nicely done! congrats on the PR and a well-planned, well-executed race under brutal conditions
--dave
nicely done! congrats on the PR and a well-planned, well-executed race under brutal conditions
--dave
I think negative split is overrated. Especially in Boston. If your goal is to run your absolute best time in Boston you should not negative split, you should have a slight to even not so slight positive split. That way you will run at even effort the entire race and minimize your overall time.
Let's take a look at top 10 men in the 50-54 age group:
#1: 1:17/2:44 +10 minutes
#2 1:18/2:44 +8 minutes
#3 1:22/2:20 +6 minutes
#4 1:23/2:51 +5 minutes
#5 1:22/2:51 +7 minutes
#6 1:19/2:52 +14 minutes
#7 1:21/2:52 +10 minutes
#8 1:23/2:53 +7 minutes
#9 1:22/2:53 +9 minutes
#10 1:21/2:54 +12 minutes
The list goes on. Clearly, these are the best runners in the age group, by far, and that is how they win in Boston: by running a positive split. It does not have to be crazy, but 8 to 10 minutes is completely reasonable. Probably less on a good day, say, 6 minutes. It does not make sense to negative split Boston, period.
I can't feel my pace wrote:
I think negative split is overrated. Especially in Boston. If your goal is to run your absolute best time in Boston you should not negative split, you should have a slight to even not so slight positive split. That way you will run at even effort the entire race and minimize your overall time.
Let's take a look at top 10 men in the 50-54 age group:
#1: 1:17/2:44 +10 minutes
#2 1:18/2:44 +8 minutes
#3 1:22/2:20 +6 minutes
#4 1:23/2:51 +5 minutes
#5 1:22/2:51 +7 minutes
#6 1:19/2:52 +14 minutes
#7 1:21/2:52 +10 minutes
#8 1:23/2:53 +7 minutes
#9 1:22/2:53 +9 minutes
#10 1:21/2:54 +12 minutes
The list goes on. Clearly, these are the best runners in the age group, by far, and that is how they win in Boston: by running a positive split. It does not have to be crazy, but 8 to 10 minutes is completely reasonable. Probably less on a good day, say, 6 minutes. It does not make sense to negative split Boston, period.
Not to state the obvious, but these are all sizable positive splits - each of these guys went out too hard and could've all ran faster. Its been hashed out on here a million times, but as Sage and countless others have said the most optimal Boston is a slight positive split - ideally 30 seconds to 2 minutes. Any more than that and you likely hit the first 4 miles too hard.
HahaRiiiiiiight wrote:
....
Not to state the obvious, but these are all sizable positive splits - each of these guys went out too hard and could've all ran faster. Its been hashed out on here a million times, but as Sage and countless others have said the most optimal Boston is a slight positive split - ideally 30 seconds to 2 minutes. Any more than that and you likely hit the first 4 miles too hard.
Ok, so they are all wrong then? All of them?? And yet they are in the top 10 in the AG, in Boston! The numbers do not stop at top 10, by the way. We can take a look at top 25 or top 50: same exact story. If you want to be on top, you positive split. And in this specific case, Boston in bad weather, you positive split by a lot. There is a very simple reason why we do not see any negative splitters on that list: they all came far behind. But the goal is not to negative split, the goal is to run faster.
HahaRiiiiiiight wrote:
I can't feel my pace wrote:
I think negative split is overrated. Especially in Boston. If your goal is to run your absolute best time in Boston you should not negative split, you should have a slight to even not so slight positive split. That way you will run at even effort the entire race and minimize your overall time.
Let's take a look at top 10 men in the 50-54 age group:
#1: 1:17/2:44 +10 minutes
#2 1:18/2:44 +8 minutes
#3 1:22/2:20 +6 minutes
#4 1:23/2:51 +5 minutes
#5 1:22/2:51 +7 minutes
#6 1:19/2:52 +14 minutes
#7 1:21/2:52 +10 minutes
#8 1:23/2:53 +7 minutes
#9 1:22/2:53 +9 minutes
#10 1:21/2:54 +12 minutes
The list goes on. Clearly, these are the best runners in the age group, by far, and that is how they win in Boston: by running a positive split. It does not have to be crazy, but 8 to 10 minutes is completely reasonable. Probably less on a good day, say, 6 minutes. It does not make sense to negative split Boston, period.
Not to state the obvious, but these are all sizable positive splits - each of these guys went out too hard and could've all ran faster. Its been hashed out on here a million times, but as Sage and countless others have said the most optimal Boston is a slight positive split - ideally 30 seconds to 2 minutes. Any more than that and you likely hit the first 4 miles too hard.
I'm one of those top 10 men. HahaRiiiiiiight is indeed right. Although I went out slower than I would have on a decent day, I still went out too hard for the conditions and positive split by much more than desirable. My best time at Boston a few years ago was with only a 1 minute positive split. It was a painful slog the last few miles this year, having completely hit the wall.
I ran 1:28:21 + 1:30:42 (a 2:21 positive split) and felt like I sort of “fell apart” in the last 2-3 miles.
I know I’m much slower than the times listed above but really surprised about these 8-10 minutes positive splits.
From my one and only Boston experience (2018) I feel like 60-90 seconds positive splits would more ideal.
Someone breaking 3 by going 1:25+1:35 is kinda doing himself a disservice! Maybe I’m wrong, this is just my opinion.
Wow, a good thread. Rare, these.
slowerthanallofthem wrote:
Scott Easey 27 New York 1:20:12 2:38:15 (1:18:03 2nd half)
He went out easy, come home at an Easey pace.
He's heard them all before.