3 ms·

I don't know why runners are so snobby when it comes things like this. What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back.

I don't know why runners are so snobby when it comes things like this. What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. Would you consider that achievement worse than perfect lab like conditions? It's a certain distance, by foot. That's it. I also see snobbishness and even anger toward run-walkers. Even if they do the same distance in the same conditions.

teamhappy 9y ago
> What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. The courses need to follow certain rules to mitigate the effect of tailwinds, slopes and things like that. That's why Boston isn't eligible for world records. Here's the rule: "The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." (http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html)
- appleiigs 9y ago
  Ok cool. Thanks for the information. But just to address the original comments: "It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.".... We do consider the Boston Marathon to be a marathon, right?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 9y ago
    They're different types of marathon. Boston is a real marathon, run on a hilly course in whatever the weather is on the day of the race. This has meant rainstorms, 80+ degree weather, and everything in between. Nike's WR attempt is an experimental marathon, run on a track shielded from the wind, on a date and time chosen based on the temperature, cloud cover, and wind forecasts to be ideal for human long-distance performance running.
pmahoney 9y ago
I wouldn't disagree that snobbishness is present in the running community, but there are standards that must hold for a course to be "record-eligible" (by the dominant athletic organizations). In sprints on a track, this includes the wind. I'm not sure if distance events include wind. But marathon courses must start and end "near" the same location (be a loop course, more or less) to avoid being wind-aided the entire time, and to avoid an overall elevation drop. The course of the Boston marathon is notable in that it is not record-eligible. It is not a loop, and there is a net elevation drop. In 2011, there was a tailwind at Boston, resulting in abnormally quick times, including Ryan Hall's 2:04:58, which would have been an American record, but is not due to the course [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner)#Sub-2:05:00_at_the_2011_Boston_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner)#Sub-2:05:00...
olivermarks 9y ago
@appleiigs tailwinds typically make official time records illegal http://running.competitor.com/2012/04/news/should-the-boston-marathon-be-record-legal_50540 http://running.competitor.com/2012/04/news/should-the-boston...
adrianmonk 9y ago
It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constitutes a marathon. Nike's event didn't follow those rules, so results in the two can't be directly compared. It's apples and oranges. The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers. When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore. Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  > Probably some good research even came out of it. Which they didn't publish, so it can only help Nike and their friends. That's the least good kind of research.
- runamok 9y ago
  They could have played games with the groups letting them get lapped but that would have probably been very challenging to implement.
  - adrianmonk 9y ago
    Ah, thinking like an engineer! You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says: "For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not participating in the same race, by athletes lapped or about to be lapped or by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule 144.4(d))."

teamhappy 9y ago

> What if it was an official marathon where they run with very strong winds at their back. The courses need to follow certain rules to mitigate the effect of tailwinds, slopes and things like that. That's why Boston isn't eligible for world records. Here's the rule: "The start and finish points of a course, measured along a theoretical straight line between them, shall not be further apart than 50% of the race distance." (http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html http://www.aims-worldrunning.org/world-records.html)

appleiigs 9y ago
Ok cool. Thanks for the information. But just to address the original comments: "It's a little insulting to marathon runners to claim this is a 'marathon' IMO.".... We do consider the Boston Marathon to be a marathon, right?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- gamblor956 9y ago
  They're different types of marathon. Boston is a real marathon, run on a hilly course in whatever the weather is on the day of the race. This has meant rainstorms, 80+ degree weather, and everything in between. Nike's WR attempt is an experimental marathon, run on a track shielded from the wind, on a date and time chosen based on the temperature, cloud cover, and wind forecasts to be ideal for human long-distance performance running.

pmahoney 9y ago

I wouldn't disagree that snobbishness is present in the running community, but there are standards that must hold for a course to be "record-eligible" (by the dominant athletic organizations). In sprints on a track, this includes the wind. I'm not sure if distance events include wind. But marathon courses must start and end "near" the same location (be a loop course, more or less) to avoid being wind-aided the entire time, and to avoid an overall elevation drop. The course of the Boston marathon is notable in that it is not record-eligible. It is not a loop, and there is a net elevation drop. In 2011, there was a tailwind at Boston, resulting in abnormally quick times, including Ryan Hall's 2:04:58, which would have been an American record, but is not due to the course [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner)#Sub-2:05:00_at_the_2011_Boston_Marathon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner)#Sub-2:05:00...

olivermarks 9y ago

@appleiigs tailwinds typically make official time records illegal http://running.competitor.com/2012/04/news/should-the-boston-marathon-be-record-legal_50540 http://running.competitor.com/2012/04/news/should-the-boston...

adrianmonk 9y ago

It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constitutes a marathon. Nike's event didn't follow those rules, so results in the two can't be directly compared. It's apples and oranges. The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers. When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore. Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.

robotresearcher 9y ago
> Probably some good research even came out of it. Which they didn't publish, so it can only help Nike and their friends. That's the least good kind of research.
runamok 9y ago
They could have played games with the groups letting them get lapped but that would have probably been very challenging to implement.
- adrianmonk 9y ago
  Ah, thinking like an engineer! You're clever, but the IAAF is thorough. Rule 144.3 says: "For the purpose of this Rule, the following examples shall be considered assistance, and are therefore not allowed: (a) Pacing in races by persons not participating in the same race, by athletes lapped or about to be lapped or by any kind of technical device (other than those permitted under Rule 144.4(d))."