Using the same logic on the Austin thread- it seems a large number of the top runners/and Americans at the 2006 Boston Marathon have not come close to those times since then.
Possible the Boston course was short?
Using the same logic on the Austin thread- it seems a large number of the top runners/and Americans at the 2006 Boston Marathon have not come close to those times since then.
Possible the Boston course was short?
Yawn!
No, its the same course as always. Unlike Austin-which changes every few years.
However, you bring up a good point. The argument that the Austin runners havent come close to their times can be said for Boston.
Austin was designed to be fast- and recruited a bunch of hopeful OT qualifiers who say it as their best chance to qualify. With many other runners to hang with, several had great races. No one has come up with any proof that Austin was short. I ran it and did not pr and dont believe it too be short. Fast, yes. Downhill 400 feet overall- yes but with a few hills as well. Short- no.
I am to lazy to look up the actual time, but I believe that at least 6 Hanson's runners ran Boston and then went on to run faster at Chicago.
I went to the Hanson's website and looked it up. The first time is Boston the second is Chicago.
Sell 2:10:55 2:10:47
Verran 2:14:12 2:14:23
Johnson 2:19:29 2:15:03
Morgan DNF. 2:15:13
O'Brien 2:19:57 2:15:13
Humphrey 2:15:23 2:15:22
Rosendahl 2:21:12 2:17:05
It looks like 3 of them ran the same times at both and the other 4 ran even faster on a windy day in Chicago.
It HAD to be accurate for a couple reasons:
1) They changed the course to go under Mass. Ave. requiring Dave McGillivray to remeasure (which they do starting at the finish and working their way to the start).
2) The re-measuring was obviously done because the mile markers were moved a few feet forward along the course.
Boston 2006 was definitely NOT short. If you look at the weather and compare it to years past (and now present), the weather was absolutely perfect for the race. That may account for the fast times.
Not complaining, but I don't like when people use superlatives inappropriately - the weather at Boston 2006 was pretty damn good, but not "absolutely perfect" - wasn't there a mild headwind?
In any case, in good conditions and smart pacing, Boston can be pretty fast. But I think the OP started this thread for the sake of irony anyway :)