Wouldn’t it be a perfect scenario ? Late fall marathon, stable weather just before winter, course which is as flat as a flounder ?
Wouldn’t it be a perfect scenario ? Late fall marathon, stable weather just before winter, course which is as flat as a flounder ?
runwithmajki wrote:
Wouldn’t it be a perfect scenario ? Late fall marathon, stable weather just before winter, course which is as flat as a flounder ?
The obsession with running marathons in the absolute perfect conditions to ensure the absolute fastest times annoys me. Just race. Khannouchi ran that time to win London. Conner should focus on finally getting at least a podium finish in a major.
Chicago is much more likely. Flat and fast, plus he will get big appearance fee $ to attend.
What makes more sense is for Mantz to run Chicago, a proven fast course which is only one time zone away from where he trains. Chicago will also give him the option of bouncing back and qualifying for the U.S. cross country team and helping lead an awesome U.S. team to a podium finish at World Cross Country. In the business we call that a win-win. Throw in the fact that he could make a ton of appearance and bonus money at Chicago as opposed to Valencia and we call that a win-win-win. Go Mantz!
I would like to see him at Berlin, personally.
Boston is a net downhill course, world athletics calculations give it a little over a minute to equal a regular course. Over half of the fastest americans all time have PRs at Boston. This is partially because they alternate between Chicago/New York and then Boston every year and New York is not fast, so it's either down to a good weather year in Chicago or a reasonable year in Boston. But either way, you can run just as fast in Boston as pretty much anywhere. The reason the top international people don't often run a PR at Boston is because it's not paced so they don't set themselves up for the fastest time possible. The pace they do end up running is still a good pace for a PR for Americans. Berlin/Chicago/Valencia/London are all paced and go out fast.
I say this all because him running low 2:05 at Boston doesn't automatically mean he's a 2:05 runner on a different course.
Hot Takes wrote:
Boston is a net downhill course, world athletics calculations give it a little over a minute to equal a regular course. Over half of the fastest americans all time have PRs at Boston. This is partially because they alternate between Chicago/New York and then Boston every year and New York is not fast, so it's either down to a good weather year in Chicago or a reasonable year in Boston. But either way, you can run just as fast in Boston as pretty much anywhere. The reason the top international people don't often run a PR at Boston is because it's not paced so they don't set themselves up for the fastest time possible. The pace they do end up running is still a good pace for a PR for Americans. Berlin/Chicago/Valencia/London are all paced and go out fast.
I say this all because him running low 2:05 at Boston doesn't automatically mean he's a 2:05 runner on a different course.
And to add to this, I think super shoes completely offset the negative impact from running that long downhill.
So, with perfect weather and super shoes, this is the fastest course in the US.
JackmanJones wrote:
The obsession with running marathons in the absolute perfect conditions to ensure the absolute fastest times annoys me. Just race. Khannouchi ran that time to win London. Conner should focus on finally getting at least a podium finish in a major.
No dice. With the emergence of bouncy shoes, it seems the only goal is to blast out as many records as possible before times even out and we’re left to await the next “great” advancement in running tech.