK was 2:05 already, then you can't give Mutai a slower time.

Have you ever raced Boston and Berlin? I don't want to just dismiss your argument, but I think if you were to race them both you would understand better. In 8 tries at Boston, I still haven't come with 5 minutes of what I ran the ONE time I did Berlin. I also haven't come within 2 minutes of what I ran the two times I did Chicago. The course just beats you to hell. On a bad day, it beats you up so badly that you are unable to run fast even when you still have a lot of energy in the tank.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:03pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
Malmo, I understand the effect of downhill course have on the legs (CIM for example). This is where the ability to absorb the stress (eccentric strength play a big role). When their quads or leg strength is not a limiting factor, the course can be crushed. History doesn't show this very well because most people are simply limited by the downhills impact on the legs. These athletes aren't (evidence shows with the fastest 5k being net UPHILL). So I'll post the link to Boston compared to other courses:
http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/course/elevations/

I wouldn't take those maps from marathonguide.com seriously.

The map of the Berlin Marathon shows hills were there are none. The course path is drawn with shortcuts over buildings at 2, 5, 8, 11, 13 and 23 miles. I assure you, it is much easier, and flatter, to simply follow the roads rather than try to climb buildings. The roads are flat. The buildings are not.

http://www.marathonguide.com/coursemaps/elevationchart.cfm?MIDD=54070930

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:06pm EDT

re: edumacator

edumacator wrote:
WHY, oh WHY, would you give the credit for an amazing 5k split to the athletes' "not being limited by the downhill impact on the legs", and NOT to the tailwind blowing them forward? .

Repeat in the form of a question, in English this time, please?

Page 7 of 21

1 6 7 8 21

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

Boston analysis

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Boston analysis

Jump To A Page

Follow Surprise!

Block Surprise!

Follow Average_Joe

Block Average_Joe

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow Surprise!

Block Surprise!

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow edumacator

Block edumacator

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow Average_Joe

Block Average_Joe

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.