Talk:Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Athletics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Athletics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of athletics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and join the discussion.AthleticsWikipedia:WikiProject AthleticsTemplate:WikiProject AthleticsAthletics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Olympics Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada had a different flag then. John FitzGerald 17:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they did. Nor were they the only one. I've fixed the flags. -- Jonel | Speak 21:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now the next time I run across the problem I'll know how to fix it myself. If this is a problem requiring extensive work let me know and I'll pitch in. John FitzGerald 17:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the track officials, Jack Andrew and Dr Michel Bulger, did touch Dorando, the films of the race (for example Marató dels Jocs Olímpics de Londres 1908) clearly show that they did not help him across the line. (PeterDebney (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I've seen a number of claims (including this one) stating that the race started from the East Terrace of Windsor Castle. This is clearly wrong on several counts!

Firstly, the East Terrace is (and was) a confined ornamental garden surrounded by a wall, and the only access to it is from within the castle. Had the race started there, the runners would have to clamber over the flowerbeds and then run through the buildings into the inner courtyard of the castle and out of one of the main gatehouses.

Secondly, look at the official report of the Games here, page 73 where it is stated that the start was "700 yards from the statue of Queen Victoria" (which stands in the middle of the Thames Street/Castle Hill junction in Windsor Town). Page 74 of the same report states "The Race was started on the East Lawn of Windsor Castle in the following order..."

East Lawn is the large flat grass area to the east of the castle's East Terrace. It is obvious from the news movie here that the race did indeed start from a gravel or tarmac path on a large grassy area with mature oak trees in the background. Not the East Terrace ornamental garden! And anyway, assuming you use a sensible route, the East Terrace Garden is only about 520 yards from the statue of Queen Victoria in the town.

Thirdly, there is a photo on page 81 of the Official Report (see link above) showing some adults and some children at a table near the start. The photo shows Windsor Castle in the middle distance, and the photo is clearly not taken on the East Terrace, the retaining-wall of which is dimly visible.

The caption claims that the Princess of Wales (i.e Mary of Teck) and her children (she had six of them, aged 3, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14) are actually in that photo. There's certainly three children in that photo, maybe four. Page 74 of the Official Report states: "At a signal from Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales, who was present with her children, Lord Desborough fired the starting-gun..."

This business of "the children" may have fuelled the legend that the race started below the nursery windows in the east block of the castle to give the royal children a good view, but the older "children" are probably the ones seen in the photo on the lawn, and any of the youngest (who might have been in the nursery at the time) would still have had a perfectly good view.

Anyone object to me fixing the article accordingly? Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would like to know specifically what wording you propose and how you intend to cite it, especially since many "reliable sources" specify the East Terrace. I think changing "on" to "near" would suffice given the wording of the official report.

Location (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Another 1908 report, not the official one, seems to indicate that the Princess of Wales (not necessarily the runners) was positioned on the East Terrace and started the race. Here is another source that is likely not reliable per Wikipedia standards, but is something I would consider authoritative.

Location (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, the first link doesn't work for me. The second link backs up exactly what I'm saying about the start being on the lawn, except that the writers actually did trigonometry on the castle towers to try and pin down the start even more exactly. The photo that they use for the trigonometry is the one from the Official Report, page 81 that I've mentioned a few times. Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the "reliable sources" got it wrong! I've cited a movie of the start (and there's a second one with identical footage on the British Pathé archive site). I suppose they could be faked, but I doubt it. Take a look at the movie link I gave, about 16 seconds in. It starts with a shot towards the same adults, children and table (under the trees) as appear in the photo on page 81 of the 1908 Official Report (cited above). Then it cuts to the runners making their start on the path. In the official 1908 report (pages 74-75) the start is described thus: "the competitors [...] were drawn up in four lines near the East Terrace. Lord Desborough fired the starting-gun, and the runners dashed off at a lively pace for the gates leading into the Town, and streamed down the hill past the Castle Walls along the road towards Barnespool Bridge...". Such a route can't be done from the East Terrace itself.

The East Lawn is specifically mentioned on page 74 of the same B.O.C report: "The Race was started on the East Lawn of Windsor Castle in the following order... ". I can't think that any so called "reliable source" is more reliable than the two I've cited, especially since the ones I've cited have photographic or movie evidence to back up the text. I suspect that over the years "Near the East Terrace" and "On the East Terrace" have become confused, as have "East Terrace Garden" and "East Lawn" (which are different places). Steve Hosgood (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on your side here, that is why I suggested a change and included the second link. Unless you have a more specific proposal, the article should be changed to "near the East Terrace" or "on the East Lawn" or both with a cite to the official report. (The YouTube clip and the forum discussion are not acceptable sources.) I'm not convinced that all of the other sources are so wrong as they are just not so specific; stating that it starts at the East Terrace gives people a general idea of a location. As another example, people refer to the

Location (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry

Location, I didn't mean that comment as an attack! I was just trying to say that two lots of photographic evidence is hard to trump. I found the forum discussion that you posted very interesting: duplicating some work I did recently on the same subject, but I agree it isn't really suitable for a wikipedia citation. Not so sure about YouTube not being suitable, but here

(at 5min 33seconds in) is substantially the same footage but direct from British Pathé's site. Is that suitable do you think? Even if not good enough for a cite, it may be good enough for a mention on the "External Links" list.

Meanwhile, I agree with your suggested edit - I'd use both phrases "On the East Lawn, near the East Terrace". As you say, over the years the phrase "at the East Terrace" could easily be re-reported as "on the East Terrace" which might explain why "reliable sources" could get that bit wrong. Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

D'Oh! Should have read the article first! You've already fixed it! Thanks! Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the section above about the popular misconceptions about the start, there's an urban legend sprung up recently that the first mile of the course is "174 yards" short. If you get the start location right (as Wikipedia does now) this 174 yard error goes away. You can measure the track from Queen Vic's statue to the north side of Barnes Pool Bridge with Google Earth. I get 1058 yards. Add to that the documented claim that it was 700 yards from HMQV's statue to the start point on the East Lawn and you get 1758 yards. That's a mere two yard discrepancy - probably within the scaling tolerance of Google Earth. So I call shenanigans on this "short first mile" myth.

The article currently draws attention the myth as reported in the New York Times, but maybe should balance that with some cause for doubt. I don't think it would be considered

This was discussed briefly a few months ago in

Location (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I think what I'm trying to say is that currently the article only makes reference to John Bryant's book "The Marathon Makers" which claims that the first mile is 174 yards short. That's a big claim(!) possibly partially caused by incorrect assumption of the start position. But there are other opinions which maybe should be mentioned, for instance here which claims "The starting position is only defined as “700 yards from the Queen Victoria Statue” and assuming that this was indeed so, modern measurement indicates that this first mile could be 30m short. The next two miles of the course measured a total of 14m short.".

I believe the "30m short" claim refers to a re-measurement done on 19 April 1998 by professional race-measurer Mike Sandford (Measurement Secretary, South of England UK Asssociation of Course Measurers). Notice that by stating that they accept the 1908 claim that the start was "700 yards from QV's statue" then all debates about the start-line position are negated, though the same article does state that the start was on the East Lawn as Wikipedia now agrees. Steve Hosgood (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a reliable source. Do you have a specific proposal for the addition of text?

Location (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In my suggested text, ref.6 would be Sandford's blog and ref.7 would be Distance Running. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AIMS pdf appears to be a reliable source, however, the blog would not be per

Location (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd just like to offer my opinion that that particular blog might well qualify as reliable as per

WP:RS you see that though general blogs are not considered reliable, under certain circumstances blogs run by (say) professional news outlets whose contributors are professional journalists could be considered. The blog in question (that I wrongly called "Sandford's Blog") is actually the blog of the U.S.A Track and Field Road-Running Technical Council. It is moderated, and I would therefore think that posts appearing on it which originate from the professionals in the field (such as the afore-mentioned Mike Sandford, Pete Reigel and others) should be OK as citations. Hell, if you can't cite professional course-measurers, whom can you cite? :-) Any comments? Steve Hosgood (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It's probably best to get additional feedback regarding that particular source in

Location (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Good idea. I've just posted there. Let's see what they say. Steve Hosgood (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everywhere you look on internet where Marathons and their routes are mentioned you also get to read some utter b*ll*cks about the 1908 event. I suggest a small section be dedicated to them, maybe with content as follows?

The length of the 1908 Marathon was exactly 26 miles 385 yards.

Not necessarily! Jack Andrews (surveyor of the route) published in April 1908 that the course would be "about 26 miles from Windsor Castle to the Stadium plus a lap of the track". The track was (in keeping with British practice of the day) a third of a mile long. However, once the stadium was completed (in about June 1908) he realised that the runners would have to enter the stadium through a different entrance, and that the distance on the track became 385 yards. However, the distance from the start to the stadium remained "about 26 miles". But no-one knows exactly how close to 26 miles it was. So the total distance that was run on the day is only approximately 26 miles 385 yards.

The length of the modern Marathon is the same as the 1908 Olympic Marathon to commemorate the heroic finish of Dorando Pietri.

Not really. The runners of the 1908 marathon turned professional after the event, and toured the world (especially North America) staging re-runs of the race. Naturally, they re-used the advertised 1908 distance for these runs (ignoring the "about 26 miles" bit, and assuming "exactly 26 miles"), and this became established in the immediate pre WWI days. In 1921 the Olympic committee pretty well had to standardise on the same distance as it had become a fait accompli at most running clubs by then. (I notice that the article currently hints at this claim being true).

Actually, the distance chosen in 1921 was the closest metric equivalent of 26 miles, 385 yds: i.e. 42.195 km. The difference between the two values is about 16 cm (remember that the pre-1959 British yard was 0.9143969 m). Modern rulebooks for the Marathon have tightened this definition, insisting that 42.195 km is the utter minimum distance runnable by cutting the corners to the maximum. They state that planners should aim for a course 1.001 times 42.195 km in order to guarantee this, in other words a modern legal Marathon will have actually been measured at around 42.237 km. See

The length of the modern Marathon is 26.2 miles.

False. 26.2 miles would only be 26 miles 352 yards. Obviously wrong, but you see this printed in newspapers all the time.

The Marathon is the only Olympic event to be officially measured in non-metric units.

False. As seen above, the official distance will be anywhere between 42.195 km and 42.237 km. In April 2012, the New York Times wrongly claimed "At the Summer Olympics, the marathon will be the only foot race measured by the standard system(sic) instead of the metric system."[ref here]

The entry to the stadium had to be changed "only days before the race".

It was changed quite late in the planning, true, but not mere "days before". The race route was advertised in the Illustrated London News a week before the race as being about 26 miles from Windsor Castle to the Stadium plus 385 yards on the track.

The start was on the East Terrace Garden so that the royal children could watch.

False. The start was on the East Lawn, about 150 m away from the East Terrace Garden.

The start was on the East Terrace Garden so that some (unidentified) (possibly unwell) member of the royal family could watch.

False. See above.

The start was changed late in the planning.

False. The Polytechnic Harriers published the route in April 1908, showing the start location that was eventually used. It is true that the test race run in that April from Windsor to Wembley used a different start, but that was planned.

The finish was moved so that Queen Alexandra could have a better view.

False. The finish line was always right in front of the Royal Box. It is true that when the race designers were forced to use a different entry to the stadium, they also reversed the direction of running on the track to go clockwise, but that was so that more of the spectators got a close-up view. The Queen would have had just as good a view regardless of the direction of running. (I notice that this very article wrongly makes this claim).

The "25 miles to go" plaque on the building in Eton implies that the start was 1 mile 385 yards away from there.

False. The distance markers on the route referred to the distances still to be run to the stadium. Not to the finish line. The plaque in Eton (immediately north of Barnespool Bridge, on the left) is 1 mile from the start. Approximately.

The track officials helped Pietri over the line

False. It can clearly be seen (from the news footage) that Pietri pretty much fell over the line on his own. However, he had been helped to his feet several times by the track officials prior to that - and that's what got him disqualified.

In the famous photo of Pietri crossing the line, the man on the left is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

False. The man on the left (carrying a megaphone, and wearing a straw hat) is Jack Andrews, designer and surveyor of the course. Conan Doyle was present, but not on the track. He had been commissioned to write a commentary on the race for the Daily Mail newspaper. The man to the right of Pietri in the photo is allegedly Dr. M. J. Bulger, the chief medic.

Citations would be needed of course, but can be provided. Does anyone apart from me think a section like this would be a benefit? You do read some utter twaddle about the 1908 marathon! Steve Hosgood (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for including accurate information with citations, however, I am opposed to a section designed merely for dealing with what we believe are popular misconceptions.

Location (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've got a few issues with this! The entire last four-and-a-bit miles of the course from Sudbury Station to the Scrubs followed the tramlines of the number 62 tram from Sudbury to Paddington. It's hard to say, but the entirety of Harlesden High Street may well have been cobbled [1]. No-one seems to have complained about that! What was special about the "original route" (that didn't go over the Scrubs) that made its tramlines and cobbles any worse than the previous stretches? Has anyone even got a citable reference to say that this alleged complaint ever even happened?

Additionally, assuming the route was always planned to come down Station Road from the Jubilee Clock in Harlesden, how can cutting across Wormwood Scrubs add to the route? Such a route has got to be a shortcut (compared with the roads), unless the route across the Scrubs zizagged or something. Bear in mind that Wulfstan Street (to the immediate west of the prison) didn't exist at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Hosgood (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

It appears

Location (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't really add the information; I cut-pasted it to this article from Marathon. I have no knowledge of the sources and simply took the material in good faith. You can ask at Talk:Marathon; or inspect that page's page history to see who added the information there and then ask on their User talk. jnestorius^(talk) 20:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any consolation, jnestorius, Distance Running repeats the claim that the finish was altered. However, it doesn't offer any evidence. The nearest possibly verifiable info I've spotted is in chapter 24 of John Bryant's "The Marathon Makers" where Bryant claims that in 1969, Arthur Winter wrote a history of the Polytechnic Marathon to celebrate its 50th year. Jack Andrew had been interviewed at that point, and claimed that his original route for the 1908 Marathon had been about 24.5 miles, but he'd heard that the London Evening News planned to promote a professional road race over the same course. Not wanting the strictly amateur Olympic Marathon to be "polluted" by any link with such a thing, he changed the planned route, including the planned finish. Make of that what you will. Notice there's no mention of tramlines or cobblestones! But Bryant does state that it's not clear if time had clouded Andrew's memory, as if he was not quite convinced... Steve Hosgood (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll alter what I said about the original 1907 finish: I just spotted that the article already included a link to a poorly-drawn sketch map of the suggested route (presumably the one published in the November 1907 newspapers). Though that map is poor quality to say the least, the original idea was evidently to run from the main street outside Windsor castle (the eventual start was 700 yards from there), and the finish was originally planned to turn *left* at the Jubilee Clock in Harlesden, run along High St, Harlesden until Scrubs Lane (at the College Park Hotel), then south down Scrubs Lane until branching off down Wood Lane (which really was a lane back then) and arrive at the east side of the stadium. It turns out (using Google Earth) that this finish route would have been 0.35 miles (616 yards (563 m)) *shorter* than the one Jack Andrew went for eventually. So basically, Andrew's 700 yard addition to the start and the 616 yard addition to the finish put an extra 1,316 yards (1,203 m) onto the course. I still can't see why there should have been "protests" about the original finish, and I'll suggest we leave such a claim out of the article until some real evidence of such protests can be found. Steve Hosgood (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]