Last Monday’s so-called Boston Marathon has made a mockery of long distance running. The world’s best practitioner of the art, Haile Gebrselassie ran 2.03.59 in 2008, on an admittedly fast, but fully authenticated marathon course, in Berlin; and now sees two Kenyans, Geoffrey Mutai and Moses Mosop run almost a minute faster on the Boston course.
That Mutai and Mosop are fine distance runners, no one can doubt. What should be in doubt is whether the road race from Hopkinton to downtown Boston, held on Patriots’ Day every year should be called a marathon.
The regulations governing marathons stipulate that the distance be 42.195 kilometres, plus or minus 0.1%, ie 42.195 metres. Organisers often add an extra 42m, just to be safe. The other major stipulations are that the permissible drop in elevation between start and finish should be the same, ie no more than one metre per kilometre, hence a maximum 42.195 metre drop; and that the start and finish cannot be further apart than 50% of the course distance, viz 21.0975k.
Boston fits the first but neither of the other two requirements. The race is a point-to-point, with the finish over 40k from the start. And the drop in elevation is 135 metres.
Maybe the once-in-a-lifetime following winds, of between 20 and 30k/hr did most to produce these sensational times. But the above stipulations are in place for that very eventuality.
So, if those strict criteria are applied, the Boston road race is not a marathon. So why not call it the Boston Road Race? Or even The Boston Road Race?
Of course, Boston has the most distinguished history in long distance running. Created in 1897, by the Boston Athletic Association, one year after their contingent had supplied the many of the US athletes in the inaugural Olympic Games, in Athens 1896.
The irony, of course is that Marathon to Athens is also a point to point, but 21k of that is uphill, and no matter how much of a gale the runners might have behind them, Stefano Baldini’s magisterial 2.10.55, to win the Olympic race 2004, in over 30C is going to take some beating.
The guardians of the Boston ‘flame’ will of course deride my suggestion, as they have already nixed the idea of a proper marathon course; Tom Grilk, executive director of the BAA telling Sports Illustrated that the race isn’t going to change just to meet the IAAF criteria. “If somebody wants to put up a dome and chase Swifty, the rabbit from Wonderland (dog track) around, God bless them,” said Grilk. “We’ll keep doing what we’ve been doing for 100 years: Firing off a gun and saying, go”.
But the Boston Road Race does have simplicity to it, doesn’t it? It fits in with those other great sporting precursors, like The Open Championship (British Open Golf) or simply, The Championships (Wimbledon). It implies a status above everything, which frankly Boston deserves.
But so does Haile Geb (and whoever breaks his record on a recognised course) deserve the kudos without the inevitable asterisk.
And the guardians of the Boston ‘flame’ have been known to make major changes in the past; none more so than back in the early 1980s, when the first road running boom was accelerating the move to pro athletics. There was even a strong possibility back then that road racing might separate from mainstream athletics, and even from under the aegis of the IAAF.
However, the Boston mandarins decided that they would not join the gold rush. With the recently created New York and London marathons offering substantial prize money, Boston organisers decided that their event was too pristine to be sullied by the greenback.
That attitude lasted two years, during which time, Geoff Smith, prompted (and rewarded) by his sponsors won the race by a huge margin, in 1984 and 1985. The rest of the elite stayed away, and the BAA got the message, forcefully. They changed their minds, and John Hancock raced to the rescue faster than Paul Revere. The giant insurance company has bankrolled Boston since then, and the race has reassumed its rightful place, in the vanguard. And become a founder member of the Marathon Majors.
But, again I ask, is it a marathon?
Still a great marathon race which along with Chicago epitomises the spirit of marathons away from those sulky folk in New York. Who cares about official world records and let’sface it most in track and field ared dodgy from the communist days and of course the BALCO era (shame on our US brethen’s contamination of our noble sport. I’m sure no one in Boston who saw the race will forget it. That’s what it’s about -the challenge of racing!
Other straight athletics Olympic/World Championship races, the 100m and the sprint hurdles, for example, have strict following-wind conditions.
Could something similar and appropriate regarding wind not be applied to ‘straight’ marathons, along with the regulation regarding maximum permited elevation drop? Did marathon times not used to be referred to as ‘best times’ rather than ‘world records’, for the very reason of course differences?
The fastest mile times have been run on downhill straight courses, but they don’t feature in the record books – nor should non-standard marathons.
Of course, the Boston Marathon is a marathon. The course does not meet the criteria for World Record recognition, but the race has been recognized as a marathon since long before the IAAF recognized World Records for road races. In fact, the Boston Marathon was widely recognized as an outstanding marathon before the IAAF even existed.
To suggest that the Boston Marathon is not really a marathon is to make a mockery of writing about long distance running.
This is not a serious article. That suddenly the world’s premier marathon isn’t a marathon because some blogger doesn’t like the wind. Nice try….
This is a disappointing and needlessly hyperbolic essay. I agree with Amby Burfoot’s article this week that Mutai’s stunning race in Boston should not be recognized as the world record, and that the BAA should withdraw their request that the time be accepted as the official world record. However, it is unnecessary to impugn the classic route from Hopkinton to Boston. Don’t we have enough subtlety in our understanding of courses and times and individual days to aggregate Berlin in 2:03:59 and Boston in 2:03:02? As someone who loves this sport, I also know that Steve Jones’s 2:08:20 in New York on a hot day in 1988 was probably one of the best performances EVER. Does that make it the official world record–NO. It makes it a stunning performance that, like Mutai’s race, is a fabulous performance. But the IAAF rule for an official record is reasonable and should stand.
The people who deride this article just don’t understand how ludicrous this Boston Marathon was (and the heaping on of praise for the performance).
When Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids at the Seoul Olympics, people didn’t praise his performance in the 100 where he beat Carl Lewis by one tenth of a second. And if I’m not mistaken Carl Lewis set the World Record in that race while losing that race (regardless, he won an Olympic Gold Medal in a race he lost).
If there is more than a 2 meter per second tailwind in a track event (i.e. the 100 meter or long jump), there isn’t the possibility of a world record. 2 meters per second is 7.6 miles per hour. If a 100 meter runner ran a 9.3 with a 3 meter per second tailwind, people wouldn’t hail it as a great performance. People would acknowledge it for what it is.
The tailwind at the Boston Marathon this year was 20 mph (over 5 meters per second). This is a laughable amount of tailwind that a seasoned track enthusiast would tell you could greatly influence the time (or distance) of a 100m race or a long jump. Do you think a 31 foot long jump would be taken seriously (and considered a great performance) if there was a 4 meter per second? I do not, and think it would be taken for what it is — a freak performance that was AIDED.
The creation of the Boston Marathon was inspired by the Olympic Marathon. Phidippides ran point to point, and back again. If he had run a loop, it would not be as inspiring. The first London Olympics marathon was point to point. There is something inspiring about awaking with the sun, looking to horizon, and running there. Something inspiring about standing on a mountain, looking across the valleys to another peak, and running there. It is inspiring to run across the desert, but not so to run loops in it. Boston is inspiring because it places the magnitude of the distance clearly in the minds of the people who line the course. Let track races be on a loop for the spectator’s sake, but the marathon belongs on point to point courses.
From many years of reading history, some doubt is cast upon the story of the ancient Greek Hoplite soldier running from Marathon to Athens in 490 B.C. (many historians have gone PC by using B.C.E.-Before the Common Era. I first saw it used in an article in my 1974 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica) to announce the news that the Persians had been defeated. It has reached a legendary status for over 2,000 years, but the feat was not referred to for several centuries later, It passed down by word of mouth, something like the epics of Homer. Of course, by passing on a story over several centuries by oral means risks being “added on to”. It is quite a story, but there is no way to prove it. Thus it remains just that, a story. It is said that the Hoplite soldier saw the god Pan during his run, and apparently that is where our word panic comes from!.
Boston is the marathon that most closely resembles the 1896 original – point-to-point on a challenging course into a city destination as a celebration of national freedom. To argue that it isn’t a marathon is just Pat doing his April 1st joke a few weeks late. The real point about last Monday is the one Dave Martin makes – let’s not allow road running to self-destruct under the obsession with records (and therefore drugs), as track & field athletics did in the Nebiolo era. There’s a lot to be said for “best times”, or for no such pointless comparisons, as in cross-country.
It is an incredible time. Don’t tell me the talent wasn’t there to break the World Record in a “perfect conditions” situation. This year’s group oozed talent. If record breaking times were too easy to achieve at Boston this year, then the women’s time should have also reflected near world best performances. Instead, they top Kenyan women finished around their PR’s, with no drastic improvements. AND…They finished 7 minutes off the women’s world best! We should have seen the ladies finish around 2:14 this year, if records a WR were inevitable for this year’s event, but reality is that the women were nowhere near world record pace. So give this year’s men’s race tremendous credit for “smoking” the world best time by nearly a minute. They did not have any benefit of “pace setters” to acheive a world record either, unlike Gebresalassie and that “rabbit-fest” they currently recognize as the world record. Boston is truly a race, not the “time trials” you see being run each year around the world, where the race organizers do everything they can to try and bring the WR to their event. Complain all you want, but the fasted marathon ever ran now belongs to Boston. It may not be the recognized WR, but if someone runs 2:03:58 later this year for an official WR ….I will have to say, good time, but not the WR to me. I already know about the 2:03:02. Burfoot is bitter. He ran his PR of 2:14 in Fukuoka, the same year he ran 2:22 at Boston for 2nd place. He could not get anywhere near his best time on Boston’s difficult course, it is too hard. It’s just inconceivable to him that these guys could run these times there, because the course was too tough for him.
The writer who uses the alias Leonardo misses my point ENTIRELY, as do those who appear to agree with me. I have concurred that this is an aided performance, and should not count as an official record. BUT the derision should end there. The fact that in some years–under certain conditions–Boston is overly advantageous is why it doesn’t count for records. But to go from there to compare the course and those who run it to people who cheat, such as Ben Johnson, is illogical and mean-spirited. Those of us who know the sport know how to compare these times. Boston was unreasonably fast in 1994, for example. But nobody would claim that Cosmas N’deti was a cheat for running 2:07:15 because he had a wind at his back. Similarly, we will know that Mutai’s 2:03:02 is a great performance, but not really a record. One concluding point: marathons, as road races, have a special charm that will always be different from track races and, as such, time should not be the raison d’etre in judging what is a great race. It’s the competition that matters. An official world record will never be set at Boston or New York, but these two races will continue to generate some of the most exciting competitions because of their unique courses. I love the London and Berlin marathons as well, but it does get a bit boring to see the elite runners escorted by pace setters. We watch competitions because we don’t know the outcome–ensuring a fast time is, frankly, boring. It also has a detrimental effect on the competition, because it tends to script the same type of finish year after year. So–here is for a middle path–celebrating each unique marathon course on it’s own merits, and no more comparison with drug cheats.
World records in any road race are irrelevant. All the courses are too different. They have hills and turns in different places. And all the current standards relative to distance from start to finish and elevation are just arbitrary lines drawn in the sand that are meaningless. The Boston marathon is a marathon because it covers the marathon distance. Period. The record time is a record because it’s the fastest over that course in 115 years of a race that has drawn the best in the sport and no other race can even come close to claiming that. Of course media obsessed with records and top ten lists and polls would have to make an issue where there really isn’t one. Is Usain Bolt really the fastest ever or is it just because he runs on mondo track surfaces in ultralight spikes instead of cinder? Any arguement can be made. Pointless really…it’s about the race and who WINS on any given day.
Ridiculous.
World record? Maybe not. Fantastic running? Definitely. “True Marathon”? Of course. Not even debatable.
I tend to think like Pat but not for the same reasons. A IAAF compliant Boston Marathon would allow elite athletes and organizers to get the real and full credit and prestige if they run a world record. Mutai (world record), Hall (US record) not getting the real recognition of their prowess is a bit sad to me. Now, all they get is second guessing, dissmissing, calculating regarding their performance.
Result: those guys will have to prove themselves in their next race. If they miss it, everyone will say “Bah….I knew Hall could not be a REAL 2:04 marathoner ! “.
I know, those guys are fully aware of this point with Boston. Surely tradition and value is more important than money and record. Anyway a bit sad atheletes do not get full recognition or credit for their performance.
Per wikipedia:
The marathon is a long-distance running event with an official distance of 42.195 kilometres (26 miles and 385 yards),[1] that is usually run as a road race.
It doesn’t say anything about net elevation drop, etc. I ran Boston last year and I would have to say it is not an easy course. If it is easier, why have the times been historically slower than other marathons? Yes the wind helped the athletes, but how can you even suggest the oldest marathon that is still being contested not be called a marathon?? I think the writer was just trying to stir things up. In fact, I think its borderline trollish.
To say the Boston Marathon isn’t a marathon is a completely ridiculous statement. The author of this post obviously does not know the history of the marathon. The Boston Marathon was a marathon before the standard existed. What a joke!
The length and breadth of the writer’s ignorance continues to astound . . . .
The Boston Marathon, with or without wind aiding it, is one of the toughest marathons out there with an elite field. If these guys would have ran in London or some other certified course that is known for producing fast times then we would be talking about the 2 hour mark almost being broken. The author of this article is entitled to their opionion but should have done their research.
This has to be satire.
Well Mr. Butcher certainly got people worked up this time! Let’s retire to the bar to continue this conversation!
Pat Butcher likes to be controversial, that is part of his charm. I agree with him that Haile has the right to remain the undisputed king of the marathon by virtue of his Berlin race just as Paula should remain its queen as her best performance was achieved on the fair course that is London. Nevertheless Boston is not the easy race that is conjured by its statistics. It very much favours good downhill runners. I ran in Boston in 1990 and found myself at the top of Heartbreak hill at 23 miles with legs which could have had a walk on part as spares for Long John Silver’s wooden stump. The pain was excruciating and after 23 miles at 5.30 pace I had to settle for 6.30+. I have run London, New York, Houston (concrete therefore hard), Tokyo, Chicago,
Osaka, Rome (cobbles), Barcelona, etc and never experienced that kind of pain.
Dear Pat!
Great article! Until two years ago when Boston times were in the 2:07 or slower, nobody did care about the Boston “problem”. Now things have changed. There is not too much to be added. I discussed the Boston problem on the German road races website:
http://www.germanroadraces.de/24-0-22626-blowin-in-the-wind-anmerkungen-zum.html
My suggestion is a “soft” solution. Everbody should follow tradition there, exept the elite. If the elite would start at the half way point in Wellesley, run against the course for a 1/4 marathon and turn around to complete the rest 3/4 as before, then you follow to a major extend tradition …. and you follow ALL RULES (the evelation difference from Wellesley to Boston Copley Square is 41 m!