Slow Day at Boston

It was easily 70 at the start and it stayed that or warmer through Newton. We had a cloudless sky and there is zero shade on the course. Honestly, it felt 80. I have never seen fast runners walking so early in a race and also have never downed so much water, eaten so many gels and still come up with cramps. I ran 10 minutes off of my goal and my club got pretty decimated. I know a lot of runners and don't know a single one who came close to hitting their goal. The consensus was that it was a struggle for everyone. When I heard the elite times I was, like, "Yep."

I ran today too, this was my 14th marathon and I've run a few in 70+ degree weather. This definitely felt the hardest. I got very sunburned. I've never felt so thirsty during a marathon, especially so early on.

I ran yesterday. I'm from Arizona and was expecting some heat, but it felt much hotter than the 70ish it was for a good part of the race. The wind may have slowed me down a bit, but as others have said it was more refreshing than anything. I was significantly off my goal too.

Wow, a 2:40 person going 3:00. What a complete wipe out. Sorry to hear that so many people had such a bad day. Given the numerous people reporting this, and given the fact that even the top athletes were affected, it must have been quite hot on that course, and coming out of winter/early spring weather, it must have felt even hotter.

ventolin^5 wrote:

nonsense

In ideal Boston conditions, the best time is 2:03. todays race was won in 2:12.. best women's is 2:18, won in 2:29.

Both mens and womens elite fields were very weak at Boston this year. If the elites from London ran yesterday, the winning times would've been much faster. Also Flannigan and Hall weren't there to rabbit the race for the other elites. These winning times reflect little about the weather.

Was in almost exactly the same boat. Ran 2:41 in November and in better shape now. Came through half evenly paced 1:20. Started feeling a little weird but still not terrible til 17 when cramped hard. 4 times where had to just stop for minutes to try to stretch it out. Then walk/jog it in for a 3:01

I do know a couple guys who ran well though. But far more who bombed

outsiderunner wrote:

Wow, a 2:40 person going 3:00. What a complete wipe out. Sorry to hear that so many people had such a bad day. Given the numerous people reporting this, and given the fact that even the top athletes were affected, it must have been quite hot on that course, and coming out of winter/early spring weather, it must have felt even hotter.

Sounds a lot like my Boston 1982 run in the sun experience. On a 2:38 pace passing Wellsley, 2:02 plus/minus at 20, feeling it bad over Heartbreak Hill, bonked horribly by the railway tracks I think 23 mile point, walking most of way then, got some help from this tall black fellow urging me to not quit, "YOU GOT TO FINISH, YOU GOT TO FINISH, MAN!!" actually dragged me for 50 yds. (he meant well). Well 3:00:44 and felt like hell for next week or so.

Well that's all part of running as Ron Dawes (sadly deceased) said a couple mos. later in Portland, (Cascade Runoff 15 km)

PS; ran a blinder (good race) for myself there!

This. First warm day for much of the U.S. Live outside of Boston and we had zero warm days until yesterday.

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.

Why are you so fixated on time & not place? That 2:12 finished 1st. Inclement weather is an ideal opportunity for 'thonners to do well in their AG, because time-fixated guys like you are already psyched-out.

Seacrest, OUT!

SF runner wrote:

This is what the Boston Globe said:

With an official temperature of 69 degrees in Hopkinton for the start of the women’s elite race at 9:32 a.m. (it was 71 degrees for the men 28 minutes later), the race became a challenge of dealing with the heat along with the infamous grind of the 26.2-mile course.

It definitely felt much higher than 67 at the start.

In terms of the weather readings, yesterday's conditions were nearly identical to 2005. Except back then we started at noon - for the last time if I remember correctly. I ran my PR in that race, finishing 119th in a time that would have been 185th yesterday. That's probably a decent indicator of how non-elite marathon fields have gotten faster over the last 10+ years. Lots of wipeouts and too-positive splits in 2005 too. I remember Alan Culpepper describing it as a classic dehydration race because the headwind made it seem less hot than it really was, so people wouldn't take enough fluids. Ah, the memories...

what was the temp?

Des and Shalane must be frustrated. This year was the set up for an American woman to win.

WaHights wrote:

what was the temp?

I ran a PR yesterday at Boston----- not sure why everyone said it was slow---it wasn't fast but it wasn't slow----- the group I was running were clicking off sub 6 pace no problem---temps were pretty darn nice if you kept yourself wet by dumping water on your head----- Boston was pretty fast if you were in a group---the wind got crazy in the final 5 miles... but my legs were shot... so I slowed down because my legs sucked--- the wind maybe would have taken 1-2 minutes---mentally it was hard and I am weak so I slowed---I saw a few strong guys charge and fly so it was doable---- but if you are so weak you can't run into some wind.. than you don't deserve to PR----if you want a PR you might have to suffer a bit. Boston 2016 was a pretty nice day in wave 1. Not sure who thinks it was slow. Felt fast to me. It wasn't perfect, but its never perfect.

It's common for people to go out too fast at Boston. They pay the price and normally positive split by 3-7 mins on the back half. The difference with yesterday, due to the weather, was that an aggressive strategy cost more like 20-30mins (or a DNF) rather than a modest positive split. But those who ran smartly/conservatively in the first ~15 miles probably fared OK.

Personally, I'd rather push the pace at the risk of cracking on the hills. Otherwise I might always question "what if...". But that's just me. There's clearly nothing but goodness in playing it safer and still banking a PR. Congrats to those who did.

I had a solid training cycle this go-around, felt good and stronger than I e ER have. I have run and BQ'ed in rough conditions- NYC 2014- but yesterday was by far the worst. I didn't think the wind was too bad, but the sun was brutal and made things feel much warmer than they actually were. I actually followed the tip of another poster who said to stay to the left and take two cups of water. I drank and doused every mile, and still felt thirsty about 400m out from the next mile. At some points, I started feeling dizzy just watching the course go by. I finished 15 minutes off of my goal time. I know a lot of people had a rough go yesterday; I'm lucky I didn't end up in the med tent.

Are YOU mad bro?

How bout Clint Wells though? 40 years old and crushing it.

An expensive tan wrote:

I had a solid training cycle this go-around, felt good and stronger than I e ER have. I have run and BQ'ed in rough conditions- NYC 2014- but yesterday was by far the worst. I didn't think the wind was too bad, but the sun was brutal and made things feel much warmer than they actually were. I actually followed the tip of another poster who said to stay to the left and take two cups of water. I drank and doused every mile, and still felt thirsty about 400m out from the next mile. At some points, I started feeling dizzy just watching the course go by. I finished 15 minutes off of my goal time. I know a lot of people had a rough go yesterday; I'm lucky I didn't end up in the med tent.

I'm with you here. It just felt brutal out there despite trying to douse & hydrate every mile. The previous poster who said it was a recipe for dehydration with the combination of heat for first half and headwind "cooling" on second half was exactly right.

I ran 2:35 last year in what I thought were sub-optimal conditions but this was FAR worse and I ran 5 minutes slower despite almost identical first half splits. The last few miles were a "death march" for almost everyone and I was just happy to finish and have a better placing than last year. Congrats to everyone who gutted it out yesterday!