Lots of people are saying the time today is amazing. But the course used to be considered fast. Ron Hill certainly thought so when he won in 2:10 in 1970, running into a headwind.
Geoff Smith (2:10 in '84 into a headwind) went after the WR there in 1985. He blew up but obviously thought it was possible on the course.
Isn't it net downhill? Or has the course changed?
Is 2:05 really so surprising there (in this crazy world where 2:05 is relatively commonplace?)
I think any time a world marathon major course record goes down by over a minute, it's pretty surprising.
It's the influx of slower qualifying times and the hobbyjogger mindset of undertraining and underachieving that brought this about. With cool conditions and a tailwind this course is aided.
UK Runner wrote:
Lots of people are saying the time today is amazing. But the course used to be considered fast. Ron Hill certainly thought so when he won in 2:10 in 1970, running into a headwind.
Geoff Smith (2:10 in '84 into a headwind) went after the WR there in 1985. He blew up but obviously thought it was possible on the course.
Isn't it net downhill? Or has the course changed?
Is 2:05 really so surprising there (in this crazy world where 2:05 is relatively commonplace?)
With 2:05s being so commonplace, if Boston was an easy course don't you think the course record would be a 2:04.
UK Runner wrote:
Lots of people are saying the time today is amazing. But the course used to be considered fast. Ron Hill certainly thought so when he won in 2:10 in 1970, running into a headwind.
Geoff Smith (2:10 in '84 into a headwind) went after the WR there in 1985. He blew up but obviously thought it was possible on the course.
Isn't it net downhill? Or has the course changed?
Is 2:05 really so surprising there (in this crazy world where 2:05 is relatively commonplace?)
Boston has never been considered to be a fast course. It is difficult BECAUSE of the downhills. This race history is full of athletes who've hit 20 miles at WR pace only to be humbled by the final decent. This year, with the exception of the winner, proved to be the same. Take a look at the 30k and 35k splits of todays race. You think the downhill helped anyone them? Meb was running 2:07:47 pace at 35k and looked to have a huge PR in the wings. That final 3.5 miles was a death march.
The race's history is also full of athletes who ran faster in Boston than they did anywhere else, including record-worthy courses like Chicago and NYC.
Red Glare wrote:
The race's history is also full of athletes who ran faster in Boston than they did anywhere else, including record-worthy courses like Chicago and NYC.
NYC "record worthy"?!? Chicago, yes, if the weather cooperates, which is why Wanjiru attempted the WR on that course. You actually think the WR could be set on NYC?!?
i have heard from many people who have run both who would consider New York to be considerably slower than Boston.
jo ho wrote:
With 2:05s being so commonplace, if Boston was an easy course don't you think the course record would be a 2:04.
Not when all the 2:05 runners are at London and Rotterdam.
UK Runner wrote:
Isn't it net downhill? Or has the course changed?
Yes, Boston is new downhill and is a very fast course.
The only reason it would not be faster than any flat course would be if the wind was against the runners all the way.
No one would aim for a record at Boston, because the record would not count.
With 2:05s being so commonplace, if Boston was an easy course don't you think the course record would be a 2:04.[/quote]
Not if it doesnt have the bucks to get the big stars?
malmo wrote:
Boston has never been considered to be a fast course. It is difficult BECAUSE of the downhills. This race history is full of athletes who've hit 20 miles at WR pace only to be humbled by the final decent. This year, with the exception of the winner, proved to be the same. Take a look at the 30k and 35k splits of todays race. You think the downhill helped anyone them? Meb was running 2:07:47 pace at 35k and looked to have a huge PR in the wings. That final 3.5 miles was a death march.
Word up.
Somebody asked me "Is Heartbreak Hill really that tough?" My answer: "Not when you're walking up it."
The downhills in the first 10 miles can fry your quads if you're not careful, and the downhills in the last 6 miles are positvely painful if you've fallen off the wagon. That's what makes Boston a tough course.
I remember reading in Bill Rodgers' book where he said that if Boston was run correctly on the right day, it could be a PR type course.
Red Glare wrote:
It's the influx of slower qualifying times and the hobbyjogger mindset of undertraining and underachieving that brought this about. With cool conditions and a tailwind this course is aided.
So the elite field was slowed down by the hobbyjoggers? The winners were taking it easy because all the hobby joggers had a mindset of undertraining? The pros slowed down in order to prevent embarrassing those that qualified with longer times? The pros looked to the hobbyjoggers for advice about the course, were told it was tough, so they took it easy?
Please explain your conclusion.
Red Glare wrote:
The race's history is also full of athletes who ran faster in Boston than they did anywhere else, including record-worthy courses like Chicago and NYC.
Nonsense
Red Glare wrote:
The race's history is also full of athletes who ran faster in Boston than they did anywhere else, including record-worthy courses like Chicago and NYC.
OK, I'll ask. Did they run faster at Boston because they were injured, or heat, or after they developed as runners?
Name them please with their times.
And since when is NY a "record worthy" course?
I always viewed Boston as a difficult course, but a person can potentially run a fast time. Get too aggressive too early, and you will be humbled. It's not like flat courses where early aggression can lead to a slow fade. The hills will beat your legs silly, and early aggression can lead to total collapse.
But a nice day with a tailwind can lead to very fast times.
Have YOU ever run Boston??? Never judge the times/course until you have put yourself thru that hell.
Yes I have.Multiple times.
Hence the name.