Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record"
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-04-19 10:10 PM |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Seriously? The IAAF must have some sort of grudge againt Boston. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/sports/20sportsbriefs-BOSTONTOAPPL_BRF.html
|
|
2011-04-20 3:50 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Extreme Veteran 532 Northampton, UK | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" The Boston course doesn't meet the IAAF requirements - there is too much of an elevation difference from the start to the finish and something about the straight line distance between start and finish being more than half the overall race distance which means it is strongly affected by the wind. |
2011-04-20 4:02 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" As stated above, the course doesn't meet the requirements for a WR course. BAA knows this, every athlete running there knows this and as such, I don't see an issue. There has been some discussion about the benefit of the wind and the average number that seemed to be thrown around is about 2.5 minute advantage due to the conditions on Monday. If you assume this is valid, then this race is well off the WR. If he wants to try for a WR, then I expect you'll see him toe the line at one of the WR type courses in the next couple of years. Shane |
2011-04-20 5:19 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. |
2011-04-20 5:34 AM in reply to: #3455958 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Boston is not like the World Championships; it is a very popular age group race that also has an elite field. If you check the IAAF site you will be able to find out about the World Championship events. Shane |
2011-04-20 6:20 AM in reply to: #3455958 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. Edited by Fred Doucette 2011-04-20 6:23 AM |
|
2011-04-20 6:35 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Veteran 198 Chicago, IL | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" All the analysis you will ever want to read on this topic.
Very interesting discussion. Emotionally I would love to believe that the wind didn't really help that much... certainly not enough to overcome the more difficult course compared to the WR eligible courses but logically it appears that it did. My lesson learned at Boston is that you better enjoy the training and the process because there are so many variables outside of your control that can impact your ability to perform either for the better or worse on any given race day. My real victory whether a PR or not is in pushing myself to improve and the comradeship with my fellow athletes. |
2011-04-20 6:38 AM in reply to: #3455958 |
Expert 1394 Wilmington, NC | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" pga_mike - 2011-04-20 6:19 AM While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. Those rules have been in place for at least 20yrs, so no grudge against Boston. Boston is a long way from being the world championship of marathons. If any marathon deserves that title it would be London. Boston is never as deep or stacked, as London or even Berlin and Rotterdam. |
2011-04-20 6:51 AM in reply to: #3455990 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Fred Doucette - 2011-04-20 6:20 AM pga_mike - 2011-04-20 6:19 AM While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. You are missing the point. A point to point race that heads in one direction (this time with the wind) and ends up 500' lower than the start is not eligible for a WR.
Ironically, the original marathon was point to point. Then again, they ran naked too.
|
2011-04-20 7:07 AM in reply to: #3456014 |
Extreme Veteran 845 Springfield, OH | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Rogillio - 2011-04-20 7:51 AM Ironically, the original marathon was point to point. Then again, they ran naked too. Yeah, but it was uphill. |
2011-04-20 7:12 AM in reply to: #3456014 |
Expert 1394 Wilmington, NC | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Rogillio - 2011-04-20 7:51 AM Fred Doucette - 2011-04-20 6:20 AM pga_mike - 2011-04-20 6:19 AM While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. You are missing the point. A point to point race that heads in one direction (this time with the wind) and ends up 500' lower than the start is not eligible for a WR.
Ironically, the original marathon was point to point. Then again, they ran naked too.
Even more ironic is that it was nowhere near the accepted distance of 26.2mi. The route Pheidippides ran was more like 140mi. The first Olympic marathon was 24.85mi and it was only at the London games in 1908 that the distance was changed (added distance for Royal reasons) to what is now considered a standard marathon of 26.2mi |
|
2011-04-20 7:29 AM in reply to: #3455958 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" pga_mike - 2011-04-20 4:19 AM While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. LOL! Not only is Boston not a world championship but agruably neither is Kona. It's a world championship in name only. |
2011-04-20 7:44 AM in reply to: #3456040 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" qrkid - 2011-04-20 7:12 AM Rogillio - 2011-04-20 7:51 AM Fred Doucette - 2011-04-20 6:20 AM pga_mike - 2011-04-20 6:19 AM While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. You are missing the point. A point to point race that heads in one direction (this time with the wind) and ends up 500' lower than the start is not eligible for a WR.
Ironically, the original marathon was point to point. Then again, they ran naked too.
Even more ironic is that it was nowhere near the accepted distance of 26.2mi. The route Pheidippides ran was more like 140mi. The first Olympic marathon was 24.85mi and it was only at the London games in 1908 that the distance was changed (added distance for Royal reasons) to what is now considered a standard marathon of 26.2mi That the original marathon was point-to-point is ironic because it's the opposite of what you're trying to express, and slightly amusing, so yes, that was irony. That it isn't the accepted distance of 26.2 miles isn't ironic because we're not disputing Boston's distance. Informative, yes, ironic, no. |
2011-04-20 7:53 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Master 2404 Redlands, CA | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Hypothetically, if they allowed point to point, you could just have someone start at the top mountain with a 2-3% decline with a tailwind, and I'm sure a top guy could break sub 2:00 doing that. Also, I believe the marathon was initially extended at London so they could start in front of Windsor Castle. |
2011-04-20 8:04 AM in reply to: #3456086 |
Expert 1394 Wilmington, NC | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Thanks for the english lesson MrTony |
2011-04-20 9:27 AM in reply to: #3456104 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" furiousferret - 2011-04-20 7:53 AM Hypothetically, if they allowed point to point, you could just have someone start at the top mountain with a 2-3% decline with a tailwind, and I'm sure a top guy could break sub 2:00 doing that. Also, I believe the marathon was initially extended at London so they could start in front of Windsor Castle.
Obviously all marathon courses are different.....different environmental conditions, different elevations, different changes in elevation, crowding. I think the toughest marathon in the world is the Pike's Peak marathon....climb to an elevation of 14,200' and then go back down.
|
|
2011-04-20 9:31 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Expert 1007 NW NJ | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Back in my day we ran marathons all uphill, in the snow, barefoot! |
2011-04-20 9:56 AM in reply to: #3456040 |
Veteran 259 Austin, TX | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" Rogillio - 2011-04-20 7:51 AM it was only at the London games in 1908 that the distance was changed (added distance for Royal reasons) to what is now considered a standard marathon of 26.2mi I just learned this from Cash Cab last night! Apparently the distance from Windsor Castle to the Olympic stadium. |
2011-04-20 10:01 AM in reply to: #3456330 |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" mchubri - 2011-04-20 11:31 AM Back in my day we ran marathons all uphill, in the snow, barefoot!
Pfft, we did that too but it was into a headwind too! |
2011-04-20 10:02 AM in reply to: #3456403 |
Expert 1394 Wilmington, NC | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" ewillmore - 2011-04-20 10:56 AM Rogillio - 2011-04-20 7:51 AM it was only at the London games in 1908 that the distance was changed (added distance for Royal reasons) to what is now considered a standard marathon of 26.2mi I just learned this from Cash Cab last night! Apparently the distance from Windsor Castle to the Olympic stadium. Yep they needed to cover the distance from Windsor castle to the stadium and then the extra 0.2 was added so the race would finish in front of the royal box. |
2011-04-20 10:59 AM in reply to: #3456419 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" axteraa - 2011-04-20 10:01 AM mchubri - 2011-04-20 11:31 AM Back in my day we ran marathons all uphill, in the snow, barefoot!
Pfft, we did that too but it was into a headwind too!
I know! And they were out and back and uphill both ways!
|
|
2011-04-20 11:41 AM in reply to: #3455958 |
Veteran 294 Boston | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" pga_mike - 2011-04-20 3:19 AM While I appreciate that the IAAF gets to set the rules, it is crazy that this is basically the world championship for marathon. It would be like IM Hawaii not counting for the IM world record. Agreed. Understandable that the course is faster than others probably by a lot, but shouldn't they then either change the regulations of what is an acceptable course for a marathon or change the Boston course so that it is not so much faster than the others? The mother of all marathons is the prime place for records to be broken because the best are seeded against the best. I know this will never happen but the situation is a little disappointing imo. Edited by cam224 2011-04-20 11:42 AM |
2011-04-20 11:45 AM in reply to: #3455836 |
Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" These rules are set in place beforehand, right? I don't see what the issue is. If someone wants to set a certified world record, they should run a certified course. Is the winner claiming he should hold the world record? Edited by ChrisM 2011-04-20 11:54 AM |
2011-04-20 11:46 AM in reply to: #3456709 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" cam224 - 2011-04-20 10:41 AM The mother of all marathons is the prime place for records to be broken because the best are seeded against the best. I love the Boston Marathon. I had a great time running it in 2008 and look forward to going back again at some point. BUT, there is a lot of hyperbole in this thread regarding Boston's place in the world of marathon racing. |
2011-04-20 11:47 AM in reply to: #3456715 |
Veteran 294 Boston | Subject: RE: Boston Marathon ~ Fastest Marathon, but not a "record" ChrisM - 2011-04-20 9:45 AM These rules are set in place beforehand, right? I don't see what the issues is. If someone wants to set a certified world record, they should run a certified course. Is the winner claiming he should hold the world record? True. There is no arguing with that. |
|