People don't seem to realize how bad the heat was at Chicago

Like Ritz's sub 13:00 and 60 flat? Wow. So Sammy, 4 minutes faster or whatever, is probably in what, 57 something half shape?

Lets be honest, you can give the Americans all the excuses in the world, but they were baaaaaaaack. They were never in contention, and everyone races in the same conditions.

Temps were 70+ degrees F? Obama must decree that all running races be canceled in these harsh, extreme conditions. I'm surprised that anyone even had the guts to start the race, knowing it was going to get so hot.

me say what? wrote:

Like Ritz's sub 13:00 and 60 flat? Wow. So Sammy, 4 minutes faster or whatever, is probably in what, 57 something half shape?

I meant marathon only, not that Ritz has ever run a great marathon.

also not sure where you got the 4 minutes from, or the 57 half... we are talking marathon here and still probably a matter of 2-3 minutes for those who paced themselves.

me say what? wrote:

Lets be honest, you can give the Americans all the excuses in the world, but they were baaaaaaaack. They were never in contention, and everyone races in the same conditions.

i know that, i'm just saying none of ritz's marathons are any more impressive, really.

willy k wrote:

Fact: All the top-10+ marathons of all-time have been run at temps in the 40's F... even 50+ has been shown to be slower. This is a typical temp at Rotterdam and usually London. By the time the leaders were finishing Chicago, temps were already in the 70's... The race director tried to make it sound like it was no big deal before the race, but the stats say no one had a shot at a record today.

It was no big deal. The start temp was 59° and the finish temps were 70°. Also Chicago is an early marathon (7:30am) meaning that the Sun altitude will be low throughout the race. It was a great day to race.

The same conditions at NYC with a 10am start would be difficult.

willy k wrote:

Fact: All the top-10+ marathons of all-time have been run at temps in the 40's F... even 50+ has been shown to be slower. This is a typical temp at Rotterdam and usually London. By the time the leaders were finishing Chicago, temps were already in the 70's... The race director tried to make it sound like it was no big deal before the race, but the stats say no one had a shot at a record today.

Not Rupp-certified.

Malmo is correct. It was not that bad. I was there and had several athletes run. I get annoyed when people expect perfect everything for a marathon.

Here is the check list.

ORGANIZATION. It was excellent.

COURSE. Flat and fast.

CROWD SUPPORT. Excellent energy on the course.

HUMIDITY. Not a factor

COMPETITION. Every American had someone to run with and many had pacers.

WIND. Often a factor in Chicago, but not this year.

TEMPERATURE. About 10 degrees over ideal with 60 at the start and 70 at the finish. Much better than any World Championship or Olympic Games over the past decade.

Races are not run in a bubble and to ask for more than 90% is ridiculous.

For us Davila, Morgan, Young, and Canaday all ran their personal bests.

Finally, a coach comes on here and shoots between the eyes. Kevin is spot on. Why all the damn whining and DNF's from US athletes? 70 degrees, really? Not that bad. Time for some our 'professionals' to sack up and compete. This was not a time trial run in a vacuum.

malmo wrote:It was no big deal. The start temp was 59° and the finish temps were 70°. Also Chicago is an early marathon (7:30am) meaning that the Sun altitude will be low throughout the race. It was a great day to race.

Are you JOKING? Were you there? I was sweating just nine minutes into the race. When I passed the halfway point at 9:00, the temp was 84 degrees! The conditions were not good for a marathon.

Were you there? wrote:

malmo wrote:It was no big deal. The start temp was 59° and the finish temps were 70°. Also Chicago is an early marathon (7:30am) meaning that the Sun altitude will be low throughout the race. It was a great day to race.

Are you JOKING? Were you there? I was sweating just nine minutes into the race. When I passed the halfway point at 9:00, the temp was 84 degrees! The conditions were not good for a marathon.

Don't challenge malmo on weather... I learned the hard way. Anyway, you're dead wrong...

82 was the high and 9 am was 70 deg.

And sweating in a marathon..... what has the world come to?!

Is this thread a bump or report from a few years ago?

chikin wrote:

And sweating in a marathon..... what has the world come to?!

Classic. I almost choked on the food I was eating when I saw this.

Couple thoughts:

I thought the heat was pretty butal. Not as bad as a few years ago, but hot either way. I seen a bank sign past mid-way though the race that read 80deg at 9:26 a.m. Not that those signs are always acurate but that is what I seen...

Also when watching the forcast for Chicago-land the night before the race I was really surpised the difference in forcasts just a couple miles inland compared to lakeside. I wonder if the race gauges were at the start/finish in Grant Park? Also there was little to no shade the 2nd half the race. So people handle the heat better then others (sweat rates, core body temps, acclimitazation, home training environment).

I know I ran poorly and felt the heat was an issue and the best hot weather runner in the world did win...

Kevin Hanson wrote:

For us Davila, Morgan, Young, and Canaday all ran their personal bests.

Congrats Kevin.

Will we see a Hanson sponsored Porto Potty at mile 25 next year? I need a spot to hide in while I put my chip back on.

I ran it and the weather was sneaky bad. It never felt too hot or humid, but the sun was unrelenting and wore you down. It really hit me on the west side of the course, on Ashland.

But I'm probably wrong, since Malmo said it wasn't bad.

Oh, and Kevin. Congrats on your runners who did well, but who was the your guy who was asking a cop for directions after he dropped out just before the United center? Didn't look injured, why couldn't he keep going in such good conditions?

Thanks for posting that Kevin. Marathons in the 1960s were often run on very hilly courses, in the summer noontime heat. There was often no water and gels and aides had not been invented yet. I trained in the noonday heat in a sweat suit. Boston supplied no splits except for the lead group. My first marathon was run in a temperature of 92 degrees with very high humidity. My log shows a temperature of 95 degrees for the August 1970 Santa Barbara Marathon. (I DNFed.)

Marathons seem to have evolved into time trials. Oh yes, there were seldom runners taking over 3 and a half to 4 hours.

I was calling up to a friend who was running around the course watching some runners. She said when she was in the sun it was really warm.

Of course Hanson's are going to gush over the race. His runner just became the 4th fastest US female marathoner. Congrats to her.

60-70 is STILL too hot for a super-fast time. Is it good enough for a great race? Yeah. But don't expect a WR or AR in anything above 55 degrees.

Two things I want to know:

1) Why doesn't somebody sponsor a big-time marathon in a cool place where it's pretty much guaranteed to be calm, dry, and 50 degrees every day during a given month?

2) Why don't they run marathons at night? Seems like it'd be way better for the temp to be dropping as the race progresses. Also, the human body is more 'primed' to race late in the day. Most fast 10ks are late--sometimes at 9 or 10pm! Stanford has this figured out. Circadian rhythms, duh.

Official temperatures are measured in the shade. (Didn't know that, didja?) So on a sunny day, there can be a significant difference between the listed temperature and what runners actually experience.

And from what I hear from my friends who ran on Sunday, it was HOT.

Is there a way that we can get RDs to postpone/cancel any marathon if the temp is over 50F at the start? I think it's horrible that runners should have to run when it's sunny and warm. It's despicable, in fact.