26mi235 wrote:
malmo wrote:Why? Boston's course has historical cache that other course don't, and might not ever have. You win at Boston, it means something. If you finish 5th or 10th it still means something, because everyone knows what Boston is about.
If they changed the course to a flat loop course to be certified, lets say up and down the Charles River, it would become just another marathon.
Hopkinton to Boston. 26.2 miles. a classic sporting event.
I second this! Certainly watching/observing Boston since the mid-1960s gives it a history that just is not the same as setting out a time-trial through the streets of Rotterdam or Berlin with a phalanx of pacers.
Running 105 400s at 70 seconds is impressive any way you look at it. Yes, the wind was a factor. I think that it was a double factor. First, it made the race faster. Second, Boston is typically more of a race and less of a time-trial (ditto NYC). This year, however, people knew that they might also get great times and they went for it. Finally, last year's race indicated that maybe if you ran all-out in a controlled fashion (don't kill yourself on that early downhill) you could run a good time under good conditions. (Also, the moved the start up to 10 from noon.)
There's a set of rules on what makes a course eligible for records. Boston doesn't cut it. You can try to get the IAAF to change the rules, but good luck to you. Paula Radcliffe has the world best for the half but not the world record because the Great North Run is a net downhill, despite not being the fastest of courses (sound familiar?). The rules are in there exactly so you can't have net downhill courses or courses where you're likely to have a wind at your back the whole way, like they did today.