I hear that Kipsang was in 2:02 (2:02:59?) shape. He ran 2:04:29. If you subtract those 90s that London is slower from Paulas time, you end up with...
2:13 (2:13:55)
I hear that Kipsang was in 2:02 (2:02:59?) shape. He ran 2:04:29. If you subtract those 90s that London is slower from Paulas time, you end up with...
2:13 (2:13:55)
Do you have any idea how stupid you have to be to think that because (a) "you heard" Kipsang was in 2:02:59 shape and (b) Kipsanh ran 90 seconds slower this imagined time, ergo, any and every one else must've been able to run 90 seconds slower on that course than what they actually did?
wtfunny wrote:
Do you have any idea how stupid you have to be to think that because (a) "you heard" Kipsang was in 2:02:59 shape and (b) Kipsanh ran 90 seconds slower this imagined time, ergo, any and every one else must've been able to run 90 seconds slower on that course than what they actually did?
wtfunny, you're the most trollable person on this webforum. I have never seen someone write so many serious replies to so obvious of trolls. I don't get it.
Actually the OP makes a fair point, I think the brojos did state that London isn't the best course for running fast. Funny to think about what that really means.
Hhhmmmm. ..... Well, now this is a conundrum ..... I can ignore the post I suppose .... Or reply to it, which lends credence to the point made, if it's yet another troll .....
You might be right. I've spent too much time on forums over the last few years, but I've never encountered one like LRC, which actually nurtures a troll culture ... So I'm probably more gullible than I should be. I'll try to do better.
This thread got me good, I didn't notice the misspelled name until just now.
9/10.
Wtfunny wrote:
I didn't notice the misspelled name until just now.
The real one would have used much more pseudo-scientific analysis to come to the same sort of ridiculous conclusion.
2:11 for a marathon on the Firenze track Vent?
Not running in England would by most accepted calculations cost her the standard non-home-course deduction of 2:37, so I think it would balance out pretty closely.
Didn't the course used to have a section of cobbles? Seems like that would add a bit of time. All in all, 2:15 is just a conundrum....
For many unpredictable reasons, i.e. the weather, the benefit a course gives can change significantly from year to year. Just compare Boston 2011 to 2012. You cannot simply project biases blindly from 2014 to 2003.
London is not a loop, with much of it running from south-east to north-west, and despite being record eligible, runners can measurably benefit from (or be hindered by) a steady wind. This year the wind came from the north-west, taking its toll on the runners starting from 5K. (Don't blame Geb for bad pacing -- the wind affected everyone the same way.) In 2003, for Paula, it came from the south-east, giving the women runners a divine helping hand bigger than Ryan Hall in Boston 2011.
Generally speaking, London is not slow. It is one of the faster marathons. A statistical analysis shows that on average, London is about 47 seconds fast. A similar analysis shows Berlin is, on average, 81 seconds fast.
However, for the elite men, London 2014 was about 13 seconds SLOW, on average. Whatever shape you heard Kipsang was in, his 2:04:29 is worth about 2:04:16.
Similarly, London in 2003, for the elite women, was about 105 seconds FAST. (Boston 2011 was 97 seconds fast for the men, and 102 seconds fast for the women). Applying the same correction to Paula yields 2:17:10.
How fast could Paula have run in Berlin? She should have run in 2013, where statistics say she might have found another 42 seconds: 2:14:43!
(All statistical figures taken from arrs.net)
rekrunner wrote:.
...
Generally speaking, London is not slow. It is one of the faster marathons. A statistical analysis shows that on average, London is about 47 seconds fast. A similar analysis shows Berlin is, on average, 81 seconds fast.
However, for the elite men, London 2014 was about 13 seconds SLOW, on average. Whatever shape you heard Kipsang was in, his 2:04:29 is worth about 2:04:16.....
No, it's not worth about 2:04:16.
A Girl Like You wrote:
Didn't the course used to have a section of cobbles? Seems like that would add a bit of time.
Not any more.
We are talking about eliminating course bias from measured times, to estimate some sort of absolute worth. If the range of choices includes 2:02 (2:02:59), or 2:04:16, what is a men's London 2014 2:04:29 worth, after adjusting for course bias? Why?
Wtfunny wrote:
rekrunner wrote:....
Generally speaking, London is not slow. It is one of the faster marathons. A statistical analysis shows that on average, London is about 47 seconds fast. A similar analysis shows Berlin is, on average, 81 seconds fast.
However, for the elite men, London 2014 was about 13 seconds SLOW, on average. Whatever shape you heard Kipsang was in, his 2:04:29 is worth about 2:04:16.....
No, it's not worth about 2:04:16.
rekrunner wrote:
A statistical analysis shows that on average, London is about 47 seconds fast. A similar analysis shows Berlin is, on average, 81 seconds fast.
What statistical analysis is that?
All of my statistical figures came from information available at arrs.net.The 47 second advantage for London comes from here, as does the 81 seconds for Berlin:http://www.arrs.net/TB_Mara.htm
isio wrote:
rekrunner wrote:A statistical analysis shows that on average, London is about 47 seconds fast. A similar analysis shows Berlin is, on average, 81 seconds fast.
What statistical analysis is that?
It's impossible to simplify a marathon like this … you're basing this on a small set of averages that vary for myriad different reasons, and then suggesting that singularly specific race is 'worth' something based on those averages.
If you want 'absolute worth', look at the clock. Anything else is conjecture; which is worth what we pay for it. :)
That shows Paris as fastest of all...thought people were saying Paris is a slower course.
There's a measure that gets quoted around pretty often (usually by the marathon majors) as to the fastest marathons based on the average of the fastest 10 times run on each course.
Unsurprisingly London with a huge budget and all the superstars each year doesn't do too badly on that measure. Paris meanwhile comes out quite poorly. It's not that slow a course though.
i'm pretty sure paula was in ~ 29'40 - 29'45 shape at her peak
on the track, i'm pretty sure
28'00 = ~ 2"09'11
-> 29'40 - 29'45 =
2'16'13 - 2"16'35
london '03 was at very least 1'00 faster than couda been expected on a track
( & i don't believe she was a significantly better M'er than 10k runner - it's just that she is lot more equal at both than any woman M'er ever, albeit nderebah was likely similar but just slower )
People can say many things. But looks like for world record attempts, Paris is undiscovered, or underused.
tigerwoods wrote:
That shows Paris as fastest of all...thought people were saying Paris is a slower course.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?