People don't seem to realize how bad the heat was at Chicago

Spot on Mr. Hanson - these elite US folk had best sack up in these conditions. Stop with the excuses. If I'm Pinkowski, I'd save my expenses and pay 'em out as incentives if they finish the race. Why in god's name does the US field decide going out in 104 is a good decision, when none in the field have run sub 211? Just stupid.

hmmmm wrote:

"It was brutally hot"-Wejo

http://www.letsrun.com/wejorecap.html

"DeHaven only missed it by 90 seconds on a brutally hot day in Pittsburgh. If the Trials had been run on the flat Chicago course in decent temperatures, DeHaven would have run close to 2:11:00 and Clark would have broken 2:30.

So the solution is simple, hold the Trials on courses in 2004 where there is no chance for extremely hot weather. Admittedly global warming makes this a slightly more difficult task but it shouldn't be all that difficult as hardly any marathons are run in 80 degree weather."-Rojo

http://www.letsrun.com/rojospeaks.htmlhttp://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KAGC/2000/5/7/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Pittsburgh&req_state=PA&req_statename=Pennsylvaniahttp://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMDW/2010/10/10/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Chicago&req_state=IL&req_statename=Illinois

hypocrisy is easy to come by, no?

I love the absolute lack of any attempt at understanding.

Just one factor not mentioned so far is that there was a slight (5 MPH) following wind for much the last half of the race- from the West and Southwest. How this affected those actually out there on the course can only be reported firsthand- since how the wind is channeled and concentrated between buildings and ultimately felt by the runner is not data available anywhere else.

Wow. Most of the people who ran are saying conditions were pretty decent first half, harder the second half. Most have said that is not the whole reason for not reaching their goals, but a contributing factor. Seems like a reasonable assessment to me since temps were 80+ by 2:30 in the race.

Nearly everyone who didn't run or was not even there, including the founders of this site, are saying "Grow a pair". I guess these people have never had a race disappointment that they felt had a contribution by something out of their control.

One more thing. Many people here need to go back to elementary school English class. Learn the difference between Then and Than, Their and They're. Learn to punctuate properly and use paragraphs and complete sentences. An written insult from an illiterate person is not much of an insult.

hahahaha... you ought to join them in English class after that last sentence--"AN written insult from an illiterate person..." aaaaaahahahahaha

Did the Heat play in Chicago? The season doesn't even start until next month, and who cares if they had a bad preseason game.

I love people who WEREN'T THERE saying the weather was just fine. Or people who DIDN'T RUN wondering why those who did run were complaining. It's not like spectators were passing out from heat stroke, but it was a bad day for spectators out there if they were jogging from point to point. Spectators waiting for people to come out of the finish area were seaking shade. IT WAS HOT OUT THERE!

Weather at start was 58 degrees climbing to mid 60s by the time top men and women finished. It actually cooled off between 5 am and 8 am (1/2 hour after the start) by 2 degrees. Low humidity. Not sure what runners are looking for - this is not bad weather. I was frankly suprised that the men ran as slow as they did - everyone I spoke to that morning thought the weather for the elites was okay for a sub 2:05 race.

On the other hand, the weather for the non-elites and sub-elites was very difficult - temperatures were mid 80s at the finish by 2:00 p.m.[quote]Were you there? wrote:

This thread is great. It's a fantastic idiot and asshole test. Those who say the heat was "no big deal", and the athletes need to "suck it up" or "grow a pair" are failing the test.

Kevin Hanson, you are a nice guy, but your post has made me lose a lot of respect for your intellectual abilities. You're failing as a coach if this is your actual analysis of the race and the weather conditions. I was right behind Andrea when she dropped out. Was the heat "no big deal" for her? It's ludicrous not to consider the fact that the heat and sun may affect different athletes in different ways. You also have to consider that the heat would affect those running in the 2:30 to 2:40 range more than those running in the 2:10 to 2:20 range. I would be interested in hearing a more well-thought-out response from you.

As for wejo, rojo, malmo and RunningArt, I already thought you were assholes and/or stupid, so no surprises there.

Conto, although I mostly agree with you, I also don't think it's fair to criticize people who didn't adjust their race plans for the heat, especially those who were trying to hit a trials standard. For them, what is the point of surrendering to the heat at the start of the race? You don't get anything for running 1:12/1:12. You might as well go for it and see what happens.

Not a single elite development male hit the standard. And there were a bunch of guys capable of it in good conditions. The race was stacked with some really good sub-elite talent. Hell, even some of the Hanson's guys, although they ran well, did not hit the standard. To say that the heat did not play a role is just ignorant. Why do some people hold on to these stupid opinions?

Disclosure: Yes, I ran the race, and yes it felt hot out there.

This weather station is very close to the southern part of the course (U.S. Cellular field):

http://www.findu.com/cgi-bin/wxpage.cgi?call=CW3175&last=240

It wasn't recording during the marathon. Conspiracy?

No conspiracy. Hourly temperature reports are here.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KORD/2010/10/10/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

These temps are from the airport which is going to be warmer than downtown Chicago because of the Lake effect.

I ran - IT WAS HOT!

If you were not there, and just going by web site temps, without actually experiencing what it felt like running on the course, under the sun, with no shade between miles 15 and 26...

SHUT THE HELL UP!

Where did you learn that, your Chicago travel guide?

When the weather cools, the lake area is warmer before the sun comes up than the burbs.

It can be in the 40's in Aurora, and mid 50's downtown because the lake is still warm.

You fail.

A lot of people in this thread need a tissue for their crying. Damn! Like some have mentioned, if you think it's going to be warm, then you have to ADJUST accordingly. I ran (and won) a half this weekend, in which it was 28 degrees Fahrenheit at start. The ground was completely white with frost. So I started slower than planned to allow the muscles to warm up/not pull anything and started rolling afterwards toward the win. No kleenex necessary.

Frost?

What the f*** does that story have to do with anything in this thread?

Conto,

It's one thing to find out what went wrong or right. It's another thing to over focus or overanalyze everything. Now someone is talking about a 5mph wind. Really? 5mph? In the windy city?

No I wasn't there Sunday but I've done Chicago twice and both times temps were actually in the 40s-60s and of course WINDY. I've run hot marathons with temps in the 80s too.

If the weather is bad then just prepare for it and accept it instead of crying about it. If someone ran 2:40 they ran 2:40 not "well I ran 2:40 but it was hot and coulda woulda shoulda run 2:35 if this or if that...". The marathon brings out more of this crap than any other distance.

Runners have clicked off PRs in every kind of weather. Typically the problem, especially with Chicago, is every Timmy, Bobby, or Joey overextending themselves because of the flat course and competition. They don't respect the weather be it hot, windy, or cold. They don't respect their own preparedness.

Alan

Chicago is not called the Windy City because of the wind.

Well if you knew how to read, you'd see the analogy. Sub-freezing temps were probably not ideal (much like the TORRID 65 degree avg. temp at Chicago). I said that in less than ideal conditions, you have to adjust, plain and simple. Apparently not simple enough for you though.

You are clueless

Nobody said a word about the start. The issues occured in the second half. Are you saying it was 65 after 9?most everyone did adjust. Since you are flaunting your reading skill, why don't you read the whole thread?

Most would take freezing temps over heat any day.

Another guy who wasn't there, didn't read the whole thread but jumps in and bloviates out his ass.