Boston Marathon was not hot.
I was scared when I saw how brutal it was in Chicago. But the weather in Boston this morning was great. Big lifetime PR. Very little wind and never reached 70.
Boston Marathon was not hot.
I was scared when I saw how brutal it was in Chicago. But the weather in Boston this morning was great. Big lifetime PR. Very little wind and never reached 70.
rough day in Boston wrote:
Boston Marathon was not hot.
I was scared when I saw how brutal it was in Chicago. But the weather in Boston this morning was great. Big lifetime PR. Very little wind and never reached 70.
Fair enough but the numbers say the weather affected times in a pretty similar way, with Boston being just a touch faster. Glad you got a PR. You're probably fit for something a lot faster. Look at the elite races. I'm guessing a lot of people didn't PR or had to have been in much better shape.
60s with close to full humidity is not horrible but it's far from ideal. I was ~10-15s/mile slower at the same heart rate I could handle on better days at marathon pace. I also went out with that in mind and ran even. Came close to my PB but think my PB is a little soft. A lot of people probably had decent positive splits if they hit the first half at the pace they trained for.
You are both right.
Both courses ran slow.
Boston is normally slower than Chicago if all things are equal. However, they weren’t.
10-12 degrees cooler in Boston.
15-20 mph winds in Chicago.
5 in Boston.
need some self talk wrote:
You are both right.
Both courses ran slow.
Boston is normally slower than Chicago if all things are equal. However, they weren’t.
10-12 degrees cooler in Boston.
15-20 mph winds in Chicago.
5 in Boston.
I'm still not totally convinced. Chicago was 68-75 range with no humidity. Boston was more/less 65 the whole way with full humidity & a constant but light headwind. Chicago is pancake flat too. I think the courses ran about the same. Not a good year for either. I think Boston presented as easier but grey & 60s still requires an adjustment.
I thought Boston looked OK, I was confident on the start line, went off at 2:40 pace and my HR was too high from the off. I went through the half in 1:20, with Shalane et al, 16 miles I was still there or there abouts but then died. I finished in 2:46. Brutal.
Not sure it was any one thing, too ambitious, humidity, slight head wind all added 5-10s or so mile to the pace. So if you were conservative I think it was OK but for those who went out with an ambitious schedule we got our arses kicked. But that's Boston, it's why we love it. That annual disappointment, regret and self loathing that sets in about miles 16-17..
This checks out. On the surface, Boston weather looked fine. Would think those who went out on goal pace would have had a higher than usual heart rate & come back slower. You probably had 2:43ish on the day. But it's not fun to go to your goal race & not go for what you trained for.
I trained for about the same. Went out in 1:22. Heart rate in line with running 6:00-6:05 in good conditions. Strong through the hills & to 35k. Lost a little time to the finish. Was going to be perfectly even or maybe even a slight negative split. Ran 6:00-flat graveyard mile. Ended up at 2:45. 2:43-44 was my ceiling. I probably run 2:46-48 if I'm out in 1:20-21.
I think Boston equals Chicago when everything is equal and Boston has a slight edge at possibly being faster. Sure Chicago is flat, and Boston has hills, but Boston has more than 400 feet of net downhill, that is a TON. There is a reason that many top Americans have their fastest time at Boston. We have 23 Americans who have ever run under 2:10:00 in the marathon. 11 of them have their PR at Boston (many their only time ever running under 2:10) and only 5 have their PR at Chicago. These are comparable races, both having a big turnout for top American runners year over year, yet Boston has way more people's lifetime PR.
Boston's conditions (60-68, dew point around 59, but not sunny) clearly weren't ideal, but not awful either. I plugged them into a calculator and got a 1-2% pace adjustment, which jives with how I ran.
Of course, if you push through early discomfort, it can add a hell of a lot more than 2% to your pace.
Chicago sucked this year, way too hot and humid.
rough day in Boston wrote:
Boston Marathon was not hot.
I was scared when I saw how brutal it was in Chicago. But the weather in Boston this morning was great. Big lifetime PR. Very little wind and never reached 70.
What a profound statement. The forecast and the weather are pretty clear that Boston was significantly better weather.
And don’t even bring up heat unless you run in Florida during July. Chicago this year was a cake walk compared to any run in Florida between April and November
Boston equals Chicago wrote:
I think Boston equals Chicago when everything is equal and Boston has a slight edge at possibly being faster. Sure Chicago is flat, and Boston has hills, but Boston has more than 400 feet of net downhill, that is a TON. There is a reason that many top Americans have their fastest time at Boston. We have 23 Americans who have ever run under 2:10:00 in the marathon. 11 of them have their PR at Boston (many their only time ever running under 2:10) and only 5 have their PR at Chicago. These are comparable races, both having a big turnout for top American runners year over year, yet Boston has way more people's lifetime PR.
Do we think any of this has to do with elites running Boston year after year and/or Chicago having unpredictable weather. Remember 2019 Chicago? There was a whole thing on LRC about American elites never running fast & then a bunch of them did. Boston/NYC tend to be more tactical & tend to get a ton of the top Americans so, yeah, some PBs come from those two races. & guys on the sub-2:10 list? Those are the guys Boston will pay for before Chicago. Scott Fauble ran Boston this year. He's a 2:09 guy who ran 2:13 to finish 13th. He ran about to his potential on the day but he also ran for place from the jump. He didn't go out in 1:04 with CJ Albertson. None of the top Americans did. I think Chicago is faster. & I think the gap was closer than people thought this year.