| love the classics |
| ||
|
Spinning off the Gansett marathon thread, if the west coast had a fall classic with qualifying times could it achieve Boston, New York... etc., tradition? It has long been on my list of "I wish..." but living on the East coast it is logistically a challenge, and too close to Boston for anyone other than Wardian to do both. |
| drunkfest |
| ||
|
Big Sur usually sells out pretty early as it is. Or it used to anyway. I was surprised how many people do both Boston and Big Sur the year I did it. Great course but logistically it cannot grow. |
| dean moriarty |
| ||
|
A friend of mine did some coast to coast challenge of Boston and Big Sur, and she's not someone who races a ton of marathons. Maybe 2-3/year. To answer your original question, no, it could not achieve the same tradition. That's like asking if the Devil Rays can achieve the tradition of the Yankees. |
| weary ramblers bones |
| ||
|
Why Big Sur? Of all the West Coast marathons that's one of the least likely to grow into any sort of sub-major status. It's not a record-setting course and there's no way to get big crowds onto the course, so even with huge money you can't develop that race. All the majors are in big cities, so you have basically 6 candidate venues for a major on the West Coast: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. All of them have marathons but the only one to even see the odd international elite runner once in a while is LA. LA should have the potential given the right funding and local support. The course is pretty good but not record-eligible. Without the tradition of Boston and NYC, they might have to fix that to attract the world elite. A fast loop course would of course be preferable, close enough to the coast for decent air quality. The early spring date is good, weather-wise. Can you attract a million spectators? In theory, why not? The population is bigger and more fitness-minded than in Chicago and Berlin. The absence of decent mass transit for spectators is a problem, though. San Francisco will never have a world-class marathon. You just can't plan a course that's flat enough to be fast. The current SF marathon is a joke because it doesn't have the city's support. If they moved it away from peak tourism season they could probably get more cooperation from the city and plan a fantastic course but it's virtually impossible to avoid steep hills. I could see it being a 20,000+ event but never an elite event. San Jose is doing a great job with the R&R Half Marathon. Huge field, great organization, lots of elites, great flat course and great weather conditions. But the Silicon Valley Marathon is terrible in every way. If they built on the half marathon concept and found an ambitious sponsor they could turn it into a big marathon. The challenge would be to turn it into a destination marathon. Seriously, who wants to travel far to see San Jose? But OK, you have San Francisco an hour away and lots of awesome nature up and down the coast so maybe people would spend one or two nights in SJ and more nights elsewhere in the region. The Bay Area as a whole certainly deserves a better marathon than what's currently available. San Diego I'm not sure about. They have the R&R Marathon which gets no elites and the America's Finest City half which does get some elites but both courses are very hilly. It might be challenging to create a good enough course and San Diego just seems to laid back to pull off something big. Portland is a good option. Oregon is a running state, the weather is great for running and Portland is a nice city but not exactly a tourist magnet. The current Portland Marathon is pretty good but decidedly un-major-esque. I know the city has a reputation for being provincial and unsupportive but they do an awesome job with Hood to Coast which must be very disruptive. Should have the necessary crowd potential. Seattle and Vancouver I don't know well enough but they would seem like great destination marathons if they had better courses. Personally I'd love to visit both of those places but I've never had a particular reason to. A good marathon with half a million people along the course would be a good reason but in researching their current events I've decided to go elsewhere. |
| you're forgetting one |
| ||
|
Tijuana! |
| Boy Wonder |
| ||
|
Well thought out response. I'd add that it remains to be seen what the response is to the new course in the BMO Vancouver Marathon. Big loop with far less back-and-forth as on the old course. It is pretty flat with a good section in Stanley Park, but it is a definite improvement over the old course. Kudos to the city for working with the organizers to open up much more of the city for the marathon. Still has some prize money so you get some elites, no one big, but at least some quicker times. Seattle has two major marathons - Rock n' Roll in June and Seattle in November. They used to have different courses, but now RNR is using a course very similar to Seattle. Neither one is particularly fast. If they used the old Emerald City & Goodwill Games course you might be able to run some fast times and get some big crowds, but one thing that needs to happen is that they move Seattle or RNR to a better time of the year, and in the case of Seattle add prize money, since for now it is just like Portland - a "peoples" marathon. |
| Monterey Fan |
| ||
|
Not sure what you mean by "rival" Boston. Big Sur is already the top marathon on most people's wish list or destination lists. Bart Yasso said that if you only could run one marathon it should be Big Sur. Comparing the two is like apples and oranges, Boston is big and crowded and has tons of spectators. Big Prize money, qualifying standards, and elites. Fast times and a lot of downhills. Big Sur is much tougher, rural, a people's race, the most beautiful road race in the world, more of a spiritual experience to savor. No elites. Winning time was 2:32 this year. Course record is 2:16. But Big Sur is anked in the top 3 North American Marathons by several publications - Big Sur, Boston, New York. Depends what your criteria is in ranking. Big Sur is magical and everyone should run it. |
| love the classics |
| ||
You answered your own question. That's why I picked it. Add some prize money and qualifying standards and it could become a classic. If. |
| beeqminusfive |
| ||
What qualifying standards would you propose? Same as Boston's? |
| NorthwoodXC |
| ||
|
Run the Rock |
| Track Town |
| ||
|
I haven't run any west coast marathons, but it seems to me Eugene ought to be a candidate for tradition and qualifying times, etc. Seems like a logical comparison to Boston though I have no perspective as to whether Eugene could handle 20,000 road racers. |
| beeqminusfive |
| ||
Boston cannot handle 20,000 runners. If they could, you wouldn't have to wait in line for 30 minutes to take a leak. |