Curious if anyone really focuses on the tangents at Boston. I think it's challenging because you would need to run pretty close to the crowd in many sections (e.g. right side of road during Wellesley scream tunnel).
Let's say all GPS watches are accurate, what was your mile total at the end of Boston?
I ran 26.43. I was wondering if anyone ran 26.3x here.
26.35 for me
GPS watches are not nearly precise enough to mean anything here
Mine was also 26.43. It was hard to even see the tangents through the crowd unless I was running downhill. I kind or wish they had it painted like Chicago, but that would probably make the crowding worse.
HardLoper wrote:
GPS watches are not nearly precise enough to mean anything here
Don't be a dummy. A lot of GPS watches can be within 26.3x for a marathon. Pretty much every marathon I've run has been there.
Except Boston. 26.45.
26.36 for me.
With the islands in the median early in the race, you run Right, Left, Right. Otherwise, just look ahead to wherever the next curve is and run straight towards it, rather than staying in your lane like drunk trying to outsmart a cop who is following them.
42.5km. But I ran whichever side of the road had sprinklers, or people giving out ice or Popsicles.
HardLoper wrote:
GPS watches are not nearly precise enough to mean anything here
Don't waste your time trying to educate mathematically challenged hobby joggers.
26.34 here. I was pretty focused on running the tangents. Not only does it help your time but if gives you something to think about. I made only a few exceptions only for water, shade, or traffic. I don't know the course well but I have two working eyeballs.
26.38
I've learned to stay R not long after the 5k sign to stay on the inside of that median. after that I'm not great at running the course tangents.
26.38, first time in Boston.
It's a point-to-point course with few turns. I'd imagine it's difficult to run it very long.
To me, the tangents are almost always tough to discern, or a problem in general. I do not know how people run such "short" races (something like 26.3 in a marathon). In a big half marathon or marathon, traffic (and weaving) alone can add a significant chunk of distance.
When possible, study a race route. Download the USATF map (unless it has just been measured it may not be up yet).
Obviously it may be difficult to run the tangents if you are in the middle of a mass race but for those runners that have the freedom to run - you should run the tangents.
Several of the big time marathons like London and the Olympic Games have a line indicating the shortest possible path (SPR). Boston had a decorative line for the last mile + but nothing for the rest of the route. Runners were all over the place.
The London Marathon is always looking for fast times and world records. It surprised me to see the last refreshment station was on the outside of a bend on the road which forced runners to run wide to get their drink, then back to the SPR.
Every little bit helps - just ask Rod Dixon.
D.Katz wrote:
The London Marathon is always looking for fast times and world records. It surprised me to see the last refreshment station was on the outside of a bend on the road which forced runners to run wide to get their drink, then back to the SPR.
Every little bit helps - just ask Rod Dixon.
I was thinking the exact same thing about that last aid station at london. If I was in bekele's shoes I would have been very tempted to skip it and run the tangent.
D.Katz wrote:
When possible, study a race route. Download the USATF map (unless it has just been measured it may not be up yet).
Obviously it may be difficult to run the tangents if you are in the middle of a mass race but for those runners that have the freedom to run - you should run the tangents.
Several of the big time marathons like London and the Olympic Games have a line indicating the shortest possible path (SPR). Boston had a decorative line for the last mile + but nothing for the rest of the route. Runners were all over the place.
The London Marathon is always looking for fast times and world records. It surprised me to see the last refreshment station was on the outside of a bend on the road which forced runners to run wide to get their drink, then back to the SPR.
Every little bit helps - just ask Rod Dixon.
Thanks, the USATF map for Boston is interesting.
https://www.usatf.org/events/courses/search/searchResults.asp?embed=&courseID=MA14012RN&distance=&distanceUnits=&distanceComparison=&city=&state=&courseName=&courseStatus=A&courseType=R&drop=&dropComparison=&separation=&separationComparison=&certificationYear=&lastName=&format=view&submit=SearchChase pack wrote:
26.38, first time in Boston.
It's a point-to-point course with few turns. I'd imagine it's difficult to run it very long.
This isn't the most important consideration. You can run a race that has a lot of turns and end up staying very close to the tangents if the roads are mostly straight. Chicago, for instance, is pretty easy in this regard. What's tough is when you're running on roads that wind and snake around. You have to keep your eyes glued ahead and can't zone out for even an instant.
HardLoper wrote:
GPS watches are not nearly precise enough to mean anything here
Yes they are.
26.32 - I think the trick is to pick a side of the road and generally stick to it. There aren't many turns in Boston. Where people get in trouble is weaving in and out the first 4-6 miles until crowds thin out or veering back and forth from right to left at the water stations.
This guy's data suggests that the inherent inaccuracy of most watches could account for the difference between 26.2 and the 26.4 or so that most people are getting (including my 26.36).
My understanding is that most courses are actually measure long - isn't that right, and, if so, is it also right for the Boston Marathon?
Smoove wrote:
This guy's data suggests that the inherent inaccuracy of most watches could account for the difference between 26.2 and the 26.4 or so that most people are getting (including my 26.36).
With the 0.1 percent short course prevention factor that adds about 0.03 mile (42.195 meters) to a 26.22 marathon, the shortest anyone is going to measure with an accurate GPS on the shortest line is going to be 26.25 (26.245 rounded to the hundredth), not 26.2 miles. So you are a bit closer than you think.