No asterisk needed. The criteria for record-eligible courses have been clearly defined. The weather was good, but not quite ideal. In slightly colder conditions I think Sawe could have gone a few seconds faster.
Yes. If sports does not happen in a vacuum then comparisons are unfair. If I go to the moon and break the record for long jumping should I be applauded?
Never thought I'd see the day ragebait made it to HN. Yes, let's pretend doing a long jump on the moon is comparable to running a marathon at its prescheduled time at its prescheduled location. Weather is always a factor in sports that take place outside. Might as well put asterisks on all accomplishments that took place on sunny days by your logic right?
I am impressed by your ability to delineate the weather effect on his run with such confidence! Particularly given advances in other variables that contribute.
Better weather has, to the best of my knowledge, never been part of marathon record keeping. People do note in accounts of (e.g.) the Boston marathon that the weather was particularly atrocious in some years (hence a general slow down across the field), but weather "aided" fast times are not considered illegitimate or even worthy of note.
Obviously, barring wind, which is why some marathon courses are not eligible for world records.
Human response to temperature shows significant variation. 50F/10C may be absolutely ideal for one runner, but a little too cold for another. That's why you can't unambiguously declare a given race to be "a good weather day".
By contrast, hail/rain and wind will negatively impact almost everyone, which is why talking about "a bad weather day" makes more sense.
That’s a wild reason to withhold a true record. People run marathons in all sorts of conditions since it became a thing. It is unlikely this is the best weather ever for a record set and even if it was, it’s never been a factor when deciding to qualify a record. That’s beyond unfair.
I just said it needs an asterisk, not withholding anything. What if someone runs one second slower in higher humidity and temperature. Now that I would applaud.
> I just said it needs an asterisk, not withholding anything
It’s essentially the same as not setting the record. It would be qualified every single time it’s mentioned and be functionally saying “…so it doesn’t count.”
Two marathons will never be run in the same conditions, that is the nature of outdoor sports.
Besides weather, there are loads of factors in the performance: shoes, clothes, food, etc. So basically every record gets an asterisk?
No asterisk needed. The criteria for record-eligible courses have been clearly defined. The weather was good, but not quite ideal. In slightly colder conditions I think Sawe could have gone a few seconds faster.
Unless there was a 2ms+ tailwind on a one-way course there is no asterisk needed. All outdoor running is done in variable conditions.
So if the weather was bad the accomplishment would mean more then? I don’t think this is how it works. Sports don’t happen in a vacuum.
Sprinting/jump performances are invalidated for world record purposes if there's over 2.0 m/s of wind assistance.
There is no rule for marathons.
There is a rule for marathons to counter wind assistance, but it's basically that the finish of the race needs to be pretty close to the start.
Too bad, you could run a lot faster in a vacuum...except for that whole breathing thing.
Can't wait for vacuum track racing on the moon.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-010-1410-1
1 reply →
Yes. If sports does not happen in a vacuum then comparisons are unfair. If I go to the moon and break the record for long jumping should I be applauded?
I thought there were scientists on here...
Never thought I'd see the day ragebait made it to HN. Yes, let's pretend doing a long jump on the moon is comparable to running a marathon at its prescheduled time at its prescheduled location. Weather is always a factor in sports that take place outside. Might as well put asterisks on all accomplishments that took place on sunny days by your logic right?
3 replies →
A moon long jump would happen in a vacuum, so it should be fine, yes?
I am impressed by your ability to delineate the weather effect on his run with such confidence! Particularly given advances in other variables that contribute.
Better weather has, to the best of my knowledge, never been part of marathon record keeping. People do note in accounts of (e.g.) the Boston marathon that the weather was particularly atrocious in some years (hence a general slow down across the field), but weather "aided" fast times are not considered illegitimate or even worthy of note.
Obviously, barring wind, which is why some marathon courses are not eligible for world records.
Correct. Boston is a net downhill point-to-point course and not record eligible under World Athletics rules.
https://worldathletics.org/records/certified-roadevents
No point to point courses are eligible, because of the "risk" of a wind assist.
> Better weather has, to the best of my knowledge, never been part of marathon record keeping.
It should be.
Human response to temperature shows significant variation. 50F/10C may be absolutely ideal for one runner, but a little too cold for another. That's why you can't unambiguously declare a given race to be "a good weather day".
By contrast, hail/rain and wind will negatively impact almost everyone, which is why talking about "a bad weather day" makes more sense.
That’s a wild reason to withhold a true record. People run marathons in all sorts of conditions since it became a thing. It is unlikely this is the best weather ever for a record set and even if it was, it’s never been a factor when deciding to qualify a record. That’s beyond unfair.
I am surprised at the push back on this. It is just science and it mentioned it in the article.
https://marathonhandbook.com/large-scale-marathon-study-iden...
I just said it needs an asterisk, not withholding anything. What if someone runs one second slower in higher humidity and temperature. Now that I would applaud.
Why do you think the existing records weren't also set under good conditions?
What was the temperature and humidity for the previous record? Or the rest of the top 10?
> I just said it needs an asterisk, not withholding anything
It’s essentially the same as not setting the record. It would be qualified every single time it’s mentioned and be functionally saying “…so it doesn’t count.”