The course was long. duh.
The course was long. duh.
Course was changed. And was .21 long according to GPS.
Also, the leaders had to run around packs of hiking soldiers. Impossible to run the shortest route.
It was still faster than 88 of the 113 Boston 'Thons ever run.
Not sure the reliability of your weather. It was announced as 56 at the start in Hopkinton at 10AM for the elite men. The course warmed up as the day went along. And, it is BOSTON after all - not a course for blazing fast times under any condition other than 30mph tail winds.
Has the drug testing come so far that these guys have to take it easy back off well before the race now?
Talapia wrote:
Course was changed. And was .21 long according to GPS.
Also, the leaders had to run around packs of hiking soldiers. Impossible to run the shortest route.
GPS!
Weather Undergound says it was 43 degrees in Hopkinton at race time. it shows it never got out of the 40s in Boston all day. Winds at the start in Hopkinton were 3.5 mph and variable (concerning their direction),
As for the claim they were slowed by having to run around soldiers, the race video showed very few of them. BUT many of the leaders did run extra - because, unbelievably, they did not run the tangents. Still, that would not add minutes to their times.
Again 16 Americans and 2 Canadians ran sub 2:14 thirty years ago (when the East Africans were not at Boston). Today only 6 runners, five of them world class East Africans, broke 2:14. In near ideal conditions. It was SLOW!
Were you there man? You are the kinda guy who looks at the internet and thinks he knows everything. The race announcer announced at the elite mens start that it was in the 50's and there were headwinds over 10 MPH the entire time. It was not a gust it was WIND. I started just behind them.
It may have been slow but not for lack of talent. They just decided to sit and kick. Didn't you watch the Olympics last year? I'm guessing you're a Deriba Merga fan and are upset he didn't take it out hard as usual.
No,"man," I don't think I know everything. But I am inclined to think that Weather Underground (an excellent site for weather FACTS and forecasts) doesn't pull its data out of its, uh, kiester.
And if it was such a headwind, why did the race video show the leaders spread across the road much of the time, as the announcers noted repeatedly. They were not drafting much of the time.
The "tactical" argument also is weak. If it were slow due to tactics there would have been a large lead pack until late in the race. . There wasn't.
Coach Ed wrote:
Not sure the reliability of your weather. It was announced as 56 at the start in Hopkinton at 10AM for the elite men. The course warmed up as the day went along. And, it is BOSTON after all - not a course for blazing fast times under any condition other than 30mph tail winds.
Wait a minute, I thought that we learned in 2011 that Boston actually is a blazing fast course and that it being slow was only a myth. Aren't Boston winning times supposed to be 2:03 and down nowadays?
I am so confused.
Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:
No,"man," I don't think I know everything. But I am inclined to think that Weather Underground (an excellent site for weather FACTS and forecasts) doesn't pull its data out of its, uh, kiester.
And if it was such a headwind, why did the race video show the leaders spread across the road much of the time, as the announcers noted repeatedly. They were not drafting much of the time.
The "tactical" argument also is weak. If it were slow due to tactics there would have been a large lead pack until late in the race. . There wasn't.
There WAS a large lead pack. Didn't you see those 9 Africans together well past the halfway mark? Their numbers slowly dwindled as the pace intensified from there.
What was their 10K split? HM split?
Since only six broke 2:14, and those who did speeded up considerably in the late miles, it seems likely that your "large" lead pack of only nine was on 2:15-2:18 pace or slower early on. Yet they could not sustain all sustain it. But thirty years earlier 20 Americans and two Canadians - most of them presumably not equal to today's world class East Africans - sustained 2:14:21 pace or better for the whole race.
Maybe it was the 4:36 split in mile 24 that did it.
Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:
Since only six broke 2:14, and those who did speeded up considerably in the late miles, it seems likely that your "large" lead pack of only nine was on 2:15-2:18 pace or slower early on. Yet they could not sustain all sustain it. But thirty years earlier 20 Americans and two Canadians - most of them presumably not equal to today's world class East Africans - sustained 2:14:21 pace or better for the whole race.
Dude, they were able to sustain it because they ran even splits. Have you ever tried maniacally accelerating off a pedestrian pace halfway or more into a race? The damage you incur is enough to throw you completely off rhythm and the your finishing time will reflect that.
This was a race, not a time trial.
Talapia wrote:
Course was changed. And was .21 long according to GPS.
You're joking, right?
The marathon was faster than in many previous years. It was tactical. You may as well ask why so many Olympic distance races are so slow.
Ryan Hall wasn't there to push the first ten miles
Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:
It was slow!!! In 1983 - THIRTY YEARS AGO, with NO KENYANS or ETHIOPEANS - ten men broke 2:12 compared to three today. Nine were Americans and one Canadian. And eight more broke 2;14 compared to three today. 7 Americans and one Canadian. And for that matter, four more Americans ran 2:14:21 or better.
yeah, and 30 years ago there were only three marathons that mattered - now there are dozens. The firepower was concentrated NYC, Boston and Fukuoka.
That, and it was a race, not a time trial. Which I am happy with. The most boring thing I've ever seen was Geb's Berlin WR - him and 6 pacers running even splits, not racing each other.
The conditions were very good - but not perfect. Anyone who ran will tell you it was warm on the roads in the second half. Full sun on blacktop leads to a different ambient temp than you get from a random weather check point or two. And yes, there was a steady breeze blowing against runners the whole way.
Nothing to use an "excuse", but certainly no "help" either.