Stop the Presses - Boston officials applying to have 2:03:02 certified as World Record!

There seems to be a lot of confusion going on. Let me try to help (or hurt) the situation.

1) According to the marathon record rules, the course start and finish have to be within a certain distance of each other. Why? Because it prevents things like tailwinds and elevation drops (for the most part). If this rule wasn't in place, there could easily be a slightly downhill marathon in a straight line that would be a race track for world records. It wouldn't be fair. Boston does not meet these standards for a world record certified course.

2) Boston is a hard course in a normal year. Last year's 2:05 was said to be spectacular. However, we can clearly see that the wind made this course not so hard anymore. Yes, Mutai ran 2:03:02 legitimately, but there was a guy MAKING HIS DEBUT only seconds behind him. Are you telling me that Mosop's debut was worth a marathon world record? Are you telling me Ryan Hall ran a 2:04 high after only ever running 2:06 as his PR on a historically faster course? These performances alone can be considered amazing, but altogether, they are overwhelming evidence that the wind at the backs of the runners aided the time.

3) Why is there so much love for Mutai's 2:03:02 when there is so much hate for Ryan Hall's 2:04:55? People say that Mutai should have the world record, and that his performance is the best of all time, but refuse to believe Ryan Hall's time is legitimate at all? So I guess the wind only affected Hall's time then? I know that not everyone thinks that, and I know I surely don't, but why so much hate for the American who ran a great time (would be American Record) but so much love for the Kenyan who beat him?

4) Why does marathon history have anything to do with this? If you truly believe that a point to point course should be added for the sole purpose of being like the original marathon run from Marathon to Athens, then it should really only count on the Marathon to Athens course, right? Just because Boston one of the oldest and most prestigious marathons doesn't mean that it gets the right to be record eligible no matter how fast/slow the course is. If Mutai were to run 1:59 on a course historically won by world leaders in 2:10 but the course was not record certifiable, then it would still be a world "best". Sure, it would be the most amazing performance ever, and I'm sure some debate will go on over how good this run compares to those before it, but it is not a world record.

This all being said, I thoroughly enjoyed the race yesterday. I thought Hall raced well (though it would have been nice to see him beat Geb Geb), and I thought that Mosop and Mutai ran great times. I think in a normal year, they probably would have beaten the course record and ran in the 2:05s with Hall high 2:06-low 2:07 (speculation of course). I hope you all can see that there is no sense to making Mutai's run a world record. It is what it is, a world best.

If Mutai's 203.02 counts, than so should every wind aided 100m, long jump, triple jump, discus, hammer throw and javelin. Sorry that is not gonna happen and if it does I'm quitting athletics, because that is B.S.

Phenom Man wrote:

1) According to the marathon record rules, the course start and finish have to be within a certain distance of each other. Why? Because it prevents things like tailwinds and elevation drops (for the most part). If this rule wasn't in place, there could easily be a slightly downhill marathon in a straight line that would be a race track for world records. It wouldn't be fair. Boston does not meet these standards for a world record certified course.

Great post.

I believe a lot of people aren't making the good connection that concord makes above: marathons are very similar to cross country races.

There really shouldn't be world records for the marathon as no course is truly comparable to Boston, or Tokyo, or NYC, or Panama City, and so on.

Great Post. The beauty of Boston is that it is a foot race. One year might have a favorable tailwind and be 2:03. One year might have a headwind and be 2:08. At the end of the day, it was an exceptional race. It did not meet the established criteria for a world record/world best. It does not diminish the amazing race that we saw on Monday.

Kevin, this is a great point. It always bothered me that the NYC marathon turned this rationale on it's side- the main point being to connect all five boroughs- sort of an aimless meandering. And poor Al- it didn't meander quite long enough in 1981.

And... Boston also has the additional historical allusion to Paul Revere's, William Dawes' et al. midnight rides to warn of the British attack- hence why it is on Patriot's Day.

interesting twist wrote:

As of a few hours ago...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/04/19/boston.marathon.mutai.ap/index.html

"Boston Marathon officials say they will apply to the IAAF to have Geoffrey Mutai's winning time of 2 hours, 3 minutes, 2 seconds certified as a world record..."

"Boston officials say that the 115-year history of the race shows it is not an artificially fast course."

Post Edited

I have rarely read such an amount of bullshit as this fast time at Boston has provoked.The above is just more of it.

Boston is fast if the weather conditions are good,it was not thenone year that I raced it.

The terrain is constant and overall downhill,just study the course profile for confirmation.

The main reason we have only just begun to see fast times there in recent years is that FASTER RUNNERS are now racing it(with apologies to the Rogers/Hill/de Castella greats of their eras).On such a course and with a tail wind of the proportions mentioned it should not surprise that such elite racers will run fast,especially if at least one of them is pushing the early race pace as Hall is reported to have done.

A personal anecdote for thos who may disavow the positive effect of a predominantly downhill terrain.In the mid 1960's I raced a series of marathons in times of 2.42.38/2.42.31/2.41.25/2.47.50/2.37.00 and 2.45.35

Guess which one was a bloody long downhill terrain most of the way?All that crap about the negative effects of the downhill on the quads is just that for a well trained racer.

With a 20K wind behind me that day I reckon a 2.30 would have been a possible!!

I'm with dean on this issue

No, G. I was commenting that in 1983 we all considered Joanie's 2:22:43 to be the WR or world's best. (We all, I think, accepted her as THE world record holder.)She, of course, backed it up with an Olmypic gold and a 2:21:16 in Chicago in 1986. Boston, was THE standard from a historic past. Just like Greta when she ripped a 2:32 in NY in 1979. We all said WR!!I agree that the moment I heard of the WR talk, I thought of Olepade (sic) Thompson's 9.69 or Leroy Burrell's 19.61 wind-aided marks. No one ever considered them a WR but there were the wind gauges to consider. It shouldn't be granted a WR status. It has been in the past. Just like Greta when she ripped a 2:32 in NY in 1979. We all said WR!!With history mentioned, I'll admit to my bias and love for Boston. (I wish Boston had been so loving in return.) Maybe my book some day will be so loving.

Daniel Komen wrote:

Wejo, I appreciate what everyone has contributed to the dispute at hand. It is a complex issue and whatever solution will be arrived at, I am sure, will still not satisfy everyone. I will however be quick to point that, as an athlete with great amount of experience, strong winds coming from the back more than hurts the performance than it helps. The effects may not be as if the winds were coming from the front but still slows performance. You run better when there is no external force acting against you from any direction. This is only for long distances. In sprints, it is a different story, because you only have to withstand it for a very short time compared to the time for long distances.

I nominate this as the stupidest post regarding this Boston Marathon issue, and it has indeed generated much wind, but this really is astoundingly ignorant...one hopes the above poster is joking...

malmo wrote:

Bill Rodgers has held American Records, but never in the marathon. Joanie Benoit has never set a American/World Record in Boston.

Incorrect. She most definitely set the American record. TAC didn't revise the rules for courses until several years later. That doesn't change what happened unless you are a fan of revisionist history.

In a similar vein, as to IAAF's progression, they didn't even recognize road world records at the point she ran her 2:22. Only "bests". So now because they decided to grace us with their opinion of what really happened back then, are we supposed to say, "Oh well, I guess that really wasn't a world record, even though everyone recognized it as such at the time?"

I'll be happy to take IAAF's opinion's going forward. They don't get to change history though.

malmo wrote:

Kevin. There was no such thing as an original marathon, so how do you duplicate something that never happened?

I think Kevin is referring to the Olympic Marathon of 1896, which is what Boston was modelled on.

I started another thread noting that rabbeting cuts times and WRs in rabbeted races should be asterisked as well. It is time to reduce that practice.

LTA wrote:

Why hasn't anyone brought up the fact that Mutai might not have actually run 42.195 km? He probably didn't. It might have been 42.199 or 42.187. Why hasn't anyone brought up that the fact that there was perceivable wind in Geb's WR in 2008? Was it more noticeable than in Boston? Geb didn't run exactly 42.195 km, he actually ran 42.1944094 km. It rained the day before Geb's marathon - the friction coefficient of the roads was slightly lower. Geb's coefficient of drag * frontal area is lower than Mutai's, so Mutai gets the record.

It's always funny when people try to sound smart yet fail.

So Geb had a lower friction coefficient which aided him? I say Mutai had a higher friction coefficient during every toe-off resulting in more of his muscle generated force being transferred into a propulsive GRF while Geb's lower value resulted in "slipping" every step during toe-off!

Please explain to us how "Geb's coefficient of drag * frontal area is lower than Mutai's" as this isn't even an equation/calculation...Seems like the rain and resulting humidity in Berlin would result in a higher fluid density for Geb which ='s more form drag! What about relative velocity? Geb probably always had a positive value while Mutai nearly always had a negative one!

Please go take a basic HS physics class before posting again. Thank you.

everyone seems to think the wind has something to do with Boston not counting for records. Wind-aided rules apply only for events on a track no longer than 200 meters.

dddddd wrote:

everyone seems to think the wind has something to do with Boston not counting for records. Wind-aided rules apply only for events on a track no longer than 200 meters.

Not directly, as in the case of track events, where wind conditions at the time of the event must be considered.

However, it is part of the reasoning why point to point courses (beyond a specified separation of start/finish lines) are considered inelgible for WRs.

clearing the bs up wrote:

In 2010 people were stunned that Robert Cheruiyot the younger ran 2:05, and now after Monday's race people are saying that Boston should never count for record purposes. I find this hilarious considering that before 2010 everyone thought Boston was a slow course and a fast time similar to ones run in Berlin or London or Chicago would never happen. Mutai is the the fastest of anyone in history and Boston should be record eligible.

To me this strengthens the argument that it was wind-assisted this year.

People consider it a difficult and relatively slow course, yet with wind the winning time far exceded the world record.

[quote]asasdfas wrote:

If your running 3:49, you are not racing. Your hobby jogging and who cares if you run 3:40 or 3:59

[quote]flashback wrote:

You are immature, emotionally & most likely chronologically.

Check back in with us when you are in your 60s and have to bust your ass to break 4 hours - if you can even manage it. The average time included runners of all ages and both genders, so 3:49 for a marathon is very respectable.

Why has it not been brought up about the widening of some of the roads and the fresh pavement on the course? I would think that would have shortened the course ever so slightly and definitely made a quicker running surface. The start and finish seemed to be in the same area but it might have been adjusted as well.

I also watched a baseball game once where the wind helped a couple balls leave the park. I'm not in to baseball but did notice they counted them for the score but how about for the batters stats?

Thread Follower wrote:

I also watched a baseball game once where the wind helped a couple balls leave the park. I'm not in to baseball but did notice they counted them for the score but how about for the batters stats?

Absolutely. Baseballers don't whine and cry that the wind is helping creating more homers (or if it is blowing in towards home plate, preventing them), they just accept that conditions are part of an outdoor sport and move on. Baseball parks are wildly various in size and dimension, but no one complains that a 350 foot home run in one park shouldn't count because it would have been a fly-out in a different park. Only running tries to force its courses into a narrow standard of acceptability.