Vermont did all the same as Buffalo (extra aid stations, ice, misters) with the exception of the start time change as their city permits wouldn't allow for an earlier start. Given the conditions they made the right call.
Vermont did all the same as Buffalo (extra aid stations, ice, misters) with the exception of the start time change as their city permits wouldn't allow for an earlier start. Given the conditions they made the right call.
Hot Humid Run wrote:
Vermont did all the same as Buffalo (extra aid stations, ice, misters) with the exception of the start time change as their city permits wouldn't allow for an earlier start. Given the conditions they made the right call.
I was told that they did have the ability to start earlier.
Hot Humid Run wrote:
Vermont did all the same as Buffalo (extra aid stations, ice, misters) with the exception of the start time change as their city permits wouldn't allow for an earlier start. Given the conditions they made the right call.
So Buffalo ran out of ice and water too?
According to the BAA website; more than 40% of the field in the 1976 Boston Marathon did not finish. I ran that race and finished with a pretty slow time for me. I recall that the shade temperature in Hopkinton at the start was about 94F and it was pretty sunny. However, after cresting Heartbreak Hill, there was a cooling breeze coming off the ocean which really helped. There were lots of people out with hoses. Many of whom though our feet were hot so they sprayed our shoes.
Running was good back in the 60's and 70's and it is good now. I would say that the main difference at races is just a couple of letters. Back then, pretty much everybody in a race ran to compete; now many run races to complete. But so many more runners has brought greater acceptance. I am sure that many of the greybeards of us remember being run off the road during training runs or having things thrown at us. This rarely happens now.
To paraphrase the great, late climber, Alex Lowe; the best runner is the one having the most fun.
:: snore:: omg we are just here to make fun of people who couldn't finish the marathon in 4.5 hrs, not get a history lesson on boring
I ran that race in 1994. It was well over 80 degrees within 1 hour of the race.
How omniscient of you to know why everyone else is reading this thread.
I didn't bring up Boston '76. Others have commented on it. Just thought that it might be good to put it in context, from someone who was there, while being positive about the running from different eras.
Why do you feel it necessary, " to make fun of people who couldn't finish the marathon in 4.5 hours"?
think again wrote:
The problem is not wussification.
The problem is that we're now the United States of Frivolous Litigation.
Bull. Name one instance of frivolous litigation.
you think again wrote:
think again wrote:The problem is not wussification.
The problem is that we're now the United States of Frivolous Litigation.
Bull. Name one instance of frivolous litigation.
How about Donald Trump threatening to sue anyone who writes negative things about him in the media?
I don't think you know the meaning of "paraphrase".
FYI (from an oldster who ran Boston back in the late 60s and early 70s) - you had to qualify for Boston with a marathon under 3 hours. Period. No age times, just run under 3 or forget it.
The starters were runners. Big difference now.
N0bama... wrote:
you think again wrote:Bull. Name one instance of frivolous litigation.
How about Donald Trump threatening to sue anyone who writes negative things about him in the media?
That isn't litigation. People say crap all the time. Few back it up when they have to pay a lawyer.
tj wrote:
How omniscient of you to know why everyone else is reading this thread.
I didn't bring up Boston '76. Others have commented on it. Just thought that it might be good to put it in context, from someone who was there, while being positive about the running from different eras.
Why do you feel it necessary, " to make fun of people who couldn't finish the marathon in 4.5 hours"?
Lighten up, Francis.
asdfasf wrote:
N0bama... wrote:How about Donald Trump threatening to sue anyone who writes negative things about him in the media?
That isn't litigation. People say crap all the time. Few back it up when they have to pay a lawyer.
Good point.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/Rick wrote:
FYI (from an oldster who ran Boston back in the late 60s and early 70s) - you had to qualify for Boston with a marathon under 3 hours. Period. No age times, just run under 3 or forget it.
The starters were runners. Big difference now.
Exactly.....
The majority of people running marathons today have no business being out there and really don't have the ability to think for themselves. Thank God there are intelligent race directors out there who can think for them.
Also, as I was trying to follow the race, a report came through of lightning indicators going off. If this is true, the temp. the medical personnel being inundated, the lack of water at some of the stops and the thunder/lightning all played a role in the decision.
Rick wrote:
FYI (from an oldster who ran Boston back in the late 60s and early 70s) - you had to qualify for Boston with a marathon under 3 hours. Period. No age times, just run under 3 or forget it.
The starters were runners. Big difference now.
Newsflash: 3 hours ain't that great, grandpa.
Rick wrote:
FYI (from an oldster who ran Boston back in the late 60s and early 70s) - you had to qualify for Boston with a marathon under 3 hours. Period. No age times, just run under 3 or forget it.
The starters were runners. Big difference now.
Men
1970 - 10th place 2:22:52
2015 - 10th place 2:13:52
Women
1970 - 5th place 3:34:00
2015 - 5th place 2:16:05
The good ole days really don't measure up to today's standards.
Edit. 2:26:05 for 2015 women.
I hate ending premature.
Jacob M. wrote:
Men
1970 - 10th place 2:22:52
2015 - 10th place 2:13:52
Women
1970 - 5th place 3:34:00
2015 - 5th place 2:16:05
The good ole days really don't measure up to today's standards.
First, I don't think that you are making a fair comparison in that women weren't allowed to officially enter until 1972.
Also, looking at 10th place doesn't mean much in the context of this discussion. The poster you quoted was basically referring to the fact that the field of participants in the past was better trained than today's fields and therefore might fare better in tough conditions.
As to your suggestion that the good ole days don't really measure up, why not look at the top 1000 runners and not cherry pick years? Doing so would likely still show you that recent years produced faster times than in the 70s. However, it's not such a dramatic difference as your numbers suggest. 9 minutes slower for the men's 10th place is quite a bit of time but it may only be 9 minutes difference for 1000th place, too.