Why was Boston so slow?

mgm wrote:[/

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.[/quote]

One of my longtime running buddies ran a three minute p.r. - 2:27+ - in the old Orange Bowl Marathon with a 7 minute first mile . He apparently did not incur any damage as the result of "maniacally accelerating."

Randy Oldman wrote:

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.

It was slower than most of the recent years marathoning became a major sport with big bucks attracting fast, serious competitors. Since 1980, 22 of the 31 Boston winners (1981-2012) ran sub-2:10. And I'd bet that most of those who did not were slowed by truly adverse weather, as happened last year.

And once again I ask why, if it were tactical, so few elite marathoners were able to stay with the lead pack.

Gainesville/Miami guy wrote:

One of my longtime running buddies ran a three minute p.r. - 2:27+ - in the old Orange Bowl Marathon with a 7 minute first mile . He apparently did not incur any damage as the result of "maniacally accelerating."

That's not the same thing, now I doubt you're being serious. The elites did not run a 6:00 first mile and then settle into 2:05 pace. They ran clicking off 5 minute miles until someone dropped a 4:3x (Chumba?) well into the race...and the yo-yo effect was underway.

Somebody with the actual splits provide the information please.

part of the issue is mindset - in a marathon with pacers, elites go in expecting to run fast. In a marathon without pacers, they don't expect to run fast.

Almost two different races. Like cross country vs track. Both running, but differnet mindsets, different strategies.

VF Runner wrote:

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.

It's hard to argue about the conditions with those of you who actually ran yesterday, but even if the temperature and wind were not as ideal as the weather reports suggest, they certainly were conducive to fast times - as Joan Benoit Samuelson (among many) demonstrated.

Previously I noted the fact that the leaders did little of the drafting that one expects to see when there is a headwind. It is a no-brainer to do so in such circumstances. Of course they also failed continually to run the tangents - another no-brainer that one usually learns in one's first cross country race - if one doesn't automatically see the wisdom of doing so.

I was simply trying to paint an accurate picture of the conditions given some of the other posts made.

I agree with most of what you have to say. I think it was a light enough breeze that they didn't feel a need to draft. But was enough to sap 1 or 2% of your effort unnoticed. The times do seem slow and it seems the bottom line is that it became a tactical race. I simply cannot explain ANY experienced runner paying some attention to tangents.

I ran my 8th Boston yesterday and agree with the previous poster who said that the conditions were good, but definitely not perfect. The temperature was pretty nice, though I would have preferred it a little cooler. Standing at the start, with the sun on us, I thought, "This is not as cool as we thought it would be.' The wind was a significant factor and often I noticed people were not running tangents. As soon as I would veer out of the pack to make a more direct route I would be reminded as to why no one else was doing it either. The headwind was making a difference and it felt easier to draft. As is common for Boston, the wind picked up as we approached town and therefore, the sea. It was pretty rough over some stretches.

That said, I have seen much worse headwinds and much higher temps there, so all and all, a pretty nice day to run Boston, but not a day for course records.

Agreed with all of this.I brought half-tights to Hopkinton as I wasn't sure how warm it would actually be at race time. I made the mistake at Chicago last year and didn't want to chance it. When 9:30 rolled around, I began warming up and didn't even need the throw-away clothes I had brought. Ended up bringing gloves to the start, then tossing them 5 minutes till'I also noticed most people weren't running tangents either.

It wasn't a strong mens field. Many of us thought if any of the America's top marathoners (Hall, Ritz, Meb, Abdi) were healthy and able, they could've beaten this field.

The womens field ran a jogathon for the opening half.

The winner has run a 2:04:50 on an unaided course. No American was going to beat him.

Actually the leaders did drop a 4:20 mile at mile 24. Check your facts... or just check the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okqEVeNqBhc

Ron Hill ran a 2:10:30 into a strong headwind in pouring rain as a solo time trial. Would have expected todays runners to be significantly faster than this, however tactical.

I started this thread shortly after the elite men finished - and well before the bombing. Since learning of the tragedy I have had a feeling of unease in continuing this debate/discussion. I love the Boston Marathon - it was my favorite course in my competitive years and I love the history and tradition so it is easy to continue this discussion. But each time I've added two more cents worth of opinion I've had a feeling of disquiet. It just seems irrelevant - and wrong - to continue.