Ultimate Trials Qualifier; 3900ft elev. drop!

easy course my ass! IF ANYONE HAS THE BALLS TO EVEN TACKLE DOWN THE RACE WITH OR WITHOUT DROPS THEN DO IT AND WE'LL SEE YOU AT THE TRIALS. IF YOU CAN RUN 5:26 UPHILL THEN KICK ASS---IF YOU CAN DO IT ON A FASTER COURSE THEN KICK ASS...IF RUNNING THIS TIME IS SO EASY THEN GO OUT THERE AND DO IT....OTHERWISE SHUT THE FUCK UP!

So what's wrong with Steamtown? Too much down hill? Ever run it? The down hills just kill your legs big boy. Learn something about the sport before coming on here & talking shit about my local race.

oldguy wrote:

As for the Boston Marathon, I think that it deserves its designation as an aided course. Although weather conditions and race strategies can play havoc with finishing times at Boston, times there can be very fast when you've got a tailwind, cool weather, and intelligent pacing.

Now that was a great post. Why? Simple:

1. The Boston Marathon is clearly the only point-to-point course in the world in which intelligent pacing and cool weather are helpful; all of these factors do nothing but ruin marathoners elsewhere. Good pick-up.

2. Year after year, winning and top-ten times at Boston are far faster on a place-for-place basis than marathons with similarly credentialed elites, so the course is clearly ai...well, check that. They're actually slower! Must be only the 2:25 guys and the penguins who can take advantage of the downhills; world-class runners are already so damn fast that downhills apparently don't help them.

3, Even though the course does not drop steadily by 447' but instead is evilly configured with ups and downs at the worst possible spots, in terms of speeding up times it is no different than a course that gradually loses about 17' per mile. I know; I've taken algebra, with which one can, along with a few pints of vodka, prove that all 447' drops exert identical effects on marathoners.

Thanks!

You've misconstrued my post. I'm not asserting that Boston is a particularly good race to run if you're shopping for an Olympic trials qualifier or a fast time. For most people, the vagaries of Boston weather in April, along with the idiosyncratic layout of the course, make it a bad bet. Chicago is a more reliable course for fast times.

Nevertheless, as I've said, Boston deserves its designation as an aided course, even if, for most people in most years, the race does not produce especially fast times. Given the right weather conditions (which, at Boston, will typically include a strong tailwind) and an optimal pacing strategy, many runners will be able to run significantly faster at Boston than they could run on a flat loop course. If you disagree with that, please explain why you disagree, preferably before you consume a few pints of vodka.

Very few people actually set PRs at Boston, because it is a pretty hard marathon. All of the factors you've mentioned make it hard. I'd take a flat loop course anyday. AND the last tail wind I can remember at Boston was in 94. As far as other marathon courses are concerned, sure, some are easier than others. However, what difference does that make? Are KK's three sub 2:06s any less mind blowing because they were run on flat courses. HELL NO! A fast time is simply that, a fast time, regardless of where it was run. Look at the results from Vegas, CIM, Austin, etc. and tell me how many trials qualifiers ran those marathons, very few. OK. Now look at Chicago, how many trials qualifiers were there? There were more fast times at Chicago than at all of the other mentioned races...combined!And it has nothing to do with the money because you can disregard all of the runners who won $ at Chicago and still count more faster times.

Wich courses are the most aided, ones that are flat and fast or courses with hills that eat up your quads, knees, lower back, and feet?

Actually, many people have set PRs at Boston, including many world-class runners. In fact, my hunch is that many people who post on letsrun.com have set PRs at Boston. Perhaps we could have a show of hands . . . .

It is true that, among national-class male marathoners from the United States, Boston has not produced many fast times since 1983. That's not because Boston suddenly got tougher in 1984. Rather, there were a number of other changes that occurred around that time -- in the sport generally and in the Boston race organization in particular -- including changes in financial incentives, such as prize money and appearance fees.

As I said before, I believe that Chicago is, for a number of reasons, a better bet than Boston for most people who are looking for a race that produces predictably fast times. That doesn't make Chicago an "aided" course, however. Chicago is simply a reliably fast "unaided" course.

Whether or not performances on "aided" courses should be accepted for various qualification purposes is another matter. It need not be an all-or-nothing proposition. As an earlier poster indicated, one could certainly draw the line at a point that accepts performances at, for example, Boston, while excluding performances at, for example, St. George. Although there are some real problems with doing so, you could even consider certain factors, like tailwinds, that vary from day to day on a particular course, just as is done with 100-meter races and long-jump competitions. What bothers me is the notion that, as long as the length of the course is reasonably accurate, anything goes. Both literally and figuratively, this creates a "race to the bottom," in which race organizers compete for customers with courses that are increasingly aided.

By the way, although we've been focusing primarily on the legitimacy and significance of performances on downhill "marathons," one of the most extreme examples of an aided course was the old Mardi Gras Marathon course, which was about as flat as any marathon course in the world, but consisted almost entirely of a straight-shot run over a bridge. If you were fortunate enough to get a nice tailwind on the appointed day, it was PR City.

(I recognize, by the way, that the substantial changes in the Boston race organization occurred in conjunction with the 1986 race, not the 1984 race. The lack of any real competition at Boston in 1984 and 1985 was caused by other factors, including but not limited to changes in monetary incentives in other races.)

Boston is a definite Jekyll-Hyde in terms of conditions. I've run there with tailwinds (1994, and less so in 1998) and with headwinds (1997, 2001), with good temperatuires (1994, 1998, 2001), too cold (1997), and too warm (1999). That said, my PR is on that course.

One thing that slows the marks for the top guys is that there are no rabbits (hired by the race, anyway, there's always the chance that a guy will bring a private rabbit).

Don't forget that it snowed for the 1993 LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon (naturally, in icy conditions, a Brazilian won...like an Alaskan and a Wisconsonian winning he 2000 USOT marathons in the heat)

Boston's unique topography makes it a NET downhill race on paper, however, it's still certainly not as fast as a flat course. Not even close. Any "aiding" at Boston depends on the capricious nature of the northwesterly winds. Even with the benefit of a tailwind, the course is such that your legs take an awful beating.

Notice that during the first mile (a) there is a drop of 130 ft. At the end of four miles (b), a net drop of 310 ft. Anyone who's ever run a marathon knows that the first four miles means nothing and any gains during those first four miles are going to be negligible -- especially in world-class fields. From four to 21 miles (b-d) there is an elevation RISE of 50 ft., leading to a quad-destroying drop of 220 ft. over the last five miles (e-f). I cannot name one runner who has ever said that they were "aided" during those last five miles of Boston, can you? To the contrary, the race history is riddled with dozens of runners making it through 21 miles ahead of world-record pace -- facing only downhill ahead -- and then being cruelly humbled by the final descent.

In a nutshell: Minus 310 ft. over four miles. Verdict: small gain. Plus 50 ft. over the next 17 miles. Verdict: a loss. Minus 220 ft over the last 5 miles. Verdict: a big loss.

I cannot stress it enough the two most significant features of Boston's course are the downhills at (c) Newton Lower Falls (-100ft. at 15.5 miles) and (e) St. Ignatious Church (-80 ft. at 21 miles after Heartbreak). That -80 ft. drop at St. Ignatious is more like -100 ft because there is a little rise after it to the 22 mile checkpoint. Those downhills kill the superstars and plodders alike.

The facts are, runners set PRs at Boston because of the event, not the course. Those who run Boston AND the speedways of Chicago/London/Rotterdam/Berlin rarely have PRs on the Boston course.

Here are the elevations above sea level of the mile marks on the Boston Marathon course.

Mileage City/Town Elevation ft. Netchange

Start Hopkinton 490 N/A

1.0 Hopkinton 360 -130 (a)

2.0 Ashland 320 -40

3.0 Ashland 265 -55

4.0 Ashland 180 -85 (b)

5.0 Framingham 205 +25

6.0 Framingham 180 -25

7.0 Framingham 155 -25

8.0 Natick 180 +25

9.0 Natick 150 -30

10.0 Natick 170 +20

11.0 Natick 180 +10

12.0 Wellesley 165 -15

13.0 Wellesley 145 -20

14.0 Wellesley 130 -15

15.0 Wellesley 160 +30

16.0 Newton/LowerFalls 60 -100 (c)

17.0 Newton 115 +55

18.0 West Newton 145 +30

19.0 Newton 130 -15

20.0 Newton 150 +20

21.0 ChestnutHill 230 +80 (d)

22.0 Boston/Brighton 150 -80 (e)

23.0 Brookline 95 -55

24.0 Brookline 60 -35

25.0 Boston/Back Bay 15 -45

26.0 Boston/Back Bay 10 -5

26.2 Finish 10 0 (f)

Just think about this. Talking about races to qualify for the Olympic Trials. The Olympics!! Anyone with enough dedication and hard work (well, some exceptions of course) can qualify for the Olympic trials. No freaks of the govt. drug program. Just every day Jacks and Jills with a dream.

George,

Many runners whose running style (e.g., Rodgers) or body type (e.g., de Castella) matches up well with the demands of the Boston course have set their PRs at Boston. Many others, of course, get taken out by the downhills and end up with DNFs or wooden-legged hobbling finishes.

And those data points are at each mile mark, not necessarily the peaks & troughs. That downhill at 16mi is always at the perfect spot to pound the last bit of flexibility out of your legs before you start climbing for 5mi.

I heard a guy who's run Boston a few times (including a 5th-place finish) say that while "by the books" it's aided, anyone who think the course actually aids a runner has never run it.

Joseph A. McVeigh wrote:

I heard a guy who's run Boston a few times (including a 5th-place finish) say that while "by the books" it's aided, anyone who think the course actually aids a runner has never run it.

He was wrong. My own, even more cynical view, is that many of the people who say that it's not aided have run their fastest times there.

Indeed, a selection bias for sure. And I'm as bad as anyone in that regard b/c my fastest mark is there. But in my 17 marathons I've run only one flat course, when it was 80 degrees F, so I can't really compare. I can say that I think the Boston course is abt 1:30-2:00 faster than the NYC course.

oldguy wrote:

Many runners whose running style (e.g., Rodgers) or body type (e.g., de Castella) matches up well with the demands of the Boston course have set their PRs at Boston. Many others, of course, get taken out by the downhills and end up with DNFs or wooden-legged hobbling finishes.

Another tremendous insight. What pray tell is it about Deek and his monster quads that in your mind classify him as being well-suited for the Boston course? Does tripping over the rope at the start help you run faster there too?

Based on available bullshit posted here you'd probably be the first to say Tegla La Roop at under 90 pounds had the perfect body for handling the downhills of the Boston course. Funny how she blew up in 1996 and ran the last mile in well over 7 minutes!

You sound like someone who was signed up for Boston in '94 and backed out at the last minute only to have to regret the unseen blessing of that year's mammoth tailwind for the rest of your life.

Your attempt at using exclusionary logic to establish a bias here sucks. One doesn't have to have run a PR at Boston to say that it's not aided in neutral-wind years.

Gosh, Phallus. (May I call you "Dick"?) You've misread my post again. I told you to reply BEFORE drinking several pints of vodka.

My assertion was that, "[g]iven the right weather conditions (which, at Boston, will typically include a strong tailwind) and an optimal pacing strategy, many runners will be able to run significantly faster at Boston than they could run on a flat loop course." You haven't disputed that assertion, much less provided any intelligible argument against it. Instead, you've suggested that Boston is not aided in "wind-neutral years."

As far as I'm aware, however, the test for an aided course is not whether it produces unusually fast times in "wind-neutral years" or "really rainy years" or "really, really hot years" or "years when the competition really sucks" or "years when nobody wants to take the pace out hard."

The fact is, when weather conditions are favorable, many runners can and do run faster at Boston than they could or have run on any flat loop course. That's one reason, although not the only reason, that many runners have run their PRs at Boston. For example, seven of the twelve sub-2:10 marathoners in U.S. history ran their PRs at Boston. (I don't mean to pick on any of these guys, who were all excellent runners, but does anybody really think that Ron Tabb could have run 2:09:32 at Chicago?) Of the remaining five, at least three (including KK), and possibly all five (I'm not sure about Morris and Lawson), have never even run Boston. Among non-U.S. runners, the great majority of world-class marathoners have never run Boston, but a number of those who have (including de Castella, Bordin, and Treacy) ran their fastest times there.

By the way, I only ran Boston once, in 1983. I PRed by six-and-a-half minutes. (In later years, I ran faster on other courses, both aided and unaided.) When did you PR at Boston?

There are NO courses disallowed by USATF as Oly Trials qualifiers. ALL courses are eligible, so long as they are certified.