Saturday 18 May 2013

Blogs

Home » Blogs

${gotBlog.title}

No record for Mutai in Boston; local finisher shares his view

Posted by Tom Held of the Journal Sentinel on April 28, 2011

marathons

Geoffrey Mutai's run in the Boston Marathon was historic, but it will not be recognized as a world record by the International Association of Athletics Federations.

The Boston Athletic Association and the IAAF shared the final ruling on the remarkable run on April 18, a time of 2 hours, 3 minutes, 2 seconds, the fastest 26.2 mils ever. But because of its configuration and elevation, the Boston Marathon course is not certified for IAAF or USATF records.

As Runner's World Magazine explained: Boston violates two key IAAF and USATF rules: one rule excludes courses with net elevation losses of greater than 1 meter per kilometer, and a second rule mandating that courses begin and end within 50 percent of the race’s distance—in this case, 13.1 miles. (USATF rules are even stricter, at 30 percent.) Boston’s elevation loss works out to three times the allowable elevation loss limit, at 3.1 meters per kilometer, and its finish is roughly 23.5 miles  from the start as the crow flies, or 90 percent of the race distance.

(The point-to-point lay out of the Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon also prevents it from being a record-certified course).

Marek Kotrly, a police officer from Brookfield, finished about 40 minutes behind Mutai, in 2:40:10, and has a difficult time agreeing with the IAAF decision.

"I certainly understand not allowing the world record if it is due to the wind, just as they would not accept a wind aided 100m world record dash," Kotrly wrote.

"If it because of the "net" downhill course, I think that is a different story.

"Boston is super unique and challenging, and never seems to be the course where marathon world records are threatened. You cannot make the time back on the downhills, which you lose on the uphills.

"There is a reason the fastest times are set in Berlin, London, Chicago, and Rotterdam.

"Those are pancake flat courses, and don't challenge the elites in the same way, in my opinion. I'm not sure there is a way to solve the problem, however.

"It's not like they would be willing or should change the historic course of Boston to accommodate world records being set, and the elites know that coming into the race each year. This past Boston Marathon was unique, probably something we won't see for another 100 years."

7 Comments for "No record for Mutai in Boston; local finisher shares his view"

  1. I don't understand what Mark is saying. There are two reasons Boston will never count as a world record, the net elevation loss and the possibility of a tailwind the entire way. Boston had a strong wind the entire way and that is why their were such fast times. Why is he disagreeing with the decision, since everyone knows there was a tailwind and he said understands why they wouldn't allow the record if it was because of the wind. If there wasn't a wind, no world records would have been set and the net elevation loss wouldn't have mattered. As he said, even with the net elevation loss, Boston is a tougher course than a flat one and that is why nobody has set world records on it, until this year with the strong tailwind. Thus the record shouldn't count.

    MU82 Apr 28, 2011 12:56 PM

  2. To clarify, I certainly understand the world record not being counted because of the tailwind....but that is not one of the rules stated by IAAF and USATF in Held's article as explained by Runner's World. Perhaps the effect of wind is being addressed in the rule regarding distance between start and finish, but that is not specifically stated, to my knowledge. Where I have an issue is the net elevation loss rule in regard to Boston. With all other conditions being equal, I would argue that Boston is the toughest course of all other majors, despite its net elevation loss. There is a reason why world records aren't set there. It seems unfortunate that a world record would never have the potential of being set in Boston, as it is highly unlikely the historic course would ever be changed.

    Mkotrly53045 Apr 28, 2011 2:00 PM

  3. To clarify, I certainly understand the world record not being counted because of the tailwind....but that is not one of the rules stated by IAAF and USATF in Held's article as explained by Runner's World. Perhaps the effect of wind is being addressed in the rule regarding distance between start and finish, but that is not specifically stated, to my knowledge. Where I have an issue is the net elevation loss rule in regard to Boston. With all other conditions being equal, I would argue that Boston is the toughest course of all other majors, despite its net elevation loss. There is a reason why world records aren't set there. It seems unfortunate that a world record would never have the potential of being set in Boston, as it is highly unlikely the historic course would ever be changed.

    Mkotrly53045 Apr 28, 2011 2:01 PM

  4. Ahh, how refreshing. An actual discussion withouth name-calling. I'll throw in my two cents and say that I think Boston is a more challenging course because of the hills. Whether or not the IAAF recognizes it, Mutai ran one of the greatest races in the history of the sport, perhaps the greatest.

    T. Held Apr 28, 2011 3:00 PM

  5. The rules regarding the distance between the start and finish is exactly because of the wind factor. There are two issues here, a point to point course and net elevation loss. Boston should never be able to count as a world record because of the potential for having the wind at your back the entire way, just as with the Lakefront marathon. The issue of the net elevation loss is debatable because of the hills at Boston that make it tougher than a flat course. However, most courses with a net elevation loss are going to be an advantage for logical reasons, so where do you draw the line. I completely understand why they have made the rules they have and this year shows why Boston should not be eligible for world records, because of the potential for wind at the back the entire way because of the point to point course.

    MU82 Apr 28, 2011 3:05 PM

  6. I agree with Kotrly. Hills, not constant descent i.e. California International Marathon, are much tougher on the overall race. I understand the rules, but in the bigger picture of things they seem so trivial. And just seems like there could be so many variables that are debatable. It would be nice if a record was just for covering the 26.2 distance in the least amount of time, then people can debate on there own on legitimacy of the record. One thing I am certain of in my ripe age of 30 years young, I will see a sub 2hr marathon...for sure! Nice article Tom.

    Artty Apr 28, 2011 4:06 PM

  7. Agree with Tom in that it was, perhaps, the greatest marathon ever run.
    Official world record or not, it won't soon be forgotten.

    P.S. MU82, his name is "Marek."

    MarathonMan Apr 29, 2011 11:33 AM

Post a Comment

Limit of 2000 characters,  characters remaining

Preview

Cancel

Discussion guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use

Please login to post a comment.

Page Tools

Latest Posts

Archives