Slow Day at Boston

You mad bro?

Looks like the wind is nasty again this year? Of course the lead packs generally like to be tactical so that influences time often. No doubt the higher temps and wind are a factor with slower times across the board.

Anyone there know how the wind is there?

S. Canaday wrote:

Looks like the wind is nasty again this year? Of course the lead packs generally like to be tactical so that influences time often. No doubt the higher temps and wind are a factor with slower times across the board.

Anyone there know how the wind is there?

It was windy too? I thought it was just hot out

robert678 wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

Looks like the wind is nasty again this year? Of course the lead packs generally like to be tactical so that influences time often. No doubt the higher temps and wind are a factor with slower times across the board.

Anyone there know how the wind is there?

It was windy too? I thought it was just hot out

Same here...I do not think there was a significant wind.

Just goes to show how the temperature is such a critical factor. Even in the cold, "harsh" conditions last year, the times were better. Ritz ran 2:11 and was not on the podium.

On the "rip NSG" thread, everyone is saying it was ideal for racing?

S. Canaday wrote:...Anyone there know how the wind is there?

On the video, coming down Boylston to the finish, all the flags made it look like there was a pretty significant headwind.

Get over yourself wrote:

On the "rip NSG" thread, everyone is saying it was ideal for racing?

Yeah, I am puzzled, too. I cannot imagine 60s and 70s being anywhere near ideal for a race. That is at least a +20 on the comfort scale for a marathon.

I was on the course at two places - in the middle of the Newton Hills and near Coolidge Corner (~mi 24). Headwind was modest early, but ever-present and significant at the end.

I also ran the BAA 5K on Saturday and can vouch that the headwind on Boylston (same direction as today, modestly stronger) was a huge factor. See the interviews from that day.

My guess is that it was a drag throughout the race. Heat probably wasn't the only factor.

Heat?? It's is the 50's in Boston right now. I have a hard time believing that the top runners (as in, from Ethiopia) had trouble with the "heat".

outsiderunner wrote:

Clueless commentators saying, before the race, that it was a good day to race. A good day for a picnic, but not for a marathon. How could they not know that temperatures in the 60s and 70s are BAD for a marathon? The men's winner runs 2:12 and only one woman to break 2:30. Not a good day for a race.

I think what happened is that the weather forecast changed wildly just before the race started. It was supposed to be in the high 50s to low 60s but in reality it was in the mid 70s or thereabouts. The reporters didn't know the temps had changed for the worse.

Even right now, at 2:30 PM it is 56 degrees in boston. there was clearly some weird temperature phenomenon, a temporary heatspike.

In NYC it is 79 at 2:30. Crazy stuff.

From what I heard, it was 68-70 in Hopkinton. Only 2.6 miles of the race is in Boston.

Yeah, it was hotter at the start I believe....got cooler towards the city of Boston but still on the warmer side obviously.

The runners I know there said they felt the heat and the headwind.

S. Canaday wrote:

Yeah, it was hotter at the start I believe....got cooler towards the city of Boston but still on the warmer side obviously.

The runners I know there said they felt the heat and the headwind.

Yes...my friend who ran today just sent me his perspective: "It was a headwind, but felt nice to be honest. Hot for the majority of the race."

I have to add that I love the unpredictability of Boston. The undulating course, the capricious weather, and the lack of pacers makes this race interesting to watch for those of us who truly love the sport.

I have a theory that I put out a few months ago that marathon times are slowing in general. The genetic passport is starting to kick in. I believe the period where every major was won in under 2h 05m might be over.

Ok the weather had a huge impact on today, but London next week will be interesting.

outsiderunner wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

Yeah, it was hotter at the start I believe....got cooler towards the city of Boston but still on the warmer side obviously.

The runners I know there said they felt the heat and the headwind.

Yes...my friend who ran today just sent me his perspective: "It was a headwind, but felt nice to be honest. Hot for the majority of the race."

Pretty accurate assessment. Much warmer Hopkinton thru Wellesley. Wind was def a factor, but not killer. I was surprised, however, that the winning times were that slow. It was no where near the conditions of 2012. But definitely not a great day for a marathon.

when trying to run a fast time, I have three marathon rules:(1) never run a marathon in a season that will be historical getting warmer than cooler as time goes by (i.e. run in fall/winter, not spring/summer) March/April/May are also notoriously windy months(2) Only run marathons in the time zone you live(3) only run a marathon in a location you can get to in a 2-hour flight or 4 hour driveI understand running a race like Boston or London for the experience if you don't live there, but too many things go wrong or are less than ideal if you live/train somewhere else. Usually it's the weather and time-zone adjustment. But it could be flight cancellations, hotel f*ckups, exposure to sick people, being out of your normal daily rhythm/routine/diet/sleepI ran Boston and there were some fun energy moments witht he crowd I will always remember, but the cost of flight, hotel, food, and being surrounded by fanatics who are losing their minds and can't just relax and prepare for a race was no fun for me. People become irrational at Boston. It's just a race. I choose to run CIM, stay in a $100 a night hotel that I drive to day before and I run my race and am home watching a movie with my wife/kids by 2pm race dayI live in the Bay area and have only run CIM (which is a very fast and good weather race) save the obligatory Boston experience. 2:522:372:40 (Boston)2:322:27marathon retirement

outsiderunner wrote:

Clueless commentators saying, before the race, that it was a good day to race. A good day for a picnic, but not for a marathon. How could they not know that temperatures in the 60s and 70s are BAD for a marathon? The men's winner runs 2:12 and only one woman to break 2:30. Not a good day for a race.

Brah, you retired on a PR of 2:27. Seems you could get even faster, brah? Why retire now, brah?

Most Boston runners every year positive split the course because they don't know how to run it. They get over-excited waiting for the start of this grand race. Then they hammer the opening downhill miles. Then they pay for it later in the hills. And they limp home after Boston College. Then they blame it on the weather.

Check the prior results. 80-90% of Boston runners every year run significant positive splits.