Boston....who cares?!?

I disagree. It will be interesting to see if Culpepper can deliver a top performance, Meb always makes it interesting, and Brian Sell is still up and coming and could be right in the mix. It is still America's finest marathon and the one that most Americans would probably like to win.

That post smells like it is coming from someone who is too slow to qualify for Boston and is jealous of those who are in Boston for the race. Boo-hoo to you!

Either that or a NASCAR fan, talk about BORING.

Nah, it just sounds like someone who isn't interested in the marathon.

No matter how you cut it, however, London is a far more important race than Boston....

I was never interested in watching a marathon either, until I saw the women's Olympic marathon with Deena passing all of those people to get a medal.

The men's was just as exciting.

When one is on TV, I usually find something to work on and mostly just listen to the marathon. When it get's exciting, I actually watch.

count me in I could care less!

That's too bad. We're runners and we still ignore the events the rest of the country knows about. I don't know a thing about horse racing, auto racing, or golf, but still wind up getting caught up in Triple Crown, Daytona, Master's hype.

That's COULDN'T care less. You're saying the opposite you what you mean.

Or maybe they really mean it. I care somewhat about Boston, so I guess, technically, I could care less. But I don't. I could also care more. But for that to happen, I'd have to be running it myself as I've done the last four years.

old tymer wrote:

No matter how you cut it, however, London is a far more important race than Boston....

Since when? London is nothing more than a 26.2 time trial. It's not much of a race. Boston is a race. If you truly are an old timer, you would know that there isn't a single London race that came anywhere close to the true racing of Salazar and Beardsley in 1982. Basically with London, the course is a non-entity. Just a time-trial. Boring racing. End of story.

It's just you.

Sadly, a comment like that, which you believe to be deeply incisive, simply reveals that you have never been to London. Why demonstrate your ignorance? The course is far from a non-entity (and since when did a couple of hills make a course special - do the hills make the racing better? If so - why?) Instead of of pointing to a race which happened over 20 years ago and claiming that it is the epitome of exciting racing, point to a recent race put on in Boston. Quite simply Boston hasn't put on a race like that since, yet London does - nearly every year.

Here is the lowdown - London will put on the most significant race this year, which will be enjoyed by millions across the globe, televised for 6-7 hours on network TV, and Boston will put on another 2nd rate marathon, shown, grudgingly on cable, which, if Meb wins, will only prove that he ducked a chance to take on the big boys.

Here's a clue (you need one) how many threads have there been asking about Boston webcasts?

Sadly, I'm guessing your simply another Brit acting pompous, but still feeling second rate. Glad you could name an top men's American marathoner. Sorry I can't name a top British men's marathoner. Wonder why?

So you have run London then? So how many posts have there been about webcasts of the Boston marathon? Is it even being webcast? (Brit - yes, pompous - undoubtedly, wrong - no.)

Bum wrote:

old tymer wrote:

No matter how you cut it, however, London is a far more important race than Boston....

Since when? London is nothing more than a 26.2 time trial. It's not much of a race. Boston is a race. If you truly are an old timer, you would know that there isn't a single London race that came anywhere close to the true racing of Salazar and Beardsley in 1982. Basically with London, the course is a non-entity. Just a time-trial. Boring racing. End of story.

Uh, remember the race with KK, Tergat, and Geb? That one was "moderately" good, wouldn't you say? Boston used to be one of the world's greatest marathons (and '82 was a super race). Now, it's merely a "very good" international caliber race; London, most years, is a great race. What's so complicated about that?

Great finish, not a great race. Course did NOTHING to seperate the best runners on the planet.

Boston hasn't been that great since the 80's, save a race or two. But honestly, London attracts the best field because of the money, but it doesn't end up in good racing. The course simply doesn't add into the race tactics. Boston does. Again, they may as well run it on a really big track - it's a time trial or track event. Sure, there are great track races, but when you add in another variable, another element, that gives a smart runner something to play with, you generally get a better race. Certainly more fun to watch.

Honestly, was there a better marathon the past few years than the Olympic marathon? I don't think so. It was better than ANY London. Baldini throwing in a sub-4:30 mile on that terrain, heat, and place in the race to finally shake Meb was spectacular. I'd take that race any day over any WR attempt at London. Great competitors, tough conditions, AND a tough course. London will never, ever say that.

Sadly, I'm guessing your simply another Brit acting pompous, but still feeling second rate. Glad you could name an top men's American marathoner. Sorry I can't name a top British men's marathoner. Wonder why?[/quote]

Unfortunately there is no way you can say the London marathon is second rate to Boston-it delivers better fields, better times, better races, more atmosphere and generally more people care about it than Boston-why do you think most of the best runners are gonna be at London and not Boston??

p.s. GB's top marathoner at the moment? Jon Brown. I'm not sure but I think his best is better than Meb's. Oh well, just another American acting ignorant of the world outside America, no surprise there.

That said, I'm not saying I don't care about Boston, I do. It should be an interesting, quality race and I look forward to it.