JK, Hodge, Derderian, Malmo et al: What do you guys think of today's Boston performances?

JK is still napping.

Yes it was historical. In the last 28 years there have been 2 other days (1983 and 1994) that have been almost as windy.

I remember after the 1983 race thinking to myself, "why didn't I run that race?". It would been the only marathon in which I'd have an advantage over the field.

Here are your top Boston times until today.

2:05:52 1 Robert Cheruiyot 2010

2:07:14 1 Robert Cheruiyot 2006

2:07:15 1 Cosmas N'Deti 1994 another wind-aided year

2:07:19 2 Andrés Perez Espinosa 1994

2:07:23 2 Kebede Tekeste 2010

2:07:34 1 Moses Tanui 1998

2:07:37 2 Joseph Chebet 1998

2:07:46 1 Robert Cheruiyot 2008

2:07:51 1 Robert de Castella 1986

2:07:52 3 Gert Thys 1998

2:08:08 3 Jackson Kipng'ok 1994

2:08:09 4 Hwang Young-Cho 1994

2:08:14 1 Ibrahim Hussein 1992

2:08:19 1 Gelindo Bordin 1990

Here is today's result.

2:03:02 1 Geoffrey Mutai 2011

2:03:06 2 Moses Mosop 2:03:06

2:04:53 3 Geb Geb 2011

2:04:58 4 Ryan Hall 2011

2:06:13 5 Abreham Cherkos 2011

2:06:43 6 Robert Cheruiyot 2011

2:07:10 7 Phillip Sanga 2011

2:07:39 8 Deressa Chimsa 2011

2:08:03 9 Bekana Daba 2011

2:08:44 10 Robert Kipchumba 2011

Mutai is a seasoned marathoner who has run 2:04:55 and 2:05:10 at Rotterdam and Berlin.

Mosop is a seasoned track runner with bests of 12:54/26:49/59:20. Nice debut when you can get a day like that.

GebGeb is a 12:52/26:52/2:08:14(NYC win).

Cherkos 2:07:29 at Amsterdam.

Cheruiyot of course what last years winner and course record-holder at 2:05:52.

Sanga has a 2:07:11 from last years Frankfort.

Chimsa a 2:07:54 from 2009 Dubai.

Daba won this years Houston in 2:07:04 has a 12:58

5000 from last year,

and Robert Kipchumba is your average 59:28/2:08:07

Oh, there was no wind. Nothing like that at all.

Interesting how only places 1-5 seem to outperform their PR's, with Mutai the most. Of the top women, only Davila significantly improved her PR. It's almost as if the wind selectively helped those men who made the breakaway at about 3/4 of the way in.

If you hold a race for more and more years the chances for weather anomalies increase. Some day at Boston there may be a humongous ocean storm with snow and headwinds blowing off the North Atlantic slowing race times. That race may be historical too and interesting because someone with abilities suited for the day would win—maybe some Sasquatch in snowshoes. But until that day, most days will be seasonal.

In 1976 the temperature reached over 100°F on parts of the course and the winner did not break 2:20. An inferno may occur again.

But the idea of "world records" in a marathon is unnecessary. Track are for comparing races to each other. That's why tracks were invented. So call the fastest time in a road race a "world best" and leave it at that.

If we start putting asterisks by performances for wind aided, downhill, women only, mixed, paces....we'll go starry-eyed for the asterisks.

Certainly the Boston course can be fast or slow but as Bob Dylan sang, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

Tom

Crimea River wrote:

Interesting how only places 1-5 seem to outperform their PR's, with Mutai the most. Of the top women, only Davila significantly improved her PR. It's almost as if the wind selectively helped those men who made the breakaway at about 3/4 of the way in.

A Red herring and circular reasoning sandwich.

In every marathon, with wind or not, athletes blow up. 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 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.

Moses finally got his Boston Qualifier! Good job Moses!

malmo wrote:

I don't know what more ridiculous - people thinking that the wind wasn't responsible for the fast times or people like me

Why don't you tone it down a bit there, malmo. You're cheapening the value of your contribution with this kind of childish overreaction. You know perfectly well that poster wasn't saying that.

malmo you need to take a break.

What the heck are talking about "tone it down"? There's nothing "childish" about my comments at all. This entire thread is ridiculous, and yes, the poster is arguing that the wind wasn't the factor fast times were run today in Boston.

malmo wrote:

[quote]Crimea River wrote:

A Red herring and circular reasoning sandwich.

In every marathon, with wind or not, athletes blow up. Had it not been for the wind the times by those who didn't set PRs today would have been 3-4 minutes slower.

probably 2 minutes, not 3-4 minutes unless you think g. mutai and mosop are 2:06-2:07 runners, and gebremariam is a high 2:07-high 2:08 runner. time will tell, but i think you will see those 3 run more sub 2:05 times to prove what i am saying.

and regardless of the wind ryan ran great to be 4th in that field is excellent.

anyone who thinks the wind took of 3-4 minutes is an idiot. yes, an idiot.

I think the wind took off 2-3 minutes and you didn't even spell "off" correctly (although I will give you credit for spelling idiot).

If I were racing under these conditions and was ready for the downhills (I tended to train in the hills a lot and race well in them) I would have been tempted to use an aggressive race plan under these conditions hoping to get a spectacular time (but still being careful those first five miles). Under those conditions, it is not unlikely that you could blow up. Remember, under such strategy it is the survivors that you see at the front.

Nappy Roots wrote:

I would love to hear you guys discuss your thoughts and reflections about today's historical performances!

A perfect storm. Tremendous recing and rare conditions. Many people have said that Boston is not a fast course! hahaha.

Ryan Hall kept it interesting. I was hunkered down in front of the TV watching this race unfold and Desiree Davila had me screaming so loudly with her stretch run I was frightening the neighbors.

I like the comments guys like you make. I agree with Derderian and I like your initial comment. This message board let's us get the opinions of people who have been there.

Thanks for the comments guys. As a humble, slow, runner who simply loves the sport, I think this guy moved his legs faster over 26.2 miles than anyone ever- World Best.

Malmo,

I'd argue that the wind was responsible for the fast times...but the argument is one of nuance...if the wind was as it was, but temps were in the 80's, the times wouldn't have been what they were. It was the confluence of good temps and good wind that made conditions near ideal for the runners. Not wind alone!

Wayne

Wayne, did you just have a duh! moment?

malmo, Boston is a slow course, No? Why don't you factor that in? Doesn't fit your argument?

Take the wind and add 4min to his time, fine!(2:07) Then take the course and subtract 4min for the difficulty (2:03).

I've known over a hundred people that have run Boston and other marathons. Most people say they run about 4min slower on the Boston course than a flat, fast one. Of course those are 2:30 to 2:40 guys, so maybe it's more like 3min for the elites. The point is, you can't consider one factor and ignore the others.

I completely agree with Tom here.

SorR, you're not making any sense here. Of course Boston is a slow course. It runs just about 2:00 slower than both London and Berlin.

Making a comparison of relatively untrained runners with world class runners is unfair. Also, since the fields today lack the depth of the fields 25 years ago it's also unfair to compair 20th to 20th, 30tjh to 30th, etc, because most of the 20th placers today are the guys who have blown up. Tow decades ago, specifically 1983 hordes were getting PRs in the 2:15 to 2:20 range because they were having a career day, not because they were blowing up after racing with the leaders.

Here's a comparison I did 5 years ago of New York, Boston, Chicago, Berlin and London.

What follows is an analysis of the New York Marathon elites fields from 1999 to 2005. Specifically, I was interested in the performances of those marathoners who competed in NYC and one or more of the remaining four "Majors" in an attempt to establish an empirical performance bias across venues. Not surprising, the results confirmed what was already known anecdotally: there are fast courses (Berlin, London. Chicago) and there are slow courses (Boston, New York).

The career results of 87 elites who competed at NYC marathon (99-05) were meticulously recorded and analyzed, paying attention to their performances at the 5 Major Marathons: New York, Boston, London, Berlin, Chicago.

OVERVIEW

Of the 87 elite marathoners who ran New York, 27 ran London, 28 Chicago, 19 Berlin, and 31 Boston

2:09:56 Average PR for 87 runners

2:14:22 Average best time at NYC (87)

2:10:35 Average best at London (27)

2:11:55 Average best at Chicago (28)

2:10:33 Average best at Berlin (19)

2:12:24 Average best at Boston (30)

4:27 New York avg from PR

0:39 London avg from PR

1:59 Chicago avg from PR

0:38 Berlin avg from PR

2:28 Boston avg from PR

3:48 London overall avg bias over New York (3:01 headsup)

2:28 Chicago overall avg bias over New York (1:22 headsup)

3:49 Berlin overall avg bias over New York (6:58 headsup)

1:59 Boston overall avg bias over New York (0:29 headsup)

VENUE TO VENUE COMPARISON

For those runners who've run at each event

New York vs London 27 runners

2:08:40 average PR

2:10:35 (1:55) avg. London best

2:13:36 (4:56) avg. New York best

-------

3:01 time bias to London over New York

New York vs Chicago 28 runners

2:09:40 average PR

2:11:55 (2:15) avg. Chicago best

2:13:17 (3:37) avg. New York best

-------

1:22 time bias to Chicago over New York

New York vs Berlin 19 runners

2:09:32 average PR

2:10:33 (1:01) average Berlin best

2:16:30 (6:58) average New York best

-------

5:57 time bias to Berlin over New York

New York vs Boston 30 runners

2:09:39 average PR

2:12:24 (2:44) average Boston best

2:12:53 (3:14) average New York best

-------

0:29 time bias to Boston over New York

Just for kicks, I've thrown out from the data set all of the time differentials over 7:00 on the theory that large time differences would be heavily weighted towards circumstances and not the course differences. The results were as follows:

New York vs London 22 runners

2:08:30 average PR

2:10:24 (1:54) avg. London best

2:12:20 (3:50) avg. New York best

-------

1:56 time bias to London over New York

New York vs Chicago 25 runners

2:09:49 average PR

2:11:49 (2:00) avg. Chicago best

2:12:53 (3:04) avg. New York best

-------

1:04 time bias to Chicago over New York

New York vs Berlin 12 runners

2:09:38 average PR

2:10:41 (1:03) average Berlin best

2:13:34 (3:56) average New York best

-------

2:53 time bias to Berlin over New York

New York vs Boston 27 runners

2:10:05 average PR

2:12:11 (2:06) average Boston best

2:13:24 (3:19) average New York best

-------

1:13 time bias to Boston over New York