JK, Hodge, Derderian, Malmo et al: What do you guys think of today's Boston performances?

Every road course has a litany of variables that makes comparing course to course, or even race to race on the same course, rather meaningless. Did the wind help? Of course. You would have to be a complete tool not to think so (but for the record, I spectated on Monday in Wellesley, was there for an hour standing in one place, and never noticed the wind at all, so it was strong in places not in others). Did the wind negate the factors that give Boston it's reputation as a tough course (tricky placement of hills)? I have no idea.

But here is rub. To the general public, and to most runners, even those very experienced, Boston is synonymous with marathon, and for that reason alone all but a few of us purists will see it as the new time standard. I'm not saying that's right, but even if you explain that there was a tailwind on a point to point you're likely to get a blank stare and a comment along the lines of "it's still a marathon, isn't it". Like it or not, Geb's performance is no longer the standard to most of the running community, and certainly not to the non-running community. It might be in the record book somewhere as the WR, but that doesn't matter much any more.

Was Geb's performance better than Mutai's? I really don't know. My suspicion is that Wanjiru's Olympic run was the greatest marathon ever. Just my opinion.

Buddy. Your feet aren't touching the ground. You are neither a purist nor representative of thew running community is that Gebrrselassie is now longer the marathon record holder. Get trying.

malmo wrote:

Buddy. Your feet aren't touching the ground. You are neither a purist nor representative of thew running community is that Gebrrselassie is now longer the marathon record holder. Get trying.

English please...

Ain't dat da trut?

Buddy. Your feet aren't touching the ground. You are neither a purist nor representative of the running community if you believe that Gebrrselassie is no longer the marathon record holder. Keep trying.

But that's not what I said.

I guess I see it a bit different. To me a marathon is more than just covering a 26.2 mile distance. It's damn hard to do right. Laying out a pancake flat course like London or Chicago and running them during a time of the year when you are most likely to get optimal temperatures seems rather contrived, just the bare minimum to call it a marathon. If we are going to have these arbitrary rules for marathon road races regarding the maximum elevation drop and distance between start and finish lines, then to me it seems there should also be something that would separate the event from a track event. I have never found London a compelling marathon because it is a track-style event. Seems to me if you are placing arbitrary values on the event, then put in a MINIMUM total elevation gain during the race (it can end at the same point, but there at least has to be a freaking hill on it. If not, we have turned the marathon into a track event with the London's, Berlin's, Chicago's, Houston's.

You, along with Tom D, are on track. Makes sense.

Derderian wrote:

"In their noble search for precision they [TAC RR Technical committee]forgot that road racing is a reprieve from the confines of the track."

"We will never know who ran the better race, only who ran the fastest time."

"Live with uncertainty in your life. No road race world records...just world best or noteworthy performances. It is healthy to wonder."

Tom

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Tom.