April 19, 2005 at 2:34 am #2431
Here’s a short version. I was #1316 and finished 212th in a time of 2:48 and change. Bottom line is I went out too hard for the conditions and ended up running a big positive split. Ran the first half a little under 1:20. A little dissapointed but I’ll live. Conditions were pretty hot but no excuses. I was a victom of the Newton hills like many others. I’ll give some more details later.
April 19, 2005 at 1:33 pm #18367
Great Job! I know you trained hard. Is this a pb?
Before reading your post I was checking results for runners from my club. One in particular stood out, even before reading your post, but especially after.
The 2 of you finished almost together. Rudy ran a 2:48:45. You must have been only a couple of steps ahead of him at the finish.
Congradulations on a great time.
April 19, 2005 at 5:56 pm #18368
Nice job in less than ideal conditions. Most of the results I saw were positive splits of at least 8 minutes.
April 19, 2005 at 6:33 pm #18369
Steve, PR or not, 2:48 is awesome, and 212th place at Boston is a hell of an accomplishment. With that time in NJ this year you would have been top 5. Congrats,
April 19, 2005 at 6:39 pm #18370
No PB, ran 2:46 last year at New Jersey. If the wife can tolerate one more attempt I may try a fall marathon. Thanks you guys!
April 20, 2005 at 12:40 am #18371
Dan must be taking an extended vacation after his sub-2:40 PR at Boston, and who could blame him, he’s surely earned it and hopefully he’ll post about it when he gets back home!
April 20, 2005 at 2:19 am #18372
Great job Steve. It wasn’t just the heat, there was a bit of a headwind too. I didn’t think it was that bad while I was out there, but the winners’ times were all slower than most years. Slower even than last year’s in the 80 degree heat.
April 20, 2005 at 10:22 pm #18373
Here are my splits for those that are interested. I pretty much fell apart in the Newton Hills. In fact, this is the classic Newton hills meltdown I was hoping to avoid. On the positive side I felt great aerobically. If only my legs would cooperate. I wanted to stop real bad during the last few and didn’t so I’ll take that as a moral victory.
Mile Split Cumm Ave Pace
1.00 6:10 6:10:00 6:10:00
2.00 5:53 12:03:00 6:01:30
3.00 6:01 18:04:00 6:01:20
4.00 6:00 24:04:00 6:01:00
5.00 6:11 30:15:00 6:03:00
6.00 6:02 36:17:00 6:02:50
7.00 6:03 42:20:00 6:02:51
8.00 6:09 48:29:00 6:03:37
9.00 6:03 54:32:00 6:03:33
10.00 6:11 60:43:00 6:04:18
11.00 6:16 66:59:00 6:05:22
12.00 6:08 73:07:00 6:05:35
13.00 6:06 79:13:00 6:05:37
14.00 6:05 85:18:00 6:05:34
15.00 6:19 91:37:00 6:06:28
16.00 6:07 97:44:00 6:06:30
17.00 6:31 104:15:00 6:07:56
18.00 6:36 110:51:00 6:09:30
19.00 6:23 117:14:00 6:10:13
20.00 6:38 123:52:00 6:11:36
21.00 7:01 130:53:00 6:13:57
22.00 6:33 137:26:00 6:14:49
23.00 6:47 144:13:00 6:16:13
24.00 7:06 151:19:00 6:18:17
25.00 7:32 158:51:00 6:21:14
26.00 7:30 166:21:00 6:23:53
26.20 2:10 168:31:00 6:25:55
April 22, 2005 at 6:21 pm #18374
gee, wish I could ‘fall apart’ and only add 15-22 seconds per mile… only two minutes off your PB and comparing Boston’s hills to a FLAT NJ race, right? I think you have a lot to be proud of… enjoy your recovery…
April 22, 2005 at 9:29 pm #18375
SwampTigerMemberSteve From NJ wrote:I pretty much fell apart in the Newton Hills. In fact, this is the classic Newton hills meltdown I was hoping to avoid.
I agree with Rita. “fell apart” and “meltdown” don’t describe your race. I saw many people walking up the hills and staggering down the last few miles. It looks like you didn’t recover your pace after the hills but you stayed strong through the finish, and within two minutes of your PB. Great job and impressive mental toughness.
April 24, 2005 at 10:55 pm #18376
Good job at Boston!
I ran the 1981 Boston Marathon in 2:38:30.I enjoyed it as I probably ran an additonal 1/4 mile just weaving around people. These were the days when Qualifying for a person under 40 was 2:50 or better. I finished 741st out of 5,500. This time was my pr until 1983 when I ran Capital City Marathon in Olympia, WA in 2:36:19.
April 25, 2005 at 3:46 pm #18377
Thanks Turk, interesting the place that your time put you back then and very impressive time by the way. You would have easily been in the top 100 this year. I wonder how much the tougher qualifying standards motivated people to get under the cut back then. One thing that’s clear is Boston seemed to attract the cream of the crop in terms of local and regional talent and perhaps that’s not the case anymore. I would guess that the multitude of marathon options tends to thin the field out these days. In my mind, Boston is the best experience I’ve had in running irregardless of the fact that I fell short of my goal. Thanks for your post.
April 25, 2005 at 6:34 pm #18378
RyanKeymasterSteve From NJ wrote:You would have easily been in the top 100 this year. I wonder how much the tougher qualifying standards motivated people to get under the cut back then. One thing that’s clear is Boston seemed to attract the cream of the crop in terms of local and regional talent and perhaps that’s not the case anymore. I would guess that the multitude of marathon options tends to thin the field out these days.
Actually, based on the level of competition in the 2:40 range, I’d say the issue is just that there aren’t as many 2:20, 2:30, and 2:40 runners now as there were then.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.