People don't seem to realize how bad the heat was at Chicago

Facts:

Race temp for elites fluctuated between 58 and 72.

Humidity dropped during the race (for the elites) from 72% to 48%

Wind was calm.

Is this really considered hot or bad conditions?

Ask Salazar and Beardsley what hot is and how they ran 2:08 almost 30 years ago on a hard course. Ask Shobukova how she ran the fastest women's time in two years. As Federico Rosa might say, Elite Development runners need to grow some balls. I say Chicago should drop the word "elite" from the Elite Development Program (how many of these runners will actually become elite relevant to Chicago elite anyway) and place the runners at the start of Corral "A."

SUCK IT UP and run.

Amen.

Wow. Thanks for those weather facts.

Let's compare notes for one part of the course we we're both on.

The stretch on Ashland before Pilsen.

You first, how did it feel and what did the bank themometer day when you passed it?

Go ahead......

You mean the black-solar-radiation-absorbing-elevated thermometer that had been basking in the sun since sunrise, that read a good 15 degrees warmer than it actually was on the race course?

Note to those of you who think that a Bank temperature is accurate. YOU ARE IGNORANT. I have seen as much as 10 degrees difference from a Bank on the SW corner to a Bank on the NW corner. It reminds me of the broken clock, it is right twice a day.

OK, forget the thermometer and clock.

How did you feel after that stretch?. How much did you have left in your legs?

I think everyone who finished Chicago should get a special award/medal for finishing an extreme-condition race. I'll email the RD to see if he agrees.

Buddy, I thought we were going to compare notes?

Where are you at......dude?

It's as if some of you never ran a marathon before. Here's a similar previous discussion on the exact same subject- I knew this thread had deja vu all over it:http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2330882Wind was "calm" only in that it was 5 MPH, however, if it is at your back as it was in the closing miles then the cooling effect is greatly diminished. Again, I wasn't there, but I'll take the word of the folks that were.Here's Hodgie-san's desciption of Boston 1982- the day of the "Duel in the Sun":

There is very little shade on the course and it felt like a desert.

I dropped at 21 miles my entire body was one big cramp. I believe I was in 7th place at the time.

And I was pretty badly sunburned the next day...

The big culprit which totally exacerbated the temps that day was a 10 MPH tail wind. But basically the same weather as Chicago, maybe even Chicago was warmer.

5 MPH not enough? Ok. But it sure doesn't help.

HansonsRunForFun? wrote:

While Kevin Hanson says "it wasn't that bad", Sage says that he needed to dunk water on his head from the beginning of the race. He and the other 4 Hanson guys in the pack of guys going for a Trials qualifier, Zero of them actually qualified. So if the conditions aren't that bad, what is? Your coaching, or are the athletes just not good enough?

I think his comments are more meaningful with those results. He is putting things back on himself and/or his guys than blaming the weather.

Again, from a neutral perspective (didn't race, don't live in Chicago), I haven't read much whinning or "blaming the weather" type of comments. Just a simple discussion about the heat and how it might have effected performance for some/many who actually ran the race. Could have been a great thread for marathoners to learn from each others mistakes and learn from some who ran well on Sunday, but instead it turns into another shi**y letsrun thread.

Hanson's list is great and I don't think many would disagree, but why include the "I get annoyed when people expect perfect everything for a marathon." Nine pages later I can't recall anyone expecting perfect weather. Better yet, I like the anonymous posters/bashers/critics asking those that actually ran the race to post their names. Classic.

BOTTOM LINE: The weather was GREAT for RACING. Wanjiru and Kebede showed us that. The weather SUCKED for meeting TIME GOALS. Almost everyone else showed us that.

If you were shooting for 2:18:59, then you had better have been capable of 2:16:59 under "typically" cool conditions, AND be heat acclimated and run REALLY smart, i.e. start the super-hydration early and be prepeared to slow down as soon as you entered the sun in the latter stages. Unfortunately, the only guys who did that had already run 2:18:59 or better already.

85 is hot, 65 is not wrote:

Facts:

Race temp for elites fluctuated between 58 and 72.

Humidity dropped during the race (for the elites) from 72% to 48%

Wind was calm.

Is this really considered hot or bad conditions?

SUCK IT UP and run.

Yep - Another comment from someone who was not there, just looked at stats on a web page somewhere, and either did not read the previous posts, or decided to ignore the facts that most of the folks that were actually there and ran have stated that the last 10 miles was MUCH hotter than the stated temperature indicated.

If you were not there, and didn't experience this run personally - SHUT THE HELL UP!

What I learned from this thread.

-Everyone who says the weather was a factor is a wimp because it was just fine. However, Everyone should have adjusted their goals pre-race so as not to have a problem in the heat.

-Everyone who missed their goal was not realistic about their goal.

-It wasn't hot, but everyone who is whining about the heat should have been dumping water on their head, wiping with sponges and over hydrating from the start. Obviously the were not since they didn't meet their goal.

-Weather was not a factor, but no new male US OT qualifiers came from this race. Obviously none of those who tried were really ready to run that fast.

-Some people ran PRs, therefore the weather was perfect for PRs.

-Why would anyone run faster for the first half than their previous PR pace? That would be crazy.

-The temperature was 70 at the finish. This is true, it was at 9:00am.

So tell me Kevin Hansen, Brojos, RunningArt, Malmo. Of the people you know or coach who ran the race, how many met their time goal (lets say from 3 weeks ago at the start of the taper before weather was forecast)? I'd like a list of name, goal time, actual time including half split, and reason for any difference. You can use a pseudonym because, lets face it, most LR posters are a bunch of malicious idiots. Please use short phrases such as "unrealistic goal", "poor pacing", "poorly prepared", "poorly coached", "got blisters, but it had nothing to do with heat" for those who under achieved or dropped out. Please refrain from using the words "heat", "weather" or similar since these were not factors. For those who over achieved... Well I doubt there will be any, but give a reason for that too such as "didn't really believe in them when setting goal", "doesn't sweat much", "ran crazy fast from the start and didn't die as badly as expected", "dumped lots of water on head and wiped crotch and face often with sponges, but it had nothing to do with heat", etc.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks in advance.

PapaROTC wrote:

BOTTOM LINE: The weather was GREAT for RACING. Wanjiru and Kebede showed us that. The weather SUCKED for meeting TIME GOALS. Almost everyone else showed us that.

If you were shooting for 2:18:59, then you had better have been capable of 2:16:59 under "typically" cool conditions, AND be heat acclimated and run REALLY smart, i.e. start the super-hydration early and be prepeared to slow down as soon as you entered the sun in the latter stages. Unfortunately, the only guys who did that had already run 2:18:59 or better already.

Yes, thank you. I was going to say just that. To say the weather was not conducive to getting the lowest time possible, fine. But still race, dammit! And if you need an example to follow, look at the elites. They did not set a world record. However they did race.

I agree, we should not be going for times in the marathon. 20 years from now you won't care whether you ran 2:33 or 2:35. You will care that you gave it your all and raced up to your potential and beat a bunch of people who should've beaten you, on a given day. And believe it or not this even applies to guys who were chasing the 2:19 qualifying time. If you run 2:18:50 one year at Chicago because the planets align and you get perfect weather and then you get to go to the trials where you get your a** beaten down, then that's one thing. But if you run a ballsy 2:20 one year at Chicago when it's hot and gross and you beat a ton of guys who are known as some of the best sub-elites in America (placed top-10 in USATF champs, ran qualifiers themselves elsewhere on cooler days, etc) then you will remember that as a great race. Personally I'd rather have the second scenario. I admit it'd be better to have a race like that at a USATF champs race so you get a medal for your efforts, but Chicago honestly is like another national marathon champs, it attracts so many top domestic-level runners just like the USATF champs do. Of course it'd be ideal for our sport if money, etc got distributed such that either Chicago or Twin Cities was a true championship that had all the best runners in the country there, but that's another thread.

It may be true that people who run for a living like the Hansons have an edge in these warm weather races b/c they can take strategic preparation approaches like training in the middle of the day, etc. that may be inaccessible to people who train alongside full time jobs. For that reason it may be better for people who work full time to run races like Cal Int Marathon where the weather is more likely to be too cold than too hot, and hence strategic training plans have less of an impact.

Tell that to Desi Davila. Accept the fact that you were simply underprepared. Winners rise to the occasion and transcend, losers find excuses and whine.

Raced at Chicago wrote:

I'm a girl who ran Chicago. No of course it wasn't Texas hot. It's ridiculous to even compare. If we wanted to run a marathon for the fun of it with no ambitions, we can go to Texas in the summertime. For those of us trying to run qualifying times, yes it was hot. My heart dropped a bit when a bank sign I saw read 71 degrees on the way to the start line (Yes, I am aware that is probably not accurate). Shade was very hard to find.

I am happy with my time, ran very well, but any marathoner knows that running very well when you only get 2, maybe 3, chances a year at this distance is frustrating. You want to run a PR race every time and on Sunday the conditions were not PR conducive.

the dude with the funny hat wrote:

I agree, we should not be going for times in the marathon. 20 years from now you won't care whether you ran 2:33 or 2:35.

I think this just isn't true. I think I will remember my marathon times 20 years from now. Any old people out there agree with me?