Given the conditions, which of the following marathon performances is "better":
3:09:08 - 57F, 88% relative humidity
3:17:10 - 77F, 65% relative humidity
Given the conditions, which of the following marathon performances is "better":
3:09:08 - 57F, 88% relative humidity
3:17:10 - 77F, 65% relative humidity
They both suck, but the second sucks less.
That's some pretty warm weather in the second one, but I gotta say the first. Faster time = better performance.
ass grabber wrote:
That's some pretty warm weather in the second one, but I gotta say the first. Faster time = better performance.
OP said, "given the conditions"...I'm sticking with the 3:17 as the better performance. That's some hot weather for a marathon and I think if one is capable of that time in those conditions, they could do much better than 3:09 in ideal weather.
The faster one - nobody is going to ask you what the humidity was
Why was the 2nd race not called off? WAY too hot!!
asdfdfsa wrote:
Why was the 2nd race not called off? WAY too hot!!
They ran (at least started) Chicago in this kind of heat a few years back (2007???) did they not? I believe they started the race and many comleted it before it was officially called off.
OP is the situation with the 2nd race the same...that it was called off at some point?