The timing of the race by itself makes 2004 worse. Also, I think that the dew point was probably higher in 2004 and the effect was worse because of the later start. The elite men and women were finishing quickly enough that they were not out in the hotter temperatures as long (they were generating more heat but have body systems that can dissipate heat better -- makes the fourth place finish of a 6'3" guy more impressive).
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 3:25PM - in reply to Class of 73
I did not run both. But everyone that did will say 04 was hotter, guaranteed. It started at noon and might have been more humid. Plus people typically embellish stories over the years: "when I was a kid, we had to walk 12 miles to school in a blizzard with no clothes or food...", and such.
hard to say
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 3:43PM - in reply to Class of 73
hard to say. you can compare elite times, but if you compare the field at large (say top 100, 500, 1000, 5000, etc), the field on the startline for 2012 was far more competitive than in 2004 so that's like apples and oranges.
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 3:46PM - in reply to Class of 73
444444 wrote: How about Chicago a few years ago? Was that worse than today's race?
Hey - start your own thread, pal (just kidding).
I ran '04, took it very easy, and recovered quicker from that marathon than any others I ran. The heat was awful, the start was later and, due to the mild winter & early spring weather, I believe there were more leaves and more shade from the trees in '12.
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 3:55PM - in reply to Class of 73
You can look up historic weather at Weather Underground. Here's the Newton, MA record for 4/19/04. It looks pretty similar to today once you figure in the later start time. http://www.wunderground.com/hi...atename=NA
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 3:58PM - in reply to Citizen Runner
Temps look nearly identical but the late start in 2004 would have been a factor. I remember it being 83F at the start. Today the first wave set off in mid-70s. 2004 had low humidity (around 30%) like today but the wind was much stronger. It was also a tail wind so it should have been an advantage but I remember it was very tough to breathe.
Didn't run today but based on the pacing and finish times of people I know it wasn't as bad as '04.
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 4:56PM - in reply to Class of 73
I ran both-this year definitely had warmer temps throughout the course. 77 at the start, into the 90s along the way in the sun, and upper 80s downtown at the finish. The BAA did a great job of "encouring" folks not in shape to not run. Dave McGillvary did a good job of making sure water stops had plenty of fluids for all.
I vote for '04
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 5:36PM - in reply to Boston Runnah
I ran '04 and it was hot and it was also the only year that it was uphill the whole way. And nobody offered us a deferment due to the weather. I think the Chicago '07 fiasco has made race directors more cautious.
RE: OK - Which year at Boston was hotter - '12 or '04?4/16/2012 6:06PM - in reply to I vote for '04