http://lmgtfy.com/?q=skip+time+youtube+videomalmo wrote:
smd wrote:Here's a link for the short-attention-span crowd:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Uv7DjCHN8#t=1m35sThe music is so perfect.
How did you do that, manually or is there a shortcut to jump in time?
malmo wrote:
How did you do that, manually or is there a shortcut to jump in time?
t=1m35s
That's the shortcut.
VIPAM wrote:
I just hate Mebrahtom Keflezighi wasn't in this Boston marathon to finally run a sub 2:07!
VIPAM, you're one of the morons who claims this year's Boston should count as a record and not be considered wind aided. Now, you write as if it is a given that Meb would set a personal best by over 2 minutes and 15 seconds a couple weeks shy of his 36th birthday...the ignorance on this board is astounding, and one almost gasps in utter disbelief at it...I think the sighs that the more intelligent among us are heaving in response to the ubiquitous idiocy would provide enough gusts to fuel another wind aided marathon...
CGHomes wrote:
I love your arguments, or lack there of. Bring a point, or a counter point occasionally. Don't just hide behind "you're ridiculous", or "you must be a newbie" or "you're pissing into the wind" or "repeat in English".
Everytime someone makes a point that's how you cop out.
Going by your own charts the wind varied between 12 and 18 mph coming from behind, at an angle, and at times from the front at an angle. I just don't understand where you guys are getting this 20mph tailwind the entire way stuff.
It's endless with you. You are not even engaged in the conversation. The chart you are looking at is from LAST year. This year's chart has already been posted in this thread.
Go to the top right corner of the message board and click on "Forum Options". Then Click the "Show Images" radio button so that you can see the two charts side-by-side on the message board.
PTF wrote:
No...as far as the runners are concerned...the wind is not blocked by buildings. Since the wind is predominately at the runners back it will be quite strong in the middle of the road where it is relatively unobstructed. Wind behaves much like a flowing river...taking the path of least resistance.
In this case, where the wind is following the direction of the road so closely, the buildings on either side can almost make the wind in the middle of the road stronger as it becomes almost like a wind tunnel.
But you won't see much wind reflected on those flags that are a few feet directly downwind of a brick building.
If that were the case, then shouldn't that first flag be moving quite a bit. There's nothing around it. Second flag is definatley hidden by the buildings. But the third flag is doing exactly what Malmo's picture suggest is should do, and that's going to the side more than anything else. So really, the picture and the video are doing exactly what my original post said. The wind helps/hurts the runners based on where they were on the course, what direction the wind was at the time, and what buildings, etc. were in the way to disrupt the natural flow. Which brings me all the way back to the fact that there is no way the runners had a 20mph tailwind the entire way. And we've proved it. I WIN!!!!!
CGHomes wrote:
If that were the case, then shouldn't that first flag be moving quite a bit. There's nothing around it. Second flag is definatley hidden by the buildings.
You pile ridiculousness with more of it. The first flag is wrapped around the flagpole, as they do that on windy days. Don't believe me, go outside and look someday.
WHHOOAAAAA!!!! Hold on now. This changes everything. Why were you showing a picture from last year????
That looks like a pretty big tailwind. Anyways, after seeing the new picture let me change to I LOSE!!!!!!
BTW, that's how you make a point. You bring facts. Not opinions, and not "you're an idiot". Well done.
This is a nice clip for a number of reasons, too bad it faded out when Hall was coming along. But I am thinking you can hear the wind here with about 3 to go:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFhN_qsBd8o&feature=related
CGHomes wrote:
More like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW8ymc0-dvYI think this video is a great example of the wind Monday, and that it may or may not have helped the runners based on where they were on the course.
There are three different flags in this short clip. The first one is an american flag right in the middle of the screen as the clip starts. It's not moving even at all. Then the runners pass what looks like a Japanese flag as they pass in front of the camera. It's moving a little, but not much. The third flag is when the runners are heading away from the camera. It's certainly moving, but sideways, suggesting the wind is coming from the side, not from behind.
Add to all of that, the fact that when there is a microphone and its a windy day, you can hear the wind. Much like when talking to someone on the phone when they are outside on a windy day. There was certainly none of that.
It's hard to find vids with flags, here's a couple I stumbled on.
This one has a flag right at course level, top right of the frame. It's easier to see it during the first few seconds, but it's flapping very strongly in the direction of the runners.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9VFPaNuLD8
This is a compressed view at the start. The flag on the pole shows up in a bunch of different positions, mainly in the direction of the race.
Just to make clear Joan ran 2:21:21 in Chicago on a flat loop course in 1985 for her fastest time of her life.
CGHomes wrote:
WHHOOAAAAA!!!! Hold on now. This changes everything. Why were you showing a picture from last year????
That looks like a pretty big tailwind. Anyways, after seeing the new picture let me change to I LOSE!!!!!!
You are still not engaged in this thread at all. I posted the picture of last year because the poster that I responded to wanted a confirmation of the weather conditions, becasue he believed that last years 2:05:52 was done on a still day. It wasn't.
I provided both last years image and this years image for those of you asleep in class.
You are a know it all wrote:
Just to make clear Joan ran 2:21:21 in Chicago on a flat loop course in 1985 for her fastest time of her life.
and your point?
Joanie was an entirely different runner than she was in 1983. 83 Boston was a year after having double Achilles surgery the year before. Two and a half years after that wind-blown 83 run she was at an entirely different level, yet still was only a minute faster than her Boston time.
Rewatch the race, its on demand, and pay attention. Forget what the weatherman told you. Also listen to the people that were running, like Mutai, saying the wind was blowing in face and from the side as well.
Vegan Analyzer,
That first video is a really good example because the flags etc are where the runners are. You can see how hard the wind was blowing when there was a long unobstructed stretch.
This discussion really isn't a difference of opinion. It's more like a few people trying to explain gravity to a few others.
It made me think of this conversation:
and given the hills and dense urban environment, long unobstructed stretches are the exception at Boston.
You're kidding right?
PresMustache wrote:
Rewatch the race, its on demand, and pay attention. Forget what the weatherman told you. Also listen to the people that were running, like Mutai, saying the wind was blowing in face and from the side as well.
What they felt was real. They are running in the same direction of the wind. Of course they aren't going to feel the wind -- no one does when it's pushing you. But running with the wind is a lot like swimming down a river, there will be vortices and eddies along the way. Sometimes it's caused by a rock the river or in the case of wind, a tall building, but the wind is going in one direction, and you still continue to flow with it, despite feeling a gust across your face. That wind across your face doesn't mean the direct changed its just normal fluid dynamics at work.
Just run baby
Lets see someone drop a 2:03xx @ NY
My point was you state that she was only a 226 runner on a flat ironing board. I know the story of Joan. Not arguing the fact she was healthy & proven after 83 84 85.
Remember the splits she threw down at that old OTC marathon? Some of them would have made Radcliffe blush.
Also the 222 she ran at BAA in 83 was then recognized as the WR taking down Grete's best.
That said, Malmo what year was it that the IAAF made sure BAA could not be ratified for WR purposes? Thx.