Forums >Racing>2019 Boston Marathon Thread
When did they begin starting elite women 28 minutes ahead of everyone else? That seems to me to be the root cause of the inequality. Big races like Boston I suppose had to evolve but it was pretty cool that everyone was technically 'in the race' before these changes.
As the article states, the elite women's start was implemented 15 years ago.
I suppose it was cool that everyone was tchnically in the race together. Unless you were an elite woman out trying to race other elite women it which case it wasn't so cool.
Runners run
To me, this change sure seems like the right thing to do.
it was pretty cool that everyone was technically 'in the race' before these changes.
When was the last time some rando dude from the first wave seriously competed with the elites? I am just wondering, I really don’t know.
Dave
To me, this change sure seems like the right thing to do. When was the last time some rando dude from the first wave seriously competed with the elites? I am just wondering, I really don’t know.
It depends how you define some random dude. Last year in the shitstorm, local kid Dan Vassallo finished 10th. But he's a 2x OTQ guy who has won marathons including Philly twice. So not in the elite field (although he will be under the new rules) but certainly not just some guy out of nowhere.
"Where was the concern 15 years ago, when women were divided into elite and wave-one categories? Weren’t any men outraged at the disparity between who was considered “elite” and “sub-elite” then? No? Shocking."
Lol. So true.
Allowed myself to look at the 7 day. Not that it matters - I'm packing all clothing options this year after only having a singlet and shorts last year... Looks like we're getting weather stations this year.
My blog is JT Running DC. It's awesome. Guide to Washington DC Area Running Routes. Guide to the New York City Marathon. Guide to the Boston Marathon. Guide to Running Gear. Guide to Running Clothes.
So, now that we are all in full taper mode - any pacing strategy advice from the vets here? I feel caught between “Don’t go out too fast on the early downhills” and “Go out faster than goal pace, to account for natural slowdown on the hills later”.
delicate flower
As a noob myself, I am thinking don't go out too fast so you don't slow down on the hills.
<3
I have run Boston all of the ways--gone out too fast, gone our real slow, gone out what should have been perfect. I have had good weather, hot weather, cold weather and very very wet weather.
There are different types of racers and so I'm going to say that the same strategy works at Boston for everyone.
But I think for the majority of people, this is a course you want to go out at what feels waaaay too slow. Make the first 4 miles feel like a warmup jog, let people go barreling by you if they want and try to mentally turn it into a 22-mile race instead of 26. And even when you get to the 4 mile mark, don't suddenly just hit the gas--ease your way into marathon effort. The thing is if you jog those first 4 miles they won't come out as slow as you think--they are mostly downhill and you lose about 250 feet in those 4 miles. You want to do as little damage as possible on those early downhills because there's a bunch more damaging downhill late in the race. All the action is late. You need to save a lot for what happens from 16 on.
I had this epiphany in 2015 when I ran it with BadDawg and our friend Alex. We were all running another marathon 5 or 6 weeks later and so we decided to work together and just try to run an very controlled, negative split and try to just barely crack three. It was definitely the most enjoyable Boston I've ever run, and probably wound up being faster than if we'd just gone out and run it without the plan to really, really hold back in the early miles.
^ thanks. So out of curiosity, roughly what did the pace end up being for those first 4 miles, relative to your average for the race? Did you negative split the thing?
The deets are here. After the first mile, which was very slow, we kind of settled into a pace that wound up being pretty close to what we averaged for the whole race--but we felt like we were walking. We really were holding back in those early miles. Our slowest miles were mile 1 and mile 21 (heartbreak) and our fastest miles were all after 21. The last 5 miles were by far the fastest 5 miles of any stretch of the race.
The last 5 miles were by far the fastest 5 miles of any stretch of the race.
That sounds awesome. I bet you were passing people like crazy.
MTA: just read your log notes. Yes, yes you did.
2015 was my first Boston. I ran into Mikey and BadDawg just after we crossed the start line and ran with them for a mile or so. The first mile was my slowest of the day and I was very happy to have them to run and chat with for a little while to help me start smart. I was also able to pass a ton of people and finish strong. You can really move those last 5 miles if you don't trash yourself prior to that. Focus on gaining any time that you lost from 16-21 on miles 21-26, not 1-5.
We are the music makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams;
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams:
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
This will be my first Boston, but my plan is just as Mikey and others describe. All my best races have been when I spent the first few miles holding back, getting my air under me, and getting some calories while my stomach is still up for it. With the downhills to start, seems extra prudent. I figure that if you run miles 1-5 too fast you'll pay for it around mile 21; if you run miles 21-26 too fast you'll pay for it Tuesday. I can live with the latter scenario.
Still far out to count on the forecast too much, but the overall temperature trend is looking promising and probably an indication we can at least rule out excessive heat. To Julia's point, though, worth planning for everything from perfect conditions to all out armageddon.