Why does A. Salazar refer to himself as former World Record holder in the marathon?

Must we go down this road again?

I was very much involved at the time and have all of the documentation. It would take pages upon pages on this thread to prove this issue one way or the other.

The "short" version (no pun intended).

1. The measuring methods and allowable tolerances used for measuring road courses didn't really stablize until 1983 (around the time of the 1985 LA Olympic Marathon Measurement) - well after Salazars 2:08:13

2.At that time of the measurement there was some confusion as to the actual path to measure - 1 meter from the curb?, 30 cm from the curb?, shortest path?, or to quote Ted Corbitt - "the prudent path"?.

3. The validation measurement by Tom Knight didn't follow exaclty the same path of the original measurement made by Bill Noel (see #3).

4. Some of the difference had to do with the path run through Central Park - where Salazar ran down the middle of the road following the blue line - the validation was done measuring the tangents.

5. Today's standards for a world best- course must not have a net drop of greater then 1 meter/kilometer and a separation from start to finish (straight line) of not greater then 50%-World Best & 30% for a US Best. The ING New York Marathon meets both specs. for a World Best.

Many of the top measurers met in LA to measure the Olympic Marathon. We talked for hours going over the methods, techniques, tolerances and procedures. We all walked away from that weekend with a good feeling that we were on the same page.

My opinion:

1. By the standards of that time, Salazar's performance was the fastest marathon every run.

2.I would leave all of these great performances (including Clayton and Salazar) on the list of progression of World Bests but include a line below 1984 with a note: "worldwide measuring procedures and tolerances did not become standardized until after 1983"

May we end "beating this dead horse"?

David Katz

David Katz

"I don't run to be regarded as anything by anybody. I don't care whether people think I'm the greatest runner ever or the greatest bum ever. I don't run for other people; I don't run for my country. I'm not very nationalistic. Derek Clayton comes first in my book." - Derek Clayton

David Katz wrote:

the list of progression of World Bests but include a line below 1984 with a note: "worldwide measuring procedures and tolerances did not become standardized until after 1983"

David Katz

USA Men

2:08:52( 1) Alberto Salazar Apr 1982 Boston

2:08:54 Dick Beardsley 1982 Boston

2:09:01 Greg Meyer 1983 Boston

2:09:21 Alberto Salazar 1983 Fukoka

2:09:28 Bill Rodgers Apr 1979 Boston

2:09:29 Alberto Salazar- New York NY

2:09:32 Ron Tabb Apr 1983 Boston MA

2:09:36.2a ( 1) Dick Beardsley 1981 Duluth

2:09:56 a ( 1) Bill Rodgers 1975 Boston

2:09:58 a ( 3) Benji Durden 1983 Boston

2:10:07 a ( 4) Ed Mendoza 1983 Boston

2:10:08 ( 5) Alberto Salazar1983 Rotterdam NED

2:10:14 a ( 1) Bill Rodgers- 1978 Boston

2:10:16 a ( 2) Jeff Wells 1978 Boston

2:10:18.6a ( 1) Tony Sandoval 1980 Buffalo NY

2:10:19.9a ( 1) Garry Bjorklund 1980 Duluth MN

2:10:20 ( 1) Tony Sandoval 1979 Eugene OR

2:10:20 ( 1) Jeff Wells 1979 Eugene OR

2:10:27 a ( 2) Craig Virgin 1981 Boston

2:10:29 ( 7) Kirk Pfeffer 1980 Fukuoka

2:10:30 ( 1) Frank Shorter 1972 Fukuoka

2:10:35 a ( 3) Bill Rodgers- 1981 Boston

2:10:40.3a ( 2) Benji Durden May 1980 Buffalo NY

2:10:45.8 ( 2) Frank Shorter Jul 1976 Montreal CAN

2:10:46 a ( 3) Ron Tabb Oct 1983 New York

2:10:51 a ( 4) John Tuttle Oct 1983 New York

Not one of these americans were ever able to break 2:11 after the changing of the way they measure courses (1984). NOT ONE. The most interest part of this is that 11 sub 2:11 performances were run in 1982 and 1983 and ZERO in 1984.

It should be noted many marathons before 1984 were being measured accuately - but there was some inconsistencies with others.

I had an oppertunity to measure the Boston Marathon in the Mid '80's and found it to be very accurate (when it finished by the Pru.) - then again when the BAA shifted the finish line next to the library.

Mr. Katz,

Are you suggesting that all of these fine athletes coincidentally were NEVER able to duplicate the performances that they ran pre 1984? NOT ONE OF THEM?

I understand that Rodgers and Shorter were past their prime, but a great number of those athlete were in their 20's still in 1984.

It is one hell of a coincidence that 100% of them could never ever break 2:11 again.

Mr. Katz is correct...In the 1983 NY Marathon, Rod Dixon admitted to cutting the tangents to overtake Geoff Smith..should we take away his time and victory??

David,

Thanks for the explanation.

So since 1981 did they move the start back 148 meters?

And do they draw the blue line differently now so it goes the way the course is measured? Or are most people running farther (say 148 meters) than the marathon distance?

I assume going through the park, most people may not naturally pick the tangent unless the line is showing them where to go.

But 150 meters is 25+ seconds so it seems to make a big difference. So does the blue line follow the way the course is measured now or do courses with meandering turns put the runners at a disadvantage (ie if a course is perfectly straight, the runner just runs straight and will go the 26.2 and not the extra 150 meters).

Thanks for the post David,

Please refresh my memory. Were you one of the Jones counterriders in 1978 when we made the trip I mentioned earlier in this thread? I am sure Nina and Dr.Paul were two of the riders. The specific measurement ride I mentioned started at the base of the bridge in Bklyn. We met up at a coffee shop with a parking lot-(Im leaning toward a White Tower) in the predawn hours of a Sunday morning.

I believe Tim Elkins drove the car and Len Dewey or Brian Jones might have been another bike. Since some of the bikers had run the course in 1977 Teds Prudent Path-line of least resistance- was the way we followed the course. With so much of the course set on NYCs rectilinear grid, tangents were a pretty cut and dry issue out side Central Park, Ft Greene/Bed Sty, Greenpoint/LIC areas.

I seem to remember conversation about plus or minus 90 meters being tolerence level in those years but not my area of expertise and it was 30 years ago.

I think the NY course was lengthened prior to the 1983 marathon - I will need to check my notes (no available to me at this moment)

I remember having a conversation with Dixon prior to his victory. He wanted me to come to New Zealand to measure some courses. I told him that he would never be able to run the path that I measured - 30 cm from the turns. He told me he could!

The day of the marathon I watched in amazement as he cut all the tangents in Central Park while Smith ran down the middle of the road. The measurement difference between miles 23 to 25 was approximately 50 meters!(tangents vs. middle of the road). It is my opinion that Rod didn't run one step faster - just every step smarter.

This might be a good lesson to all road racers. If the race is important to you, get the certification map - go out in advance and study the course- it will help.

My friend, yes, standards for measuring stabilized around the time you mention. What's left out were tolerances in place affecting validations of courses depending on when they were measured. I'd have to dig thru Ken/Jen Young's old stuff to find them but courses were allowed to be short a certain amount and still yield pending records. I don't think a marathon could be 148 meters short, however, and a record still count.

Yes, there was some confusion about curb clearance at the time. What you don't say is what clearance BNoel followed in his measurement. Do you know? Also, in CP, where did Noel measure? SPR? If he didn't ride SPR, why not? Let's say he stayed a meter from all turns...would that be enough to explain a 148 meter shortage?

In TKnight's validation, I'll assume he rode SPR & a foot from curbs. If not, where did he measure? At any rate, as I say above, tolerances for validations did not extend to a 148 meter shortage for a marathon.

Your note that ASalazar ran the fastest marathon to that point...is hazy, guess work/speculation at best. I agree w/you on how to address the record progression.

The facts wrote:New York was always a point-to-point course. It could never be a world best, regardless of the results of the measurement.

ventolin wrote:

that's bs

overall drop is all that counts

Wrong.

Here's an idea. The next time you want to make some know-it-all post, you might actually bother to LOOK IT UP first.

--------------------------

RULE 260

World Records

28. For World Records on the road:

(b) The start and finish points of a course, measured along a straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance.

agreed that salazar did NOT run the shortest course he could have that day. I've watched the video (what exists, even a full copy doesn't exist in the NYRRC vaults) and Al is not cutting the tangents that day.

I believe Mr. Katz as he was there measuring this stuff with an accuracy that was more than acceptable at the time.

In response to those who say that none of the athletes ran under 2:11 after 1984 as validation for believing that performances were not as valid in the early '80's, lets go to Fukuoka. The Japanese have always been rabid fanatics about getting the course distances right. If anything, Salazar's Fukuoka run should be considered absolutely accurate.

wrong again wrote:

Wrong.

Here's an idea. The next time you want to make some know-it-all post, you might actually bother to LOOK IT UP first.

--------------------------

RULE 260

World Records

28. For World Records on the road:

(b) The start and finish points of a course, measured along a straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance.

Although that's the official rule, the two factors this was created for are downhills and tailwinds.

I think they should have some sort of elevation and net-wind effect rule so that point-to-point courses don't get screwed over. There are a lot of great marathons getting shafted by this rule. Conversely, you obviously need something in place to prevent someone from making a downhill, wind-aided marathon to run all the WRs (and ARs, and BQs, and OT qualifiers, and...) on.

Part of the reason many of these guys did not run 2:11 again had to do with Boston weather. It was excellent in 1978, 1979, 1983, but hot and slow in 1984 and 1985. (and the lack of money in Boston.) And it is hard to run 2:11 and harder yet to do it again. Tom

Come on Tom. NOt one of those guys could find any course in the world to ever run under 2:11 again. I understand that it is hard to accept, but just maybe those guys weren't quite as good as we remember. We lengthed the courses in 1984 and not one of them EVER did it again. I bet if I go through the women that I will find the same thing. Face it, guys like Peter Gilmore would have been 2:10 in 1982 or 1983.

Pacemaker for hire wrote:

Mr. Katz,

Are you suggesting that all of these fine athletes coincidentally were NEVER able to duplicate the performances that they ran pre 1984? NOT ONE OF THEM?

I understand that Rodgers and Shorter were past their prime, but a great number of those athlete were in their 20's still in 1984.

It is one hell of a coincidence that 100% of them could never ever break 2:11 again.

What a silly thing to say. The only one of those guys who was even arguably in peak condition after 1983 was John Tuttle.

I'm certainly not suggesting that those times were run on record-quality courses. NYC was clearly short in 1981, and probably in prior years as well. The length of the 1983 Fukuoka marathon has also been questioned. The biggest problem with most of those times, however, is that they were run on clearly aided courses -- Boston, Duluth (Grandma's), and Buffalo (1980 U.S. Olympic trials).

The NYRR is the only organization in the world---plus, whatever teevee network happens to be covering the NYC race that year---that still recognizes AlSal as the world record holder from 1981. NOBODY else. No arguments on letsrun, no locker room small talk will change the fact that Mary Wittenburg and the teevee execs are the only ones who believe it to be so and will continue to push it as fact EVERY YEAR. Continue the argument, gents. It doesn't matter.

Rodgers, Salazar, and Shorter, just to name three, were all well past their time after 1983. That's the only explanation you need for why they did not again break 2:11.

I agree with Rodgers and Shorter but certainly not Salazar.

Alberto was born on August 7th 1958. He turned 26 years old in 1984. He should of had several more years of prime running years for a marathoner. We can come up with many excuses but NONE of that list could ever dip under 2:11 again. Not one. That is amazing.