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 8 of 21

1 7 8 9 21

Next Last

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:10pm EDT

re: malmo

Average_Joe, you actually support my arguement that these athletes are disproving the common myth surrounding what makes Boston slow. If your handle represents your abilities (no diss intended), you are claiming that Boston "beats you to death." I agree, CIM did as well for me (same type of course). But for these talented athlets (giving credit to their eccentric strength), they can crush the downhill part yet have the strength to power uphill. 2:04/26:50 type athletes rarely have touched Boston (not sure if they have at all/ and definitely havent ATTACKED from the gun). The slow Boston still exists....for those who can't absorb the impact.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:13pm EDT

re: Adrian Marriott

Adrian Marriott wrote:
Renato, i'm curious about the 4mmol level for the TURBO DIESEL marathon runners and where the extra sugars come from to sustain that ?
Its a big step from 2 - 2.5mmol in your book (and my experience also from testing normal european runners).
Are you able to give some insight beyond the 40km hard run, which qualities are changing - bigger fuel tank ?
Adrian

I just wanted to repost this question for Renato in case he missed it. I was wondering the same thing.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:13pm EDT

re: malmo

malmo wrote:
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

You missed the point entirely. Criticizing an elevation map doesn't suffice to refute the argument, Malmo.

The point is that for certain athletes, rolling, net-downhill courses are not a disdavantage at all. You can talk about how much slower Boston is historically, and that's fine—for MOST people. But not for all. (This, also, ignoring the point that Boston doesn't have pacers, and the temperatures are often much hotter, both of which contribute to slower average times, forgetting the hills.)

As Canova said:

"What I want to say is that an hilly course can have different impact for different athletes, but in some case doesn't penalize the final time. Athletes as Geoffrey (very high agility) or Moses (very high eccentric strength) don't suffer this kind of courses.

Leonard Komon, for example, improved last year the WR of 15 km in a race called "Seven Hills", that of course is very hilly. If there are not long hills to climb, but short and hard, athletes with good strength can attack at high speed, and the next downhill can be run at high speed with good relaxation."

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:25pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam wrote:
Average_Joe, you actually support my arguement that these athletes are disproving the common myth surrounding what makes Boston slow. If your handle represents your abilities (no diss intended), you are claiming that Boston "beats you to death." I agree, CIM did as well for me (same type of course). But for these talented athlets (giving credit to their eccentric strength), they can crush the downhill part yet have the strength to power uphill. 2:04/26:50 type athletes rarely have touched Boston (not sure if they have at all/ and definitely havent ATTACKED from the gun). The slow Boston still exists....for those who can't absorb the impact.

I don't think I support your argument here. You seem to think that part of being elite is some special immunity to the pounding. That's not at all in evidence. Of course Boston still beats up the elites. It just beats them a whole lot less than someone like me.

It's like that quote by... I think Steve Jones. Can't remember it exactly but it was something like: "Everyone hits the wall in the marathon. It's just that when I hit the wall, I start running 5:20 miles"

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:27pm EDT

re: Average_Joe

See, the problem I see here is that I ran Boston in 2007 as well. I ran a PB (we actually ran together for a bit, I think). I didn't notice the wind much during the race. I liked the conditions!

Many people said that the weather was awful, lots of people dropped out (supposedly), and all the top guys ran the first half at a glacial pace. Some elites were wearing windbreakers until Newton. And, I think most people would say, "Robert Cheriuyot could have run a lost faster than 2:14 that day if the weather was better." But what does that matter?

My point being, we can debate all day long about how fast people SHOULD have or COULD have run given the conditions, but none of that really matters in a road race as historic as Boston. But, you can't scientifically determine how much of an advantage the wind gave runners with anything resembling accuracy. The number of variables involved makes that ridiculous. What we're all doing is making up random times to add to each person's time, which, to me, is like people adjusting their PR's based on their Garmin saying the course was 26.32 miles long.

If we're adding three minutes to everyone's time this year, how much should we subtract from everyone's 2007 time for blustery, cold and wet conditions? Four minutes? Four seconds per kilometer? Or do we just accept what we ran, like normal people?

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:28pm EDT

re: BamBam

BamBam, you are thick. Sacto and Boston are not similar. I've run Sacto and I've run Bostons course from Natick to Cleveland Circle dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. I know every nook and cranny of Commonwealth Ave.

The course are only similar in that there is an elevation drop. Not the magnitude of it, nor the specifics of the drops

Sacto

overall drop = 300 ft

2-4 miles = 100 ft drop.

4-11 miles = flat

11 miles = 80 foot drop followed by 50 ft rise

12-26 miles = gentile 100 foot drop.

Boston

overall drop = 450ft

0-4 miles = 250 ft drop

4-15 miles = 50 ft drop

15-15.5 miles = 110 ft drop

16.0 -16.5 miles = 80 foot climb

16.5 - 21 miles = a series 4 drops then climbs totaling 150 ft

21 miles = the double-dip to St Ignatious

21.5 - 23 = a screaming 150' drop.

23 to 24 = another steep drop of 100'

24-finish = flat.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:28pm EDT

re: malmo

malmo wrote:
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.

You really need to stop twisting the stats to make your point look better.

It's not 9/15. Two of those were debuets, so any finishing time is a PR, so lets work with 7/13. The only two guys who had monster PR's, were Gebre and Kamais. Both running their second marathon. Both ran NY last year as their first, and as such, both would be expected to run significantly faster. So that leaves us with 5/11 setting a PR. They averaged a PR of 57 seconds, and all of them finished in the top 8. So is it really that unreasonable for 5 guys to have a good day at the same time that 6 guys don't? Those that were "on" set PR's. Those that weren't, didn't. Sounds like a normal marathon to me.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:31pm EDT

re: Average_Joe

Sorry Average_Joe, shouldn't of used you as an example but the point I was trying to make is that the downhills didn't tax Mutai at all (fasest 10k split was the final 30-40k, fastest 5k was uphill). I'm sure the course "beat up" Mutai, but it didn't show in the race considering how fast he closed.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:34pm EDT

re: Renato Canova

Sorry Renato, you are not unbiased. You make a living advertising how fast your runners run. Just think if they had turned around at 13 and ran into the 20 mph wind! Hall's front running was artificially fast, why were 15 runners still mear the lead in 1:02 at the half? It was a great race but artificially fast. Sorry.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:35pm EDT

re: keep it simple

i rewatched the race for signs of wind.

the women start out into headwind, if you believe the flags.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s0WieKwokp4/TbAR_UuhOoI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/Dsb-zaokS5Q/s640/one.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oGImIdcUieA/TbASLSafPuI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/w-F0sLW90Eo/s640/two.png

start of men looked like no wind.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p5ezuDDT2CE/TbAS7_IVOFI/AAAAAAAAAKU/1Nih49R4X68/s1600/nine.png

most of the wind you see during the broadcast appears to be sidewind, with much of it looking like barely any wind. this is going by the flags and such along the course. i screen capped a bunch of pictures.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:36pm EDT

re: CGHomes

Homes. Get serious. I'm no0t twisting stats, you are.

9 of the top ten set PRs. Only one of them debuted, and, for the record that's a PR. Unless he improves dramatically he will never ever see a sub 2:04 again.

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 2:13:29 - 1.12

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

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:41pm EDT

re: Average_Joe

Average_Joe wrote:
I don't think I support your argument here. You seem to think that part of being elite is some special immunity to the pounding. That's not at all in evidence. Of course Boston still beats up the elites. It just beats them a whole lot less than someone like me.
It's like that quote by... I think Steve Jones. Can't remember it exactly but it was something like: "Everyone hits the wall in the marathon. It's just that when I hit the wall, I start running 5:20 miles"

Wrong.

First, "the wall" is glycogen depletion and has nothing to do with quad failure due to eccentric loading on the downs.

Regarding the pounding, I will again invoke Canova from earlier in the thread:

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:43pm EDT

re: PresMustache

There you have it. Three screen shots.

The weather readings were wrong!

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:47pm EDT

re: malmo

malmo wrote:
There you have it. Three screen shots.
The weather readings were wrong!

you are looking at weather readings, i am looking at the flags blowing all along the course, which seem to be a pretty fair indication of how the wind is blowing ALONG THE COURSE.

go back and watch the race.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:47pm EDT

re: PresMustache

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:48pm EDT

re: malmo

malmo wrote:
Homes. Get serious. I'm no0t twisting stats, you are.
9 of the top ten set PRs. Only one of them debuted, and, for the record that's a PR. Unless he improves dramatically he will never ever see a sub 2:04 again.
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 2:13:29 - 1.12
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

Ok, I'll bite. How am I twisting stats??? You're using debuets, and second marathons where the fist was NY, the slowest of all the majors. And you're saying that Mosop will never run faster. Are you so full of yourself that you actually believe that you can know that right now? He's run one marathon. Do you know ANY runners who believe that having run a marathon previously won't help them in the future?

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:49pm EDT

re: PresMustache

PresMustache wrote:
i rewatched the race for signs of wind.
the women start out into headwind, if you believe the flags.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s0WieKwokp4/TbAR_UuhOoI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/Dsb-zaokS5Q/s640/one.png http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oGImIdcUieA/TbASLSafPuI/AAAAAAAAAJ4/w-F0sLW90Eo/s640/two.png
start of men looked like no wind.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p5ezuDDT2CE/TbAS7_IVOFI/AAAAAAAAAKU/1Nih49R4X68/s1600/nine.png
most of the wind you see during the broadcast appears to be sidewind, with much of it looking like barely any wind. this is going by the flags and such along the course. i screen capped a bunch of pictures.

Are you ridiculous? You are trusting how much wind you "saw" on TV more than official weather statistics? Cmon, you can do better that that.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:49pm EDT

re: malmo

malmo wrote:
There you have it. Three screen shots.
The weather readings were wrong!

No the weather readings weren't wrong. They are just skewed (10m up and thus stronger than at ground level, not accounting for wind that can effectively tunnel in a different direction due to buildings, etc.). It is one of many points that you continue to ignore.

The screenshots are, of course, not definitive. But they are data points that help to show how stubborn and ignorant you are being.

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:49pm EDT

re: PTF

15 years ago 04/21/2011 2:51pm EDT

re: Go hammer some doubles

Stubborn and ignorant? Oh my goodness! Look in the mirror - it define stubborn and ignorant... LOL.

Page 8 of 21

1 7 8 9 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.

Real Runners, Real Reviews

Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt. Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.

What shoe are you reviewing?

Rate your shoe

Overall Rating

Appearance

Comfort

Cushioning

Durability

Value

I would buy this shoe again

Yes No

Would you buy this shoe again?

One-line review. Optional. Your written review provides information to readers that numbers can't.

Email Optional. Required for t-shirt drawing.

Real runner reviews • Community-powered rankings

Boston analysis

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

Boston analysis

Jump To A Page

Follow Average_Joe

Block Average_Joe

Follow dean moriarty

Block dean moriarty

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow malmo

Block malmo

Follow PTF

Block PTF

Follow Surprise!

Block Surprise!

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.

Real Runners, Real Reviews