Geoffrey Mutai's 2:03:02 should have been ratified as a WR!

Jeff got Jipped wrote:

So now that the 2:03 barrier has been broken, do any of you now believe that Geoffrey Mutai's 2:03:02 at Boston was legit? Should it have been ratified as a marathon WR instead of a WB?

Are you stupid, or what? The IAAF have rules that specifies what it takes for a course to be record eligible. The Boston course doesn´t meet those criteria - end of discussion.

If a course is considered "aided" or not is beside the point. Boston is point to point and has to much net downhill. It is really as simple as that.

Renato Canova wrote:

Comparing Boston 1994 with Boston 2011 is a athletic crime for all people really knowing the two different situation.

In 1994, I remember a picture of Uta Pippig with hair pushed by the wind ahead her face. In 2011, apart the last 6 km (as honestly ALL the top runners told me), the wind was everytime from one side, disturbing the athletes more than helping them..

After the 1994 Boston Marathon "When you don't feel the wind, it's a tailwind." Said Elana Meyer, who finished 3rd in the 1994 Boston. Meyer 2:25:15 in her debut that day and never came closer than 1:36 of that.

The fact Mutai's record doesn't count has nothing to do with whether or not there was wind on that day. The course isn't record eligible by IAAF standards.

well,. wrote:

Are you stupid, or what? The IAAF have rules that specifies what it takes for a course to be record eligible.

I am aware.

My original post is more focused on the fact that so many (like yourself) believe that Geoffrey could not have (and will never) run 2:03 low in the marathon. It degrades his accomplishment. I'm fine with people saying that it's not a WR because of the rules (rules our not always the best and can be flawed), but to say that he ONLY ran 2:03:02 because of a tailwind is "stupid". This is a marathon road race NOT an indoor track race.

I believe that Geoffrey (and Hall) ran a legit 2:03:02!

Jeff got Jipped wrote:

*stipe wrote:

And yes, I called you an idiot. Anyone who thinks that the wind wasn't responsible for the fast times is an idiot.

Are you so sure of this now?

That "idiot" thing was actually part of malmo's quote. I didn't say that.

Sorry for misreading your post.

However, the question still stands. Now that Renato has posted his thoughts, have you changed your thoughts even slightly about the legitimacy of Mutai's 2:03?

I was just thinking the other day how people must now, in hindsight, realize see how dramatically wind-aided that Boston marathon was. I think it's even clearer now how distorted those times were...no disrespect to the runners efforts.

There hasn't been a Boston Marathon with times anywhere near those times. How close has Ryan Hall come to 2:04:50? Please...

Coach Renato is in fanatsy land on this topic. The fact that he is an excellent coach does mean he knows anything about wind and its effect. In fact, he's shown that he does not understand anything about wind. But this is understandable. Since when is a running coach an expert on wind.

The only running coaches that might know something about wind are those that coach in extremely windy places.

So, because someone ran faster on another course, that Boston time should be ratified?

Carl Lewis ran 9.78 at the 1988 US Trials. But it was wind-aided and did not count as a world record.

Since then the world record has been lowered to well under 9.78.

Should Carl's 9.78 now be legit for his PR?

I am using the same logic as the OP.

OK. Not exactly the same.

Mutai's time would not count as an official record even if the wind was blowing in his face because the course is simply not record eligible.

Boston Marathon wind

April 21, 1975 2:09:27 Bill Rodgers 20mph NW

April 18, 1983 2:09:00 Greg Meyer 10-16mph SSW

April 16, 1990 2:08:19 Gelindo Bordin 13.8mph WNW

April 18, 1994 2:07:15 Cosmos Ndeti 33mph WNW

April 18, 2011 2:03:02 Geoffrey Mutai 19.6mph W/WSW

April 21, 2014 2:08:37 Meb Keflezighi 6.9mph SSW

The maximum allowable wind reading for track races in 2.0 meters/sec. 2.0*60*60=7200 meters/hour, or 4.47 miles/hour

Boston Marathon Course Map

http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/course/map_07/

Boston Marathon history

http://www.bostonmarathonmediaguide.com/5-racesynopsis.php

Historical weather

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KBOS/1994/4/18/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

Bringing up some lateral crosswinds over the course of a few k when there was a sustained 15+mph tailwind is ridiculous. The race was extremely wind aided.

That was a bit immature. I thought you said everything you were posting was respectful.

You must understand that saying a marathon was heavily wind-aided is just saying it was wind-aided. It is no reflection on the efforts or the talents of the participants. People still ran well and did their best.

But if you want to compare...it's silly to ignore natural forces like gravity and wind.

People can get their heads pretty messed up when they run a race like Boston 2011. They think they ran better than they did and this new artificially created "standard" leads to overreaching and dissatisfaction with subsequent performances. It's better to admit what was and what is.

You need to know what you are and what you are capable of at a given point in time. In the long run, it helps to be honest with yourself.

Einstein,

What if you ran Boston 2011 to the best of your abilities and yet did not run a personal best?

Signed,

About Half the Field

If half the field sets a PR in any race then thats a sign that there is something wrong. i.e. the wind.

First of course you have to TRAIN for the downhills. If you don't train well, then of course you won't race well. However, provided you have trained well for the downhills, then you can take advantage of their significant advantage, and anyone can take advantage of the wind at their backs.

Did anyone on this thread even read the Sports"Scientists" blog?

Here is their first sentence in response to what effect did the wind have at Boston -

"I don’t know the answer to that question. Let me say that right upfront."

/end of thread

*stipe wrote:

McMillan equates 59:43 to 2:05:41.

But Daniels predicts 2:05:15 off that half; not so far apart for the 2:04 guy.

We can agree to disagree.

jWI,

Not sure if you were addressing me...but my name is not Einstein...so I'm not sure.

In case you were directing your comment to me...if you ran Boston to the best of your abilities...which I am sure you and many others did...and you did not run your personal best...it means that despite a wind-aided advantage of several minutes, you simply fell short of your personal best.

It happens. People have good days and bad days. There's no shame in it. But I'll guarantee this...there was a disproportionate number of PR's that day.

I don't know why you were personally unable to "cash in" on the conditions. But that has nothing to do with the fact that a tailwind of that force...that is blowing in the predominate direction that a point-to-point course travels...will provide a conservative benefit of ~5-10secs per mile. That's just how it is.

What's the big deal?

What did you end up running anyway?

All marathon courses vary in elevation gain, loss, cornering, number of corners, surface: (concrete, cobblestones, asphalt in various condition), amount of flat and when considering hills for example a very long hill with a small, smooth decline is easier on the legs (ie braking/not braking) than steeper downhills even if by the end of the course have equal drop. Tailwind, headwind, temperature, pace of peers, humidity.

The things that a race director can control are limited to distance: 42.195, plus up to 1m per km (.01%)longer on the shortest possible tangents run.

Net drop cannot exceed 1m per km.

Start and finish must be withing 50% of the length of the course apart.

When measuring a course correctly, it is rather complicated and tedious. Calibrating and recalibrating of an approved Jones counter must take place, tire inflation, re-measurement and re-calibration with temperature changes and the addition of up to .02% on wet surfaces and size of rim and tire matter.

Measurer must ride the shortest possible route. Imagine a string bent around corners tight, even though a runner will typically go wide. Full width of the road must be used, for example when coming out of one corner and turning ahead at the next corner....cross on the shortest tangent like a race car driver attempts to do.

Cannot control wind or any weather. Running in one direction or pretty much one direction for 42.195kms + a little, does indeed cause some level of aiding on wind-at-the-back-days, that is common sense.

Anecdotal evidence post-race has no value. One cannot change the rules because an athlete claims to have felt wind at the side, as Renato says, not that he was suggesting rule changes. Even he knows that is preposterous.

You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise running off the side of a mountain during wind-aided days will count.