Once In A (Marathon) Lifetime Conditions Forecast For Boston On Monday

so windy we could see a 204 to 202 today!!

Ridiculous time, that was an incredible race to watch on both men's and women's side!!

Too bad it doesn't count as a WR. And Boston is supposed to be a SLOW course :)

dukerdog wrote:

This year's Boston is precisely the reason only record-eligible courses should be allowed as OT qualifiers.

fuser wrote:

No, that would be a stupid decision. If a couple extra people run an OT qualifier on this rare occasion who "should" have only run 2:21, it's not the end of the world. But for the other 99% of the time when Boston is a SLOWER course and runners work their butts off to run 2:19 it would be ABSOLUTELY RETARDED not to count them as a qualifier. It's better to have a couple extra guys in the field than to disqualify a couple guys who deserve entrance.

Qualification on a course that is not record-eligible should be on a petition basis. If there was no tailwind and you ran 2:19:58, or if there was a 20mph tailwind and you ran 2:16, you'd be in on petition. 20mph tailwind and 2:19:55? Sorry.

silly valley wrote:

The idea of "stealing" somebody's tailwind is a bit complicated I think. I don't think there would be a noticeable effect if it's just a couple leaders running in line. I think their collective surface areas would be too small and their distance apart too great (you don't run 1 foot behind somebody, there is a decent gap even if you're right on their heels) to have a noticeable effect.

Tailwinds don't get blocked or diverted any differently than headwinds do. A tailwind of 20mph is approximately twice as fast as the lead women were running. So the advantage you get by running behind and blocking the leader's tailwind is approximately the same as the advantage you get by following the leader on a windless day (avoiding the 10mph wind you create by running).

I know I'll probably get alot of backlash for this, but Hall ran the dumbest sub 2:05 I have ever seen.

He pushed the pace from the beginning, and then couldn't hang later.

If only he would listen....

I know, I know it's a sub 2:05. But, it shows that his potential is even much better. If he just tucked in with the group he would have been fresher and able to go with the final two, and then who knows?

Hip hip hurray for Desiree!!!!

She is class act, and a very well deserved great great effort. Wow!!!!!

guy who pays attention wrote:

The really fun part will be reading people bashing Hall (and God) for him "only" running 2:04:xx in a wind-aided race.

Can't believe it but you absolutely nailed that prediction.

dukerdog wrote:

This year's Boston is precisely the reason only record-eligible courses should be allowed as OT qualifiers.

Why? Is the objective of qualifying marks to punish a runner for the weather? It should be a gift. Boston is a difficult course, except, in the rare case there is a tailwind (3 times in the last 28 years).

How can Hall's time be counted as an American Record, but the overall finisher not get the world record? The standards should be uniform across the cognizant associations.

Running the hills wrote:

How can Hall's time be counted as an American Record, but the overall finisher not get the world record? The standards should be uniform across the cognizant associations.

"cognizant associations"? Organizations cannot be cognizant.

malmo wrote:

Why? Is the objective of qualifying marks to punish a runner for the weather? It should be a gift. Boston is a difficult course, except, in the rare case there is a tailwind (3 times in the last 28 years).

Then why not give Ryan Hall the American record? Why should we punish him for the weather?

dukerdog. There's a big difference between certifying an AR and getting an Olympic Trials qualifier.

Are times run on non-record-eligible courses accepted for Olympic marathon qualifying? I honestly don't know.