| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 26mi235 wrote: |
3:30 is too much, but by 2:10 I meant 2:10:xx or, on average 2:10:30, so a difference of 2:30. A lot of really good runners have raced NYCM and the course record is still 2:07 and change, which is 2-3 minutes slower than the fast semi-time trials.
And remember, the 2:13:00 was run the 'hard way' running with the leaders for much of the race and then giving up 3:40+ running primarily solo for the last third or quarter of the race. I believe malmo has made some comments on the relative difficulty of the NYC course, but I cannot remember specifically what he said; I would be interested to see. Also note that I did make the caveat that NYC is raced differently, which leads to slower final times than a time-trial approach.
In addition to being slower for those that are generally successful, I think that the wheels fall off more often on this course even with the more tempered first half of the race.
[RH's best race was probably the Trials, which was a fabulous display]
[and 8:01 is not 9 minutes]
Dixon's time is probably inferior to Salazar's slightly flawed course record because the advantage of the mis-measured tangents was only a matter of a modest number of seconds. And since we are talking about the quality of performance, that is probably what matters, not the technicality that it is only 26mi330 or whatever.
And, yes, I think that if they had the cool, calm, flat, few turns and a stable of pacers and others I think that Salazar and Dixon, etc. would have run faster. I think that Clayton's record was set on a pretty fast (and not reproducible - they re-did the streets, IIRC) course, which is why it took a while for the record to go. |
WR=2:03:59 JT ran 2:13 = 9:01 difference.
2:30 from 2:08:59 is still 2:06 and Dixon wouldn't have run that fast unless he Boston with a 50 mph tailwind.
The course was short, but when properly measured was only 200 meters or so.
As for his strategy, well that is Torres' problem.
JT may someday run 2:10 but his 2:13 yesterday is not a 2:10 on Berlin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 26mi235 wrote: |
[RH's best race was probably the Trials, which was a fabulous display]
. |
The best marathon run I've ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: |
WR=2:03:59 JT ran 2:13 = 9:01 difference.
2:30 from 2:08:59 is still 2:06 and Dixon wouldn't have run that fast unless he Boston with a 50 mph tailwind.
The course was short, but when properly measured was only 200 meters or so. |
The NYC course was fixed in 1982, Dixon won in 1983
| Conor Dary wrote: |
As for his strategy, well that is Torres' problem.
JT may someday run 2:10 but his 2:13 yesterday is not a 2:10 on Berlin. |
Sure it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SQUACKEE wrote: | | gh wrote: | | Where's the love for Jorge Torres? A 2:13.00 debut (yes?) is nothing to sneeze at. (for a Murkan) |
I gotz lots of love for him and quite a compliment, out of 15 runners in the top group, his running from was by far the the quietest, what a beautiful runner, maybe he's the next great merican 26er. |
Marathoning isn't gymnastics. The only thing that matters is the scoreboard. (baby) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gh wrote: | | Where's the love for Jorge Torres? A 2:13.00 debut (yes?) is nothing to sneeze at. (for a Murkan) |
It's nothing to sneeze at for anyone's debut (Murikan or not), especially at New York -- a course that humbles even the baddest of baddasses.
Debutantes Ball
2:08:24 2:06:17 Ryan Hall (24) London 2007
2:09:41 2:08:51 Alberto Salazar (22) New York 1980
2:09:41 2:09:41 Alan Culpepper (30) Chicago 2002
2:11:13 2:11:13 Rudy Chapa (26) New York 1983
2:11:17 2:11:17 Todd Williams (28) Chicago 1997
2:11:35 2:11:35 Dan Browne (27) Twin Cities 2002
2:12:12 2:08:47 Bob Kempainen (25) Twin Cites 1991
2:12:17 2:12:17 Steve Spence (28) Columbus 1990
2:12:27 2:12:27 Fernando Cabada (24) Fukuoka 2006
2:12:35 2:09:15 Meb Keflezighi (27) New York 2002
-10-
2:13:00 2:13:00 Jorge Torres (29) New York 2009
2:13:02 2:11:40 Rod Dehaven Chicago (32) 1998
2:13:07 2:08:59 Greg Meyer(25) Detroit 1980
2:13:21 2:13:21 Steve Ortiz (22) 1981
2:13:24 2:13:05 Mark Coogan (27) Boston 1994
2:13:29 2:12:23 George Malley (27) New York 1982
2:14:01 2:10:00 Dathan Ritzenhein (23) New York 2006
2:14:13 2:14:13 Kyle Baker (26) Chicago 2002
2:14:15 2:14:15 Brad Hauser (25) St Paul 2002
2:14:21 2:14:21 Mark Nenow (30) New York 1988
-20-
2:14:23 2:14:23 John Hunsaker (23) Tempe 1979
2:14:30 2:14:08 Ryan Shay (23) Chicago 2002
2:14:40 2:10:26 Craig Virgin (23) San Diego 1979
2:14:57 2:14:57 Don Johns (26) Duluth 1991
2:15:11 2:15:11 Mike Morgan (26) Chicago 2006
2:15:15 2:14:06 Steve Bolt (25) Rocket City 1980
2:15:16 2:11:32 Paul Cummings (28) St George 1981
2:15:22 2:15:22 Josh Rohatinsky (25) OT 2007
2:15:28 2:11:38 Paul Gompers (19) Rocket City 1983
2:15:28 2:14:56 Nate Jenkins Austin 2006
-30-
2:15:29 2:15:29 Luke Watson Twin Cities 2009
2:15:47 2:15:47 Mike McGuire (26) Detroit 1981
2:15:50 2:15:27 Jason Hartmann (25) Chicago 2006
2:15:51 2:11:25 Randy Thomas (24) New York |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 26mi235 wrote: | I believe malmo has made some comments on the relative difficulty of the NYC course, but I cannot remember specifically what he said; I would be interested to see. Also note that I did make the caveat that NYC is raced differently, which leads to slower final times than a time-trial approach.
In addition to being slower for those that are generally successful, I think that the wheels fall off more often on this course even with the more tempered first half of the race. . |
What follows is an analysis of the New York Marathon elites fields from 1999 to 2005. Specifically, I was interested in the performances of those marathoners who competed in NYC and one or more of the remaining four "Majors" in an attempt to establish an empirical performance bias across venues. Not surprising, the results confirmed what was already known anecdotally: there are fast courses (Berlin, London. Chicago) and there are slow courses (Boston, New York).
The career results of 87 elites who competed at NYC marathon (99-05) were meticulously recorded and analyzed, paying attention to their performances at the 5 Major Marathons: New York, Boston, London, Berlin, Chicago.
OVERVIEW
Of the 87 elite marathoners who ran New York, 27 ran London, 28 Chicago, 19 Berlin, and 31 Boston
2:09:56 Average PR for 87 runners
2:14:22 Average best time at NYC (87)
2:10:35 Average best at London (27)
2:11:55 Average best at Chicago (28)
2:10:33 Average best at Berlin (19)
2:12:24 Average best at Boston (30)
4:27 New York avg from PR
0:39 London avg from PR
1:59 Chicago avg from PR
0:38 Berlin avg from PR
2:28 Boston avg from PR
3:48 London overall avg bias over New York (3:01 headsup)
2:28 Chicago overall avg bias over New York (1:22 headsup)
3:49 Berlin overall avg bias over New York (6:58 headsup)
1:59 Boston overall avg bias over New York (0:29 headsup)
VENUE TO VENUE COMPARISON
For those runners who've run at each event
New York vs London 27 runners
2:08:40 average PR
2:10:35 (1:55) avg. London best
2:13:36 (4:56) avg. New York best
-------
3:01 time bias to London over New York
New York vs Chicago 28 runners
2:09:40 average PR
2:11:55 (2:15) avg. Chicago best
2:13:17 (3:37) avg. New York best
-------
1:22 time bias to Chicago over New York
New York vs Berlin 19 runners
2:09:32 average PR
2:10:33 (1:01) average Berlin best
2:16:30 (6:58) average New York best
-------
5:57 time bias to Berlin over New York
New York vs Boston 30 runners
2:09:39 average PR
2:12:24 (2:44) average Boston best
2:12:53 (3:14) average New York best
-------
0:29 time bias to Boston over New York
Just for kicks, I've thrown out from the data set all of the time differentials over 7:00 on the theory that large time differences would be heavily weighted towards circumstances and not the course differences. The results were as follows:
New York vs London 22 runners
2:08:30 average PR
2:10:24 (1:54) avg. London best
2:12:20 (3:50) avg. New York best
-------
1:56 time bias to London over New York
New York vs Chicago 25 runners
2:09:49 average PR
2:11:49 (2:00) avg. Chicago best
2:12:53 (3:04) avg. New York best
-------
1:04 time bias to Chicago over New York
New York vs Berlin 12 runners
2:09:38 average PR
2:10:41 (1:03) average Berlin best
2:13:34 (3:56) average New York best
-------
2:53 time bias to Berlin over New York
New York vs Boston 27 runners
2:10:05 average PR
2:12:11 (2:06) average Boston best
2:13:24 (3:19) average New York best
-------
1:13 time bias to Boston over New York |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| malmo wrote: | | Conor Dary wrote: |
WR=2:03:59 JT ran 2:13 = 9:01 difference.
2:30 from 2:08:59 is still 2:06 and Dixon wouldn't have run that fast unless he Boston with a 50 mph tailwind.
The course was short, but when properly measured was only 200 meters or so. |
The NYC course was fixed in 1982, Dixon won in 1983
| Conor Dary wrote: |
As for his strategy, well that is Torres' problem.
JT may someday run 2:10 but his 2:13 yesterday is not a 2:10 on Berlin. |
Sure it is. |
Meb ran 2:09 yesterday. That would mean that Meb would have run 2:06 yesterday. Right. Meb is a nice guy, but he still a 2:09 guy. Frankly, I bet he ran better than he might have elsewhere, primarily because he had a chance to win.
Torres ran 2:13 yesterday.
As for your analysis it is pretty worthless, I agree NYC is slower, but not 3 minutes slower. But a straight comparison these days is misleading.
Torres is a fine runner, but still a 2:13 runner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: |
Meb ran 2:09 yesterday. That would mean that Meb would have run 2:06 yesterday. Right. Meb is a nice guy, but he still a 2:09 guy. Frankly, I bet he ran better than he might have elsewhere, primarily because he had a chance to win.
Torres ran 2:13 yesterday.
As for your analysis it is pretty worthless, I agree NYC is slower, but not 3 minutes slower. But a straight comparison these days is misleading.
Torres is a fine runner, but still a 2:13 runner. |
I do know that many of the top marathon coaches and agents in the world have taken to heart my analysis of the time bias at the major marathons.I think there's a good reason why no one cares about your utterly worthless opinion here. Go ahead, now throw rocks at me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mighty Favog
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 619
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wineturtle wrote: | | What is Ken Youngs NYCM bias amount? |
On average it's 42 seconds, but yesterday's conditions beat the crap out of most runners and I assume it will be more (he hasn't updated yet). In recent years it's ranged between 34 seconds (2001) to 2:40 (2003) slower than what would have been expected by his calculations. For comparison's sake, London is typically 45 seconds or so faster than what would be expected. The 3:00 number being tossed around is on the long end of reasonable, but not outside the bounds of being so.
Young's calculations don't try to explain why a race is faster or slower than would otherwise be expected, just that it is. Like wind/altitude corrections in the sprints, it only has so much meaning but does help us make some sense of marks made under widely varying conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| malmo wrote: | | Conor Dary wrote: |
Meb ran 2:09 yesterday. That would mean that Meb would have run 2:06 yesterday. Right. Meb is a nice guy, but he still a 2:09 guy. Frankly, I bet he ran better than he might have elsewhere, primarily because he had a chance to win.
Torres ran 2:13 yesterday.
As for your analysis it is pretty worthless, I agree NYC is slower, but not 3 minutes slower. But a straight comparison these days is misleading.
Torres is a fine runner, but still a 2:13 runner. |
I do know that many of the top marathon coaches and agents in the world have taken to heart my analysis of the time bias at the major marathons.I think there's a good reason why no one cares about your utterly worthless opinion here. Go ahead, now throw rocks at me. |
Oh, malmo it so easy to get a rise out out you. If volcanoes were as easy to predict we would all be safer.
Rock #1. One reason your list is meaningless is motivation. I agree NYC is a slower marathon, perhaps by a minute or so. But even if it is only 30 seconds, if I was capable of running 2:05 or so, and wanted to run fast New York would not be on my list.
Let us suppose Geb ran NY next year. Now, I assume he would not go for time, but go for the win, even if it is a slow pace. Thus if Geb won in 2:09, has he faded that much? Perhaps, but we wouldn't know for sure.
Until we have someone run NY with the same motivation and pace as Chicago or Berlin, we won't know. In the meantime, Meb is not a 2:06 runner and neither was Dixon, or even Salazar, but by your analysis that is what we get.
I have more rocks waiting.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
26mi235
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 7402
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: |
Meb ran 2:09 yesterday. That would mean that Meb would have run 2:06 yesterday. Right. Meb is a nice guy, but he still a 2:09 guy. Frankly, I bet he ran better than he might have elsewhere, primarily because he had a chance to win.
Torres ran 2:13 yesterday.
As for your analysis it is pretty worthless, I agree NYC is slower, but not 3 minutes slower. But a straight comparison these days is misleading.
Torres is a fine runner, but still a 2:13 runner. |
Torres is a very smooth runner and no slouch. Thinking it is not feasible for him to run 2:11 or even 2:10 in London seems to be extremely circumscribed in what you think people can do.
As for Meb, I suggest that you go look at the second half of the OG marathon, where ALL the marbles were on the line and where many had an incentive to be at their best. I was amazed at how fast they were running. Sure, the first half was measured, but it was measured for such runners as Tergat, a WR holder and all of the others and they could not come close to matching Meb. He was in such good shape that he came back soon thereafter and got second in NYC. He beat all those 2:05, 2:06, 2:07, 2:08 guys, and not with a lean but by a good fraction of a kilometer. Meb has shown that he has the leg speed necessary to run 2:06 on a pancake course with his 10,000 time.
You have a pretty good background in this sport but draw awfully strong conclusions about what a pretty accomplished runner couldn't (possibly, given your dismissive comment) do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daisy
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 8769
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What I don't understand is why the concept of "basic" for the sprints is worthless but adjusting times from different marathon courses is a worthwhile exercise? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 26mi235 wrote: | | Conor Dary wrote: |
Meb ran 2:09 yesterday. That would mean that Meb would have run 2:06 yesterday. Right. Meb is a nice guy, but he still a 2:09 guy. Frankly, I bet he ran better than he might have elsewhere, primarily because he had a chance to win.
Torres ran 2:13 yesterday.
As for your analysis it is pretty worthless, I agree NYC is slower, but not 3 minutes slower. But a straight comparison these days is misleading.
Torres is a fine runner, but still a 2:13 runner. |
Torres is a very smooth runner and no slouch. Thinking it is not feasible for him to run 2:11 or even 2:10 in London seems to be extremely circumscribed in what you think people can do.
As for Meb, I suggest that you go look at the second half of the OG marathon, where ALL the marbles were on the line and where many had an incentive to be at their best. I was amazed at how fast they were running. Sure, the first half was measured, but it was measured for such runners as Tergat, a WR holder and all of the others and they could not come close to matching Meb. He was in such good shape that he came back soon thereafter and got second in NYC. He beat all those 2:05, 2:06, 2:07, 2:08 guys, and not with a lean but by a good fraction of a kilometer. Meb has shown that he has the leg speed necessary to run 2:06 on a pancake course with his 10,000 time.
You have a pretty good background in this sport but draw awfully strong conclusions about what a pretty accomplished runner couldn't (possibly, given your dismissive comment) do. |
I never said Torres could not run 2:10. He has the potential and very well could run that in London or even NY. My disagreement was with the statement,
'And 2:13:00 in NY is like 2:10 or even 2:09 in Berlin or London, from what we have seen of comparative times.'
Which I have argued is nonsense.
As for Meb beating 2:05 or 06 guys? So what? Conditions were difficult. A tough course and very warm. We know Meb trained for those conditions and maybe his opponents did not.
Would Meb had run 2:05 when his opponents did? Perhaps, but the evidence from his marathon career says no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daisy wrote: | | What I don't understand is why the concept of "basic" for the sprints is worthless but adjusting times from different marathon courses is a worthwhile exercise? |
Because motivation is different in a marathon.
I agree NY is a slower course than Berlin or Chicago. But not 3 minutes, and just comparing times doesn't give a complete picture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
26mi235
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 7402
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: | | Daisy wrote: | | What I don't understand is why the concept of "basic" for the sprints is worthless but adjusting times from different marathon courses is a worthwhile exercise? |
Because motivation is different in a marathon.
I agree NY is a slower course than Berlin or Chicago. But not 3 minutes, and just comparing times doesn't give a complete picture. |
One hole (possibly pluggble, not plugged yet) is that what makes it slower for the fastest guy also makes it slower for the guys you are saying cannot run much fast. So, maybe if you run NYC harder to get the max time there you get a minute or two faster. Next the course now nets out as only a minute slower than the pancakes. However, the net result is the same: Meb runs 2:07:30-2:08:00 in NYC and then 2:06:30. 2:13 becomes 2:11+ and then 2:10+. You have to argue that these runners that can not run top times are maxed out at NYC but the 'studs' (who did not win the very lucrative major) have a lot of upside. Where is that razor.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 26mi235 wrote: | | Conor Dary wrote: | | Daisy wrote: | | What I don't understand is why the concept of "basic" for the sprints is worthless but adjusting times from different marathon courses is a worthwhile exercise? |
Because motivation is different in a marathon.
I agree NY is a slower course than Berlin or Chicago. But not 3 minutes, and just comparing times doesn't give a complete picture. |
One hole (possibly pluggble, not plugged yet) is that what makes it slower for the fastest guy also makes it slower for the guys you are saying cannot run much fast. So, maybe if you run NYC harder to get the max time there you get a minute or two faster. Next the course now nets out as only a minute slower than the pancakes. However, the net result is the same: Meb runs 2:07:30-2:08:00 in NYC and then 2:06:30. 2:13 becomes 2:11+ and then 2:10+. You have to argue that these runners that can not run top times are maxed out at NYC but the 'studs' (who did not win the very lucrative major) have a lot of upside. Where is that razor.... |
Ah...could you translate? Because I don't have the slightest idea what it is you wrote.
Never mind. I do believe Torres is a fine talent and I wouldn't be surprised if he runs 2:09 in the near future.
But lets not get carried away in the meantime.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
26mi235
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 7402
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: |
Ah...could you translate? Because I don't have the slightest idea what it is you wrote. |
Your comment was essentially that the running strategy at NYC is different and results in slower times. Thus, there is not really a 2-3 minute differential, but a 1+min differential. Let us posit that that is true. Unless there is an argument that the racing strategy which slows some runners down by a 1 or 2 does not apply to Torres and Meb this strategy element means that they could have run 2:08:00 and 2:11:xx (that is, the strategy slows them down as well). Then, when adjusting for this strategy effect the NYC course itself only slows down the runners by a minute compared to London, et al.
We end up at the same place because now when running the London time trial Meb is 1+ minute faster than 2:08:00 (2:06-2:07:00) and Torres is 1+ minute faster than 2:11:xx (i.e., 2:10:xx). Now, is that easier to follow? [Again, I am not saying you might not make an argument why the strategy change is worth a minute to the Kenyans but not the Americans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DrJay
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 3513
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe we'll get to see Torres on a flat course in the spring. London? I suspect he isn't going to improve much more in the 5K or 10K. At 29, if he wants to make the marathon his event, I don't see him waiting 12 months for his second one, and I suspect he's pleased as punch with his run at NYC. He'll be excited and itching to have another go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: |
Because motivation is different in a marathon. . |
In 40 years in the sport and of the hundreds of athletes I've known and trained with I've never heard of anyone uttering such nonsense -- not even once. Clearly we travel in different circles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| malmo wrote: | | Conor Dary wrote: |
Because motivation is different in a marathon. . |
In 40 years in the sport and of the hundreds of athletes I've known and trained with I've never heard of anyone uttering such nonsense -- not even once. Clearly we travel in different circles. |
I also have been in the sport over 40 years, known and trained with hundreds and yes we travel in different circles...which fortunately do not intersect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gabriella
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 45
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
While it's obvious certain courses are quicker, it's hard to make a direct comparison. They occur at different times in the year for a start, so it all depends on what each athlete is peaking for. Can marathon runners peak twice or three times a year? I don't know, most other athletes can't. How many athletes run London and NYC in the same year? Or Berlin and London? Or a major champs marathon and London? All this affects which races are quicker. Hell, maybe when an athlete is at his or her peak year, they only even run a fast course, which would further skewif the results? I don't know.
I kind of see Conor's point that what motivates an athlete for one race may not be the same for another race. If athletes know they're running on a slow course then they do not run for a fast time, so maybe they don't break so soon, or whatever.
There was some comparative data posted about Gotzis vs Talence heptathlons (by me) which showed clearly that the standard at Gotzis was much greater. Why would this be? The greats have competed in both meets, so why should Gotzis be better than Talence? It can't be simply down to 'the track'. I know a majority of marathon runners do not peak for a major champs the same way a heptathlete does, but that still doesn't account for the fact that many heptathletes set their PB's at Gotzis and not the major champs. Is it more likely to be down to where it sits in the calendar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuha
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 5668
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gabriella wrote: | | I kind of see Conor's point that what motivates an athlete for one race may not be the same for another race. If athletes know they're running on a slow course then they do not run for a fast time, so maybe they don't break so soon, or whatever. |
Yes, I think this is the heart of it. Malmo's numbers are interesting--and absolutely confirm what we all "knew" to begin with--that the NYC race isn't a fast one. However, moving from that general observation to a more fine-tuned judgment on the "actual" time difference between that course and other courses is very problematic. The basic point is, as Conor outlines, the very real fact that NYC is "known" as a "slow" (or at least, "not fast") course. Thus, from the start, it can pretty much be assumed that none of the elites are racing "for time" only. They're running for place, which is just fine, but that represents a slightly different mind-set than at Berlin or London, for example.
And, in terms of "incentives," it would be very interesting to know what financial payments there might be for various time benchmarks (sub-2:06, sub-2:08, etc.) at these various races. Also, how much effort goes into world-class pacesetting? There's obviously a great effort in that regard in Berlin, very little in NYC. All of these are not insignificant factors...
It's obvious that the NYC course isn't as fast as Berlin, London, etc. Quantifying that difference remains a dicey enterprise... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
26mi235
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 7402
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree that the nature of the course alters the race strategy and objectives individually and collectively. However, using the term 'motivation' is the wrong label. They are motivated to race as fast as they can, but their strategy is not that of running a time-trial form of race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuha
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 5668
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 26mi235 wrote: | | I agree that the nature of the course alters the race strategy and objectives individually and collectively. However, using the term 'motivation' is the wrong label. They are motivated to race as fast as they can, but their strategy is not that of running a time-trial form of race. |
I agree in part. The point on a NYC-style course is to run as "intelligently" and as "successfully" as possible--NOT strictly "as fast as they can." However, given the nature of the Berlin and London races, flat-out speed is of greater importance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dutra
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1527
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
malmo's analysis is interesting however is the conclusion that because statistically NYC is 3 minutes slower than some other major marathons that a guy who runs 2:09 in NY will run 2:06 in London or Berlin?
There are so many variables involved that it's possible that there are factors built into the NYC course which allow a runner such as Meb to beat a guy who's run 2:06 on a flat quick course.
For instance, it's possible that a 27:20 guy could beat a 26:40 guy over a 10km XC race yet not smell the faster guy on the track or come all that close to 26:40. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
26mi235
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 7402
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| These guys are running reasonably hard the first portion of the race; enough so that a number of contenders drop when they turn on to 1st or is it 5th and the Ramallas in the race accelerate. From there on out it is hard and the attrition rate is high. Look at how quickly people drop in London versus NY -- I got to say that London is a lot easier to finish with some success once things go south than is NYC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 26mi235 wrote: | | These guys are running reasonably hard the first portion of the race; enough so that a number of contenders drop when they turn on to 1st or is it 5th and the Ramallas in the race accelerate. From there on out it is hard and the attrition rate is high. Look at how quickly people drop in London versus NY -- I got to say that London is a lot easier to finish with some success once things go south than is NYC. |
Exactly. The historical splits for NYC are available to anyone willing to their own research. There is no dearth of fast running at New York -- with large packs of 2:06/2:07 types making it to Manhattan together, only to break down because of the aggregate effect of the course (bridges).
When taking multiple snapshops -- comparisons of athletes PRs against their best on designated courses, or comparing the times that individuals who have run on different courses against each other. -- no matter how you slice it, NYC is the slowest marathon course.
Last edited by malmo on Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dutra wrote: | | malmo's analysis is interesting however is the conclusion that because statistically NYC is 3 minutes slower than some other major marathons that a guy who runs 2:09 in NY will run 2:06 in London or Berlin? |
No, "wuddas" are NOT the conclusion to be drawn here.
What I am showing is a comparison of ACTUAL RESULTS between courses.
Those athletes who have run both New York and those other courses run significantly faster outside of New York, to no one's surprise.
Of the 22 runners who ran both New York and London (avg PR 2:08:30), they ran 1:56 faster at London.
Of the 12 runners (avg PR 2:09:38) who ran both NYC and Berlin, they averaged 2:53 faster at Berlin.
New York is a slow marathon course. This is not rocket science here. Since they are based on the AVERAGE result it would be fair to assume that someone who runs 2:09 at New York would probably run at least a 1:30 faster on Berlins course. The guy who ran 2:13 at New York would probably run 2:00 to 3:00 faster at Berlin. If they ran 2:16 at New York they'd probably run 5-6 minutes faster at Berlin. Remember you are comparing apples to apples here - that is ... how 2:09 performers fare on different courses. These runners do not explode with the same severity on flat courses the way they do in NYC between 1st avenue and the entrance to Central Park.
Last edited by malmo on Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:20 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the guys who run 2:20 will run 10 minutes faster, and the 3 hour guys will go 50 minutes faster....
Gee at that rate they will finish together.
So a 2:09 guy only gets a 90 sec disadvantage but a guy 4 minutes behind is disadvantaged 3 minutes. Why is that? Some secret force? A timeline continuum? Or are you just fitting the facts to your theory?
Some people run faster at Berlin and London. We all knew that.
But why they run faster, involves a number of factors, pacers, payments, motivation...and difficulty of the course.
But you take a simplistic straight comparison between times and say it is the course and only the course.
So saying 2:13 at NY = 2:10 at Berlin is meaningless statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mighty Favog
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 619
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose the words "multiple linear regression" wouldn't hold a lot of meaning to many here, but that's exactly how we do this kind of stuff. It's not voodoo.
Does it mean that Meb can run 2:06? Not necessarily. It does mean you shouldn't be surprised when he beats multiple runners who have recently run 2:06, because he's just as "good" as they are. Meb's two greatest successes (Athens '04 and Sunday) have come under less-than-speedy conditions, but I'm not ready to say that means he's better suited to those kinds of races. It's entirely possible that pure bad luck kept him from being physically at his best in other races. And at 34, with a lot of marathons under his belt, he might not have another good one in him. On the other hand he might, which is what makes watching these things interesting... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor Dary
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1643
Location: Ronald MacDonald's Home Town.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mighty Favog wrote: | | I suppose the words "multiple linear regression" wouldn't hold a lot of meaning to many here, but that's exactly how we do this kind of stuff. It's not voodoo. |
I have 3 degrees in mathematics so yes I know what it means...
One final time....
My disagreement was with the statement:
'And 2:13:00 in NY is like 2:10 or even 2:09 in Berlin or London, from what we have seen of comparative times.'
Why? Because some guys run such and such a time here and such and such a time there. What if Torres comes back to run 2:10 in NYC , does that mean NY is a faster course....
Torres ran 2:13 in NY and that is all there is to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1623
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Random second-hand observation regarding data and statistics:
Today I made an appearance downtown
I am an expert witness because I say I am
And I said gentlemen, and I use that world loosely
I will testify for you, I'm a gun for hire,I'm a saint, I'm a liar
Because there are no facts, there is no truth
Just data to be manipulated
I can get you any result you like
What's it worth to you?
Artist/Band: Don Henley
Album: Actual Miles-Henley's Greatest
http://www.elyrics.net/song/d/don-henley-lyrics.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CookyMonzta
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 1119
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
May I chime in for a second? Ten years ago, Joseph Chebet ran 2:09:52 in Boston and 2:09:14 in NYC to win them both. Despite the fact that there were a 34 guys faster than him (assuming I didn't miss anybody), and Khalid Khannouchi ran a WR 2:05:42 in Chicago that year, Chebet ranked #1 (if I'm not mistaken), and probably because they took into consideration that those courses were harder...
...Or am I indeed mistaken, and he ranked #1 in 1998, for his 2nd-place finishes (2:07:37 in Boston, behind Moses Tanui's 2:07:34, and 2:08:48 in NY, behind Sammy Korir's 2:08:13), despite Ronaldo da Costa's WR 2:06:05 in Berlin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: | And the guys who run 2:20 will run 10 minutes faster, and the 3 hour guys will go 50 minutes faster....
t. |
In that absence of anything to offer on this topic you go from silly to idiotic.
Par for the course. Keep throwing rocks, you'll eventually break some windows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
malmo
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Posts: 4360
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Conor Dary wrote: | [
Why? Because some guys run such and such a time here and such and such a time there. What if Torres comes back to run 2:10 in NYC , does that mean NY is a faster course..... |
Bravo, continued childish logic.
No it doesn't. The is the average performance for those who ran both courses. If Torres runs 2:10 at New York it simply suggest that he is capapble of running much faster on either London or Berlin.
Quit being an ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
