Statistical Analysis of Boston to Account for Wind?

Not the best idea.

The only thing that matters is the elites. The best way to do this is comparing results to PRs (on the same course or other courses) and comparing these stats to other major marathons.

This has already been done in a rather limited way on another thread. The result was that the wind gave a 3 - 4 minute advantage among the elites. You can't really say anything more precise than that anyway and I doubt that a more thorough analysis using several recent major marathons would move these numbers much anyway.

At any rate, looking at the hobby joggers (no offense) would make any analysis worse, not better.

Has anyone else gone here: http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html and entered 10 MPH tail wind. The difference is HUGE (10+ minutes for the chicks). The maths are based on Dr. Daniel's book.

So much for Dr. Daniel's book.

Yeah, Kilel collapses into a sobbing heap at the finish line of every 2:32 she runs.

Rule Britannia wrote:

Has anyone else gone here:

http://www.runworks.com/calculator.html

and entered 10 MPH tail wind. The difference is HUGE (10+ minutes for the chicks). The maths are based on Dr. Daniel's book.

I don't know where my post just went but I said this is pathetic. Grow up kiddos. Wind, sun, rain, sleet, snow, shit, sand, water,...etc. The new fastest time in the world is 2:03:02...No such thing as wind aided on a road course.

Grow up and stop living such miserable lives that you have to degrade the best human performances of all time in running.

...really? wrote:

I don't know where my post just went but I said this is pathetic. Grow up kiddos. Wind, sun, rain, sleet, snow, shit, sand, water,...etc. The new fastest time in the world is 2:03:02...No such thing as wind aided on a road course.

Grow up and stop living such miserable lives that you have to degrade the best human performances of all time in running.

Wow, what a stupid post ^. Best human performances of all time? Nope. Not even close.

Degrade the performance? Nope, more like trying to understand it a little bit better.

Perhaps you might think about growing up a little bit.

What is there to understand? You completely took my statement out of context. It was the best MARATHON performance of all time, heaven forbid I had to type that for you to understand it. But typical LR reply takes it out of context to try to start a fight.

There is nothing to understand except that this was the fastest. The weather doesn't matter. The time is the fastest a human being as EVER RUN A MARATHON IN HUMAN HISTORY. When your little brain is able to process that we'll talk.

Until then, grow up kiddo.

...really? wrote:

What is there to understand? You completely took my statement out of context. It was the best MARATHON performance of all time, heaven forbid I had to type that for you to understand it. But typical LR reply takes it out of context to try to start a fight.

There is nothing to understand except that this was the fastest. The weather doesn't matter. The time is the fastest a human being as EVER RUN A MARATHON IN HUMAN HISTORY. When your little brain is able to process that we'll talk.

Until then, grow up kiddo.

True that 3 years ago the lets runners were all crowing about how "hard" Boston was. 2 great performances seddenly change 113 years of history.

This board is Nucking Futs

Fastest marathon ever, yes. Best marathon performance ever, no. Haile's 2:03:59 is still a better performance because it was on a legitimate record certifiable course. Wind of course was a factor, but it wouldn't be on any certifiable course because the start and finish lines cannot be far away from each other according to the rules. This would prevent and prevailing tailwind like we saw today, which definitely aided the times.

I can't wait to see what these guys (Mosop, Mutai, Hall) run on a record course. Notice that I am not discrediting what they did today. The race was great, and I am really impressed with Hall especially, however, the times were aided by the wind.

Phenom Man wrote:

Fastest marathon ever, yes. Best marathon performance ever, no. Haile's 2:03:59 is still a better performance because it was on a legitimate record certifiable course. Wind of course was a factor, but it wouldn't be on any certifiable course because the start and finish lines cannot be far away from each other according to the rules. This would prevent and prevailing tailwind like we saw today, which definitely aided the times.

I can't wait to see what these guys (Mosop, Mutai, Hall) run on a record course. Notice that I am not discrediting what they did today. The race was great, and I am really impressed with Hall especially, however, the times were aided by the wind.

any* (yes, I made another post to correct myself)

hall ran the same as last year

he ll 211 the olympics

Daniel's is way too nice with his conversions. Both for wind and treadmill grades. According to him, I did the equivalent of 4:10 mile intervals but I couldn't be All American in DII.

turkey leg wrote:

Daniel's is way too nice with his conversions. Both for wind and treadmill grades. According to him, I did the equivalent of 4:10 mile intervals but I couldn't be All American in DII.

No, you just have the Webb syndrome. All time, no place.

Learn to race you n00b. Womp Womp!

I kid, I kid. But yeah, there's no physics to back up Daniels' claims, it's all correlations through regression analysis that varies greater at the extremes where we obviously are today.

Agreed. No matter what the conditions, it has to be discounted on LR. Cold, rainy, windy: Should have toughed it out or trained harder and gotten a PR anyway. 80degF and Sunny: shoulda paced better and still gotten a PR. Tailwind: woulda been 10min slower if you had to run a "real" race. Folks, this is what the Marathon is. Conditions vary. Sometimes the all stars align. Often they don't. Today was exceptional and the times are still valid.

I was there wrote:

True that 3 years ago the lets runners were all crowing about how "hard" Boston was. 2 great performances seddenly change 113 years of history.

This board is Nucking Futs

...really? wrote:

What is there to understand? You completely took my statement out of context. It was the best MARATHON performance of all time, heaven forbid I had to type that for you to understand it. But typical LR reply takes it out of context to try to start a fight.

There is nothing to understand except that this was the fastest. The weather doesn't matter. The time is the fastest a human being as EVER RUN A MARATHON IN HUMAN HISTORY. When your little brain is able to process that we'll talk.

Until then, grow up kiddo.

What a funny little man.

If it isn't obvious to you that this race was seriously wind-aided then you really don't have any comprehension whatsoever.

Wanna bet that the two guys who ran 2:03 are going to match that in their next race? Or that everyone will be running 2:03 in Chicago, Berlin...

What a very strange coincidence that we had these phenomenal times on a day when the wind was very strong and blowing in the right direction. Remarkable these coincidences, no?

Best marathon performance of all time? Not even close. Well behind Haile's 2:03:59. Even further behind Wanjiru's Beijing performance. If you don't understand that you don't understand running.

Now be a good lad and try to grow up a bit, shall we.

David Wilson wrote:

I have a proposal to settle some of the lengthy debates already going on here over whether or not Boston was especially "wind-aided" today, whether PRs should count, whether the times should have an asterisk next to them, and so forth.

Why not simply take the results from the past, say, ten Boston Marathons, and produce a statistical distribution of them? Then, one could take this year's results and make an objective comparison for all competitors.

Talk to Ken Young at the ARRS.

Ah, you got me knight of the keyboard. You're right, the wind aided means it was a 2:42, I forgot. :/ No other marathon in history as ever had good weather. I'm going to go back to training now at a place where the current winds are in the high 20's and the elevation is well over a mile above where you live and forget that I know nothing about geography/weather and it's affects on runners.

Damn I feel stupid. :/

...really? wrote:

I don't know where my post just went but I said this is pathetic. Grow up kiddos. Wind, sun, rain, sleet, snow, shit, sand, water,...etc. The new fastest time in the world is 2:03:02...No such thing as wind aided on a road course.

Grow up and stop living such miserable lives that you have to degrade the best human performances of all time in running.

I would not normally respond to such idiocy ("best human performances of all time"?!?!?). So I will let Malmo do it for me. From a different thread Malmo said it better than I could:

"Had it not been for the wind the times by those who didn't set PRs today would have been 3-4 minutes slower. What aren't you getting about the concept of a strong wind at your back?

I don't know what's more ridiculous - people thinking that the wind wasn't responsible for the fast times or people like me responding to idiots who think that way.

And yes, I called you an idiot. Anyone who thinks that the wind wasn't responsible for the fast times is an idiot."