2017 Boston Marathon weather not looking good, could be identical to last year

Heat wasn't that bad... tail wind rocked.It pushed from start to finish.Great day to run personally. I live in a cold climate and thought it wasn't to bad. I ran almost exactly the same time as last year....and a small Boston PR..I went through the half in 1:12:40 so it wasn't a slow day.I fell apart at 21 miles but that was the downhill not the heat.

Canada Girl wrote:

It sucked. When everyone is dumping water on their head at the first water station: not a good sign. I know a few people who ran a PW.

I think a lot of people were psyched out by the temps. That's all people around me were talking about on the bus, at the village, etc.

Like malmo has preached and preached here. It's really the dew point that matters, not the temperature. Dew point was in the low 40s and high 30s. Ideal conditions.

It wasn't the hottest marathon ever, but still too hot for a marathon. I think it reached 75 or so. It wasn't the temperature than hindered me as much as the sun exposure. It can be cool and sunny and I still run worse than if it was cloudy. I ran my marathon PR at Boston in 2015 in 3:22, so was shooting for sub-3:20 this year. After a 1:40 half, I ended up with 3:30, which at first I was disappointed with, but looking at how most others did, wasn't too terrible of a crash. I definitely lost some time weaving around people and crashing into each other to get water at every mile, plus grabbing water, ice and Otter Pops from spectators, but it was worth it.

I imagine people who ran 45+ minutes faster than me may have had a better experience since they started earlier and weren't baking as long.

When I ran in 2011 with the infamous tailwind that blew Hall to 2:04, I suffered pretty bad. The sun just fried me even with moderate temps. If anyone out there trains in the northern climate through winter Boston can be one of the worst choices for a fast spring marathon. Obviously a great event, ran it 3 times and plan on going again. But if you're looking for the best chance at a PR, look elsewhere.

This thread is an interesting read. I posted this elsewhere but overall I didn't think it was too hot to run okay (I was spectating). It was warm and not ideal, but wasn't too hot that would preclude people from finishing if they ran smart. I knew about 15 people who ran and talked to most of them post race and none complained about the weather. Most noted it was warm, but appreciated the tailwind and a couple noted it wasn't humid.

I was surprised to see this thread early when the weather was calling for mid to upper 60s. Its warm but seasonable. It ended up being a little warmer than that for wave one but it clouded up and got a little cooler for wave 2 and 3.

I hope everyone was okay!

is there data yet on how many requalified?

Looks like it was a non factor. I have raced one full marathon in my life, and it was on a humid August morning. Things could be worse.

buthowmany wrote:

is there data yet on how many requalified?

Looks like about 30% or a little over 8000. Lower than last year by about 1000.

I ran a PW yresterday. Finished around the same as my bib number though and ran 22 mins sower than my qualifying time. I too was dumping water on my head each station. I loved it when ppl were handing out ice. I put it in my hat and on my head. Pretty dissapointing day. I was hoping that the tailwind would make for a fast day

BQ Down wrote:

buthowmany wrote:

is there data yet on how many requalified?

Looks like about 30% or a little over 8000. Lower than last year by about 1000.

http://findmymarathon.com/bestbostonmarathonqualifiers-2017.php

feldman wrote:

If anyone out there trains in the northern climate through winter Boston can be one of the worst choices for a fast spring marathon.

The Alaska contingent did pretty well. An Alaska team won the men's master's team race and got 4th in the men's team race.

Pretty sure the results tell the story. They were not favorable conditions.

Garst wrote:

Pretty sure the results tell the story. They were not favorable conditions.

I wasn't saying they were favorable conditions. I was replying to the other poster to say that training over the winter in a northern state doesn't have to mean bad results in a warm spring marathon.

Agreed, although I do think that some folks from the hot states had a relative competitive advantage yesterday. I definitely beat some people who I thought it would be a stretch for me to beat as a result of the adaptations resulting from my training in a hot state (I am rationalizing some of that away by way of the fact that I am also in an incredibly flat state, which is obviously a disadvantage on that course).

zzzz wrote:

Garst wrote:

Pretty sure the results tell the story. They were not favorable conditions.

I wasn't saying they were favorable conditions. I was replying to the other poster to say that training over the winter in a northern state doesn't have to mean bad results in a warm spring marathon.

Was replying to the thread as a whole, not you directly. Sorry for the confusion.

I've never been hotter than running fast on my treadmill with no air flow. Hotter than 100+ degrees in CA or steamy Hawaii. Most Alaska runners training for a spring race are on a treadmill at least once a week getting pretty good heat training.

zzzz wrote:

Garst wrote:

Pretty sure the results tell the story. They were not favorable conditions.

I wasn't saying they were favorable conditions. I was replying to the other poster to say that training over the winter in a northern state doesn't have to mean bad results in a warm spring marathon.

I live in Alaska and ran really well. For me, and I'm guessing many of the Alaska based runners, it was due to a horrible wintry March. Ice everywhere. I ran almost every run indoors on the treadmill. 72 degrees, no wind resistance. Mimicked race day pretty closely.

The heat destroyed me, I did all my training outside in Minnesota so I wasn't even vaguely prepared for 74 and sunny with a tailwind that robbed me of any cooling. I was hot and sweating by mile 5 despite a conservative start, so I decided to treat it like a training run, and to keep my HR low enough to avoid the danger of a DNF.

Only perk of a slow race? I could enjoy the scream tunnel. HR hit its highest of the race after a short stop in front of Wellesley.

This is the typical back and forth that I expected.

Those that didn't run feel that the times are questionable, or the explanations for poor performances are excuses rather than reasons and that the heat wasn't that big of a deal.

Those who ran insist that the tail wind was a non-factor, or maybe even a detriment because of the lack of a cooling effect.

Each party feeling like it might somehow be diminished if the other's claim takes hold.

Even though I ran, I feel like I don't have much of a stake here because I achieved my position goals even if I ran slow. If anything, I should be taking the position that the heat wasn't that big of a deal because it would not take away from my performance at all, but the reality is that as a Floridian, I was just better adapted to the heat than the other competitors.

So even though it diminishes my race as compared to others (since I was better suited for the conditions going in, with all due respect to Malmo and others, regardless of what the dew point was, it was a wasteland out there over the second half of the race.

Just look at the numbers - over 1200 people in the medical tent. High rates of runner attrition, low rates of re-qualifying, slow winning times amount the elites. Slower than expected times among the second tier runners as well a the men's masters field shook out a bit differently than expected too, with 6 of the 15 male master runners getting into the elite field (the masters athletes with the top 15 seed times) falling outside of the top 15.

This article should help with the debate

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/specials/boston-marathon/2017/04/18/marathoners-affected-heat-all-doing-well/lbb4u53rhFltULoI3niIiO/story.html