While Reading Lore Of Running...

David, in all due respect, using & comparing the Chicago Marathon as a
reference point & in the context of the language "World Record" is a distorted
& misplaced.

The Chicago Marathon is and has always been the "low bar". In fact they
actually altered the end of the course a couple of years ago making it approx.
20 seconds faster for the elites. I believe it's Chicago and Berlin that are
the notorious less challenging (to be politically correct) fast tracks.

No disrespect for the amazing Steve Jones. Just appropriate due context should
be noted if you're going to start taking Chicago times, and comparing them to
London, Boston, NYC, etc. (Steve's splits should only be compared to previous
splits at the Chicago Marathon). Going beyond that is a distortion.

Lanceandrew said:

David, in all due respect, using & comparing the Chicago Marathon as a
reference point & in the context of the language "World Record" is a distorted
& misplaced.

The Chicago Marathon is and has always been the "low bar". In fact they
actually altered the end of the course a couple of years ago making it approx.
20 seconds faster for the elites. I believe it's Chicago and Berlin that are
the notorious less challenging (to be politically correct) fast tracks.

No disrespect for the amazing Steve Jones. Just appropriate due context should
be noted if you're going to start taking Chicago times, and comparing them to
London, Boston, NYC, etc. (Steve's splits should only be compared to previous
splits at the Chicago Marathon). Going beyond that is a distortion.

Yeah, like we _all_ wish we could run even 5 minute miles...

From the point I gather the issues is what happens to
endurance post 20 miles or so?

From the point I gather the issues is what happens to endurance post 20 miles
or so?
___

what happens to endurance post 20 miles varies on the remaining 6.2 miles of
the Marathon course. to suggest otherwise would be to say topology/terrain has
no influence on endurance.

And many feel the marathon doesn't really start until you get to this point, 20
miles or so into the course. In sum, "course matters". Just as altitude for
that matter and all the other variables impacting physiology.

When you start placing one marathon time in comparison and in the context of
other marathon times on other courses with their own unique variables....it's
viewing with the flawed lens of distortion, that's all.

Lanceandrew said:

From the point I gather the issues is what happens to endurance post 20 miles
or so?
___

what happens to endurance post 20 miles varies on the remaining 6.2 miles of
the Marathon course. to suggest otherwise would be to say topology/terrain has
no influence on endurance.

I think that depends on a number of factors..

Quoted message said:

And many feel the marathon doesn't really start until you get to this point, 20
miles or so into the course. In sum, "course matters". Just as altitude for
that matter and all the other variables impacting physiology.

variables & physiology, yes.

Quoted message said:

When you start placing one marathon time in comparison and in the context of
other marathon times on other courses with their own unique variables....it's
viewing with the flawed lens of distortion, that's all.

uh, maybe just the unpredictable human element...

Positive splits seem to be the norm for the vast majority of people in
marathons - and I'm sure it's the same for every race category - which
suggests that "perfect" even pacing is almost impossible for most people to
achieve.

Though probably even Steve Jones would blow up in a big way 9 out of 10
times using that same strategy in other marathons; there's something to be
said for going out hard and trying to hang on, particularly in shorter
races.

It would be really interesting to see split statistics on a wide variety of
races, mostly for winners, but also for runners in general.

-Tony

SwStudio wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

I like reading Lore Of Running when sitting around. I just open
it to a random page and often find myself engrossed for hours.
I was reading about Steve Jones.

In late1985, he ran the Chicago Marathon and won it in 2:07:13.

The WR has been lowered by over two minutes since then and at
the time his win was only the second fastest in the world (by two
seconds), but it's his splits that I find remarkable. Jones was a
reckless racer who ran with his heart. He ran the first half of that
marathon in 1:01:42. That's 4:43/mile or 2:56/km.

To give you an idea of how shocking a pace that was, the half
marathon WR at the time was 1:01:14... only twenty-eight seconds
faster. Who held this record? Steve Jones, done only a couple
months previously after a night attending a friend's wedding where
he was seen drinking "several pints of strong cider".

Back to the Chicago marathon. When he reached the 20 mile mark
his time was 1:35:22 - he had slowed only a fraction.

He ran the last four miles in 20:31, suffering slightly from his early
pace but winning the race nonetheless.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

David, in all due respect, using & comparing the Chicago Marathon as a
reference point & in the context of the language "World Record" is a
distorted
& misplaced.

The Chicago marathon is a certified course of 26.2 flat (not downhill)
miles. It's run in Chicago, not the twilight zone. There's no distortion
unless your headphones are up too high again.

Quoted message said:

The Chicago Marathon is and has always been the "low bar". In fact they
actually altered the end of the course a couple of years ago making it
approx.
20 seconds faster for the elites. I believe it's Chicago and Berlin that
are
the notorious less challenging (to be politically correct) fast tracks.

ummm.... okay. So let me get this right, Lance. If a race is
flat and has few turns it's the "low bar", meaning it's faster than
a hilly course with more turns. Let me tell you, I'm glad you
got that off your chest because I've been wondering about that
for years now.

Quoted message said:

No disrespect for the amazing Steve Jones. Just appropriate due context
should
be noted if you're going to start taking Chicago times, and comparing them
to
London, Boston, NYC, etc. (Steve's splits should only be compared to
previous
splits at the Chicago Marathon). Going beyond that is a distortion.

Show me where I made these comparisons. What I *did* do
was mention the WR for marathon, not whether it was run on
a harder course than another.

No one was comparing anything to anything here. You made it
all up in your head.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON)
www.allfalldown.org
www.absolutelyaccurate.com

SwStudio said:

Show me where I made these comparisons. What I *did* do
was mention the WR for marathon, not whether it was run on
a harder course than another.

No one was comparing anything to anything here. You made it
all up in your head.

I take it that when you use the term "WR for marathon", you are talking
about a marathon that was run faster than *any* prior marathon. Implicit
in the notion of such a "WR" is a comparison between that marathon and
every marathon that has ever been run by anybody. If you weren't comparing
this marathon to others, you would have said "course record". But you didn't,
so the comparison is implicit.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

dave, read your initial post. you directly reference Jones' time in Chicago
against a global reference point (the WR). you asked readers to _compare_ the
Chicago time against the WR. i read your words and did not make anything up.

all i was doing is saying a frame of context is warranted when comparing
marathons times universally.

remember...you canucks are supposed to be a lot more mellow than this david.
chill. no need to defend the chicago marathon like you did. lots of marathons
pride themselves on being fast tracks. if you look, you'll learn 2 courses
(chicago & berlin) account for about 50% of the marathon record breaking that
takes place...(the top 10 fastest marathon times) routinely.

i think chicago is recogized as the fastest course, followed by berlin, and
then rottadam. houston likes to brag about being faster than chicago...just
not as popular...and tucson of course is a 2500 elevation drop downhill course
with 1 turn.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I take it that when you use the term "WR for marathon", you are talking
about a marathon that was run faster than *any* prior marathon. Implicit
in the notion of such a "WR" is a comparison between that marathon and
every marathon that has ever been run by anybody. If you weren't comparing
this marathon to others, you would have said "course record". But you didn't,
so the comparison is implicit.

The media at the time were quite willing to call Jones' race a world record.
(Some were more careful and called it a world best, as there was no official
world marathon record at the time.)

I remember watching that race on network TV. It was exciting knowing that
he was going to be close to the record, and it almost slipped away in the
last couple of miles.

I think a lot of people felt at the time that because Jones was only able
to better the existing record (which had stood for a long time iirc) by one
second on one of the world's fastest courses, it argued that 2:07 was
approaching some kind of ultimate limit in marathon performance.

Indeed it was quite a while before anyone (Densimo?) finally took the
record under 2:07. After that ... well, you all know what happened after that.
So much for ultimate limits.

--
************************************************************************
Terry R. McConnell Mathematics/215 Carnegie/Syracuse, N.Y. 13244-1150
[email hidden] 229B Physics Bldg http://barnyard.syr.edu/~tmc
************************************************************************

at least golf courses have "par" reference points per hole which brings a bit
more fair consideration & context in the equation. but shooting a 76 at the
British Open is a hell of a lot more difficult than shooting a 76 at the
Masters. The number in itself does not reflect the reality of the varying
difficulty of the courses. Golf though does a much better job and
communicates in a language accuracy in saying "course records" as opposed to
saying "world records".

since everyone seems to want to run Boston & it's a common reference
point...wouldn't it be interesting if Boston scored all these races they
sanction as BQ races? For example The Twin Cities Marathon is a hell of a lot
more challenging than Houston....perhaps in the interest of fairness and giving
the public a more even playing field...their BQ qualifying times should reflect
their separate & distinct challange. As it now stands, it's an uneven playing
field unless you can travel to an easier course.

I know people here in NYC that specifically fly to Chicago and run that race to
BQ. No M is easy but "cherry picking" does take place at the marathon level
even for weekend warriors. And note Boston itself will soon be changing its
course as the IAAF plans to require runners trying to meet the Olympic standard
to do so on courses with a net elevation drop of no more than 126 feet.
Boston now is at 500 feet.....and if Boston wants to adhere & meet that IAAF
standard...the course will have to change (and I hear it will in '06 or '07).

Leafing through rec.running, I read SwStudio's message of 08 Dec 2004:

Quoted message said:

I like reading Lore Of Running when sitting around. I just open
it to a random page and often find myself engrossed for hours.
I was reading about Steve Jones.

In late1985, he ran the Chicago Marathon and won it in 2:07:13.

The WR has been lowered by over two minutes since then and at
the time his win was only the second fastest in the world (by two
seconds), but it's his splits that I find remarkable. Jones was a
reckless racer who ran with his heart. He ran the first half of that
marathon in 1:01:42. That's 4:43/mile or 2:56/km.

In the book "Running With the Legends" there is a chapter about Steve
Jones. One of his "trademarks" was pushing himself to the extent that he
would vomit. He says, "If I'm still standing at the end of the race, hit me
with a board and knock me down. Because that means I didn't run hard
enough."

Phil M.

"Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

at least golf courses have "par" reference points per hole which brings a
bit
more fair consideration & context in the equation. but shooting a 76 at
the
British Open is a hell of a lot more difficult than shooting a 76 at the
Masters. The number in itself does not reflect the reality of the varying
difficulty of the courses. Golf though does a much better job and
communicates in a language accuracy in saying "course records" as opposed
to
saying "world records".

since everyone seems to want to run Boston & it's a common reference
point...wouldn't it be interesting if Boston scored all these races they
sanction as BQ races? For example The Twin Cities Marathon is a hell of a
lot
more challenging than Houston....perhaps in the interest of fairness and
giving
the public a more even playing field...their BQ qualifying times should
reflect
their separate & distinct challange. As it now stands, it's an uneven
playing
field unless you can travel to an easier course.

I know people here in NYC that specifically fly to Chicago and run that
race to
BQ. No M is easy but "cherry picking" does take place at the marathon
level
even for weekend warriors. And note Boston itself will soon be changing
its
course as the IAAF plans to require runners trying to meet the Olympic
standard
to do so on courses with a net elevation drop of no more than 126 feet.
Boston now is at 500 feet.....and if Boston wants to adhere & meet that
IAAF
standard...the course will have to change (and I hear it will in '06 or
'07).

Could you point to an article supporting what you assert about Boston? I
have been busy for the past few weeks and missed this report and the change
in the requirements for meeting qualifying times.

Even comparing course to course times is difficult since:
1) the course changes over years. The course for 2004 was different than
the course I ran in 1993.
2) weather makes the marathon even more difficult to compare.

Regardless, it is interesting observation. No need to rip it apart.

"Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dave, read your initial post. you directly reference Jones' time in
Chicago
against a global reference point (the WR). you asked readers to _compare_
the
Chicago time against the WR. i read your words and did not make anything
up.

all i was doing is saying a frame of context is warranted when comparing
marathons times universally.

remember...you canucks are supposed to be a lot more mellow than this
david.
chill. no need to defend the chicago marathon like you did. lots of
marathons
pride themselves on being fast tracks. if you look, you'll learn 2
courses
(chicago & berlin) account for about 50% of the marathon record breaking
that
takes place...(the top 10 fastest marathon times) routinely.

i think chicago is recogized as the fastest course, followed by berlin,
and
then rottadam. houston likes to brag about being faster than
chicago...just
not as popular...and tucson of course is a 2500 elevation drop downhill
course
with 1 turn.

Sam said:

Could you point to an article supporting what you assert about

Boston? I

Quoted message said:

have been busy for the past few weeks and missed this report and the

change

Quoted message said:

in the requirements for meeting qualifying times.

Methinks someone has received a rather garbled version of this news
item: http://www.bostonmarathon.org/News.asp?NewsID=124

In a nutshell 1) the Boston Marathon course will not be tampered with,
but 2) the bid for the 2008 US Marathon Trials includes a design for a
new, flat, fast, multiple lap course.

I, too, seriously doubt that the IAAF has made or is planning to make
any changes in the requirements; it´ll still suffice to qualify in a
marathon sanctioned by the IAAF or a national federation.

Anders

Lanceandrew said:

David, in all due respect, using & comparing the Chicago Marathon as

a

Quoted message said:

reference point & in the context of the language "World Record" is a

distorted

Quoted message said:

& misplaced.

Since the World Records run in Chicago have been sanctioned by the IAAF
(for as long as there have been official road racing records), you´re
making what strikes me as a rather silly argument.

The comparison was between Jones´ time on a flat fast course in 1985
and the current world record (which was run on - surprise, surprise -
on a flat, fast course). It could be argued that someone somewhere (on
a slower, hillier, hotter or otherwise "more challenging" course) has
run a better "course-adjusted" time, but the exercise would IMHO be
pointless.

Quoted message said:

The Chicago Marathon is and has always been the "low bar". In fact

they

Quoted message said:

actually altered the end of the course a couple of years ago making

it approx.

Quoted message said:

20 seconds faster for the elites. I believe it's Chicago and Berlin

that are

Quoted message said:

the notorious less challenging (to be politically correct) fast

tracks.

How challenging a certain race is depends greatly on the quality and
quantity of the competitors one is going to meet:-) I´ll gladly admit
that I would be no exception in that I, too, would (optimally) run a
faster time in Berlin than in Boston, but there´s no way you´re going
to get me to say that Chicago is less challenging than New York, for
instance.

That some soft sack is able to beat your hard-won NYCM time or to
barely qualify for Boston by flying to Chicago is something you should
just accept:-)

Quoted message said:

No disrespect for the amazing Steve Jones. Just appropriate due

context should

Quoted message said:

be noted if you're going to start taking Chicago times, and comparing

them to

Quoted message said:

London, Boston, NYC, etc. (Steve's splits should only be compared to

previous

Quoted message said:

splits at the Chicago Marathon). Going beyond that is a distortion.

IMHO Steve´s splits were compared with 1) his own HM record (which was
presumably run on an equally flat and fast course), and 2) each other
(which were presumably fairly equal, unlike in some other marathons).

BTW and FWIW if we assume(1)that the performances behind the course
records in the above marathon were equal, Chicago is about 1.5min
faster than Boston and 2.0min faster than New York, but 5s slower than
London.

(1) We probably shouldn´t; it could well be that Khannouchi´s or De
Costa´s races were closer to being the best ever.

Anders

"Lanceandrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

since everyone seems to want to run Boston & it's a common reference
point...wouldn't it be interesting if Boston scored all these races
they
sanction as BQ races? For example The Twin Cities Marathon is a hell
of a lot
more challenging than Houston....perhaps in the interest of fairness
and giving
the public a more even playing field...their BQ qualifying times
should reflect
their separate & distinct challange. As it now stands, it's an uneven
playing
field unless you can travel to an easier course.

Why in their right mind would want to tackle saomething like this? All
you would do is set yourself(the race) up a massive pissing contest.

Quoted message said:

I know people here in NYC that specifically fly to Chicago and run
that race to
BQ.

I went to Atlantic city. There is a backlash to this cherry picking, it
gets you the dance only once. The percentage of those that find easy
qualifiers and [censored] the bed at their first Boston is high. There is a
mental lapse that fails to remind first time runners to up their
training if they want to requalify at Boston each year.

Quoted message said:

And note Boston itself will soon be changing its
course as the IAAF plans to require runners trying to meet the Olympic
standard
to do so on courses with a net elevation drop of no more than 126
feet.
Boston now is at 500 feet.....and if Boston wants to adhere & meet
that IAAF
standard...the course will have to change (and I hear it will in '06
or '07).

Somehow I doubt they will change the course. Would changing the course
to snag some Olympic folks help them make more money not once every four
years but every year? The course is the curse is the course and what
makes the race notorious/infamous. Contrary to the 500 foot loss this
is not an easy/fast race. If they did change the course I would hope
they would make it a big loop and remove the damn bus ride. Riding in a
grammar school bus with two inches of leg room is fun maybe once.

-DougF

Quoted message said:

Could you point to an article supporting what you assert about Boston?

__

not sure what you mean? i am asserting widely known, documented, and published
facts with the parties therein (baa, iaaf). both those ogranizations can
confirm these facts. specifically, the iaaf has changed, effective post
athens, the course standard of the "marathon" event. it's probably spelled out
in language in rule 260. e). where the elevation standard is defined.
boston has a net elevation drop of nearly 500'.

any maration course with an elevation drop exceeding 126 feet will not meet the
iaaf standards, olympic standards, and times achieved on such courses will not
be recognized by the iaaf. the iaaf has informed the RDs of marathons all
over the world that this is coming. they've given RD's 2 years to bring
courses in line with iaaf standards...all this will formally be in place at the
end of '06 in time for '08 olympic hopefuls looking to race/qualify in '07.

a marathon can choose to disregard having their course conform to iaaf and
olympic standards but that will be a self-defeating posture/stance. it's
imparative for a big city marathon to attract a strong field of elites &
sponsor$. if boston were to take a "stuffy" posture and did not bring their
course to adhere to iaaf standards, you would see a gradual shift of elites
(and money) migrating to Spring big city marathons in Europe that were iaaf
sanctioned, etc.
the money/revenue streams in marathoning is directly tied into iaaf
recognition/sanctioning.

furthermore boston not having their course be iaaf sanctioned would play right
into ING's hands and be a tremendous strategic business blunder. makes no
sense not to be an iaaf course on many levels...

Sam wrote in message
<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Even comparing course to course times is difficult since:
1) the course changes over years. The course for 2004 was different than
the course I ran in 1993.
2) weather makes the marathon even more difficult to compare.

Regardless, it is interesting observation. No need to rip it apart.

It's that he came so close to the world best time while running such a
wildly positive split, with the first HM begin not far off the HM world best
time. Anything else about the course is missing the point.

-Tony

Phil M. wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

snip<
In the book "Running With the Legends" there is a chapter about Steve
Jones. One of his "trademarks" was pushing himself to the extent that he
would vomit. He says, "If I'm still standing at the end of the race, hit me
with a board and knock me down. Because that means I didn't run hard
enough."

Phil M.

What fun, not, must have had a short career.

-T