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

I agree with Wejo, Phenom Man, and Windblows. Boston's race this year was phenomenal - I'm sorry that neither the televised coverage nor Youtube videos of the race are available in South America (due "copyright issues"). So, after adding my congrats to all the top men and women finishers, and after agreeing with the above posters' comments, let me add the following for consideration:

1. Here's the website Wejo referred to but forgot to post:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/

2. Four weeks before the Boston Marathon, Ryan Hall ran the New York City 1/2 marathon in 1:03:53. A mere four weeks later, Hall put together back-to-back half-marathons of 1:01:58/1:03:00. (!!)

3. Moses Mosop has 10k/half-marathon bests of 26:49/59:20. Haile Gebrselassie has 10k/half-marathon bests of 26:22/58:55. Yet in Mosop's FIRST marathon ever, he ran a full 53 seconds FASTER than Gebrselassie's WORLD RECORD (the latter achieved after four years of intense world record attempts on flat courses).

4. Fastest downhill mile by elite athlete = Steve Scott, 3:31.25 in Auckland, New Zealand in April 1982.

Fastest downhill mile ever run = Craig Wheeler, 3:24, run at the Meltham Mile, UK, 1993.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/maniacs-stand-out-a-mile-1251620.html

However, the WORLD RECORD for the mile is Hicham El Guerrouj's 3:43.13

5. Geoffrey Mutai ran two high quality, rabbited races on flat, fast courses in 2010. In Rotterdam he ran 2:04:55 and in Berlin he ran 2:05:10. In Boston he ran 1:01:58/1:01:04 for a 2:03:02.

5. In 1994, Boston had a heavy tailwind and the times were all fast, including Bob Kempainen's, who ran 2:08:47. The 2nd fastest marathon of his ENTIRE CAREER turned out to be a nearly four minutes slower, 2:12:45. The winner that year, Cosmos Ndeti, also ran a career best by over two minutes (2:07:15) that day.

6. In 1983, Boston had a heavy tailwind. Greg Meyer ran a career best by almost two minutes (2:09:00) (2nd best being 2:10:59). Ron Tabb in 2nd ran a career best by a minute (2:09:32). Also on that windy day, Joan Benoit beat the WORLD RECORD by almost THREE minutes (2:22:43 vs. Grete Waitz's 2:25:29)

Given all of these data, it's obvious that the wind was not a negligible factor at Boston on Monday (just as it wasn't in 1983 or 1994). That's one of two reasons why point to point courses are not eligible for record purposes (the other reason being that point to point courses can have net downhill drops - which is certainly the case at Boston).

Boston's race on Monday produced the fastest marathon ever run. But it did not produce either a world record or American record.

zax wrote:

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.

Not all pro team sports ignore the wind issue. The outdoor classic this year (hockey) had teams change ends during the 3rd period because of the wind. Usually not an issue and pro hockey is generally played indoors, but the classic is unique and environmental factors do get considered.

Ecuadorian Post wrote:

...

Given all of these data, it's obvious that the wind was not a negligible factor at Boston on Monday (just as it wasn't in 1983 or 1994). That's one of two reasons why point to point courses are not eligible for record purposes (the other reason being that point to point courses can have net downhill drops - which is certainly the case at Boston).

Boston's race on Monday produced the fastest marathon ever run. But it did not produce either a world record or American record.

Wow, someone actually made a good post on this thread. Way to go.

Everyone agrees that too strong a tailwind is sufficient reason to disregard a 'record' that is run in an event that lasts less than 10 seconds and covers only 100 meters... so if we can all agree wind is an unfair advantage in such a short, quick race, why do some think it doesn't create an unfair advantage in a race that lasts 750 times longer (125mins x 60 = 7500sec. 7500sec./10sec. = 750) and covers a distance 422 times farther (42,195m/100m = 421.95)?

zax wrote:

not the same as some schmuck inventing a marathon with a 8000m elevation loss.

That would be very difficult, actually. You'd need to tunnel because none of the 8,000m points on the earth's surface are within 26.2 miles of sea level.

P.S. I forgot to mention another clue to the aided nature of this year's Boston Marathon. A little more than a year ago, the course record was Robert Cheruiyot's 2:07:14. Considering Boston's long history - with all the great athletes who have run there over the years - it is amazing that in this year's race, SEVEN men ran faster than the previous COURSE RECORD. Five of those men were at least a MINUTE faster than the RK's old CR. Four of those men were at least TWO minutes faster than 2:07:14. Two of those men were over THREE minutes faster than 2:07:14.

Something more than just having a "career day" was going on at Boston on Monday. The aid from the wind was impressive.

1. Geoffrey Mutai KEN 2:03:02

2. Moses Mosop KEN 2:03:06

3. Gebregziabher Gebremariam ETH 2:04:53

4. Ryan Hall USA 2:04:58

5. Abreham Cherkos ETH 2:06:13

6. Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot KEN 2:06:43

7. Philip Kimutai Sanga KEN 2:07:10

8. Deressa Chimsa ETH 2:07:39

9. Bekana Daba ETH 2:08:03

10. Juan Carlos R. Cardona, Sr. COL 2:12:17

Even then, a race beginning at the summit of K2 or Nanga Parbat would be one of the slowest imaginable.

TK1451 wrote:

zax wrote:

not the same as some schmuck inventing a marathon with a 8000m elevation loss.

That would be very difficult, actually. You'd need to tunnel because none of the 8,000m points on the earth's surface are within 26.2 miles of sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander

Already corrected my mistake to 8000 ft. back on page 2 or 3. Thanks though.

Meb Cope wrote:

Even then, a race beginning at the summit of K2 or Nanga Parbat would be one of the slowest imaginable.

TK1451 wrote:

That would be very difficult, actually. You'd need to tunnel because none of the 8,000m points on the earth's surface are within 26.2 miles of sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander

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?

This race counts as a win for Mutai.

In the long jump, a competitor can win with a wind-aided jump even if the second best competitor was not wind-aided.

We're not changing the score here. Just not ratiying the record.

They don't ratify the distance of a home run.

They just call it a home run.

I just thought I'd play devil's advocate a bit and throw some ideas and arugments around...

I do agree we should take the Net downhill completely out of the equation...while Boston is over the 1:1000 ratio set down in the rules, it is a fairly arbitrary rule (like rules in general to go with someones point!). I mean, why the hell does it have to be 1 meter per km...nice a precise I suppose.

That said, save for the fact that London luckily gains about 50 feet coming out of Canary Wharf before finally finishing on the Mall, London could also be seen to gain quite a bit from a long downhill portion at the beginning of the race with no where near the subsequent uphills to further destroy your legs...

While it irks me slightly to agree with the brojos, the wind has to be the factor that's looked at here, not the "net downhill". Mutai said it was swirling and tough to run in at times...others say the stats measured strong, consistent wind from the SW the whole time (likely a result of the above ground level readings). While the ridiculous extrapolation the brojos did from Sprint to Marathon can't be justified, surely there was some measureable effect.

It comes down to how you want to try to measure a "world record" for the marathon, or any road race. To make them comparable, some kind of system has to be put in place...which is what the IAAF did (though they likely blundered creating rules that excluded Boston). Or you can take De Castella view that this was a road race...the guys toed the line, the clock started and stopped and we saw the fastest ever recorded time for 26.2m.

It's going to be one of those sporting arguments that can be taken from several different vantage points and tossed back and forth. Given Boston's status and history (and the fact it was always considered a slow course) I think many true runners will look at this as a mind blowing feat that may come with an *, but that must be remembered and lauded for what it was...the fastest anyone has ever covered this distance we love!

toro wrote:

This race counts as a win for Mutai.

In the long jump, a competitor can win with a wind-aided jump even if the second best competitor was not wind-aided.

We're not changing the score here. Just not ratiying the record.

They don't ratify the distance of a home run.

They just call it a home run.

But they do keep track of them over a season, and give out accolades to the guy who has the most, and everlasting glory to guys who set all-time records related to them. One guy may finish second in the stats list because some other guy played in a stadium with a prevailing wind to left field.

And no one thinks this is unfair, because it isn't. Just like running an overland race with/without wind doesn't make anything unfair.

zax wrote:

But they do keep track of them over a season, and give out accolades to the guy who has the most, and everlasting glory to guys who set all-time records related to them. One guy may finish second in the stats list because some other guy played in a stadium with a prevailing wind to left field.

And no one thinks this is unfair, because it isn't. Just like running an overland race with/without wind doesn't make anything unfair.

Distances or home runs are only roughly tracked and in most cases they don't know exactly how far a ball is hit, especially ones out of park. Officially, MLB doesn't care how far the ball is hit, as long as it's fair and over the wall/fence/etc.

Dr. W wrote:

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.

I was pointing out how ridiculous this discussion is. This should have been obvious.

Please go take a basic elementary school reading course before posting again. Thank you.

Vegan Physicist wrote:

zax wrote:

But they do keep track of them over a season, and give out accolades to the guy who has the most, and everlasting glory to guys who set all-time records related to them. One guy may finish second in the stats list because some other guy played in a stadium with a prevailing wind to left field.

And no one thinks this is unfair, because it isn't. Just like running an overland race with/without wind doesn't make anything unfair.

Distances or home runs are only roughly tracked and in most cases they don't know exactly how far a ball is hit, especially ones out of park. Officially, MLB doesn't care how far the ball is hit, as long as it's fair and over the wall/fence/etc.

I was talking about the amount of home runs in a season/career. As far as I know there is no such official record for HR distance and I wasn't talking about that anyway.

I think people miss the fact that the wind is not what caused the race to be world record ineligible. The point to point nature of the course is not record eligible because it can produce such wind, whereas if there was wind on a loop, you would have to run into it as well as have it at your back.

Unholy Cumulus wrote:

Ecuadorian Post wrote:

...

Given all of these data, it's obvious that the wind was not a negligible factor at Boston on Monday (just as it wasn't in 1983 or 1994). That's one of two reasons why point to point courses are not eligible for record purposes (the other reason being that point to point courses can have net downhill drops - which is certainly the case at Boston).

Boston's race on Monday produced the fastest marathon ever run. But it did not produce either a world record or American record.

Wow, someone actually made a good post on this thread. Way to go.

Too bad it's incorrect.

Speaking of Wikipedia, someone has already infected it with the information that Ryan Hall's 2:04:58 (on "April 17, 2010" [sic]) is the U.S. marathon record, "pending ratification."

Presumably, "ratification" will be "pending" for a long time -- perhaps as long as Terry Cotton's 59:41 in the 1986 Fontana Day's Half-Marathon has been pending ratification as the U.S. record.

I'm delighted to be on the same side of this issue as malmo. (We're probably on the same side of the great majority of issues, although we have vehemently disagreed on a few matters.) But as a sidelight, I'm curious about the above "official marathon record progression." Salazar's Fukuoka performance in 1983 has long been listed as unvalidatable. See

. For that reason, I thought that Petersen, Lawson, and Morris held the "official" U.S. records before Khannouchi became a U.S. citizen. Am I missing something?

So we had some flooding at my college last fall, and they are going to rip up the track this week. Inspired my Mutai's incredible World Record, (and it IS a world record, no one has ever run faster) I decided to have a go at the world record for the mile.

I am pleased to say that my attempt was a success, and I am now the Mile World Record holder (pending ratification) with a time of 3:01. This is in spite of the fact that the track was wet, so I was worried that my "feet" were going to slip out from under me. I also had to "run" most of the race in lane 3, since I was going too fast to stay on the rail. Finally, it took me about 50m to get my running "in gear" once the race started.

Some people have implied that my race may have been assisted, but this is absolutely not the case. The track was wet and not in a good condition, which cancels out any "advantages" I may have had. If anything, I would say this was a disadvantage, because of the difficulty of staying in the inside lane. This is definitely a slow track under normal conditions, so the same applies under every set of conditions. So I think this record is actually equivalent to a 2:40. I am very proud of my time.

As I alluded to above, I have been getting some trouble from the IAAF. They do not want to count my record because they say that my style of running is ineligible. Also, apparently you are not allowed to set world records on random evenings with your buddies and no one else watching. But my style of running has been around for over a century, and many races are contested every year. So it should be eligible.

I am very comforted then, to hear the support Mutai is getting for his World Record. Obviously, the conditions did not affect his performance. I mean, some guy I know actually ran SLOWER than his PR at Boston this year. This is the same with my record. I hope that all of you will get behind my cause and I am happy to have found such a large number of people willing to support me in this. I have also emailed the Boston Marathon organizers, and they have wholeheartedly agreed to fight for me. Thank you all.

This is an interesting list.

We have no clue as to the accuracy of most of the courses listed prior to 1979.

Plus the rules and tolerances for mesurement changed in the early 80's

Many of these performances wouldn't cut it by today's measurement standards.