worst big city marathon

thons wrote:

BALTIMORE - not a race but a walk through the hood for 3/4 of the field

I likedBaltimore. Ran the full in 2007 and the half a bunch of time after that. Second half of course is tough. Enjoyable run. The race always seem pretty well managed too.

Philly

Lots of competition for this title but the winner has got to be...

PORTLAND!!! ????

hot take: Boston, the logistics are a nightmare and it's expensive as hell. And yes I've run it 3 times flying halfway across the country to do it.

It is up there.

Baghdad

feldman wrote:

hot take: Boston, the logistics are a nightmare and it's expensive as hell. And yes I've run it 3 times flying halfway across the country to do it.

But yet you went back 2 more times ?

feldman wrote:

hot take: Boston, the logistics are a nightmare and it's expensive as hell. And yes I've run it 3 times flying halfway across the country to do it.

Boston entry is: $185. NYC is $255. Chicago is $195. Is getting yourself to Staten Island a whole lot more wonderful than the trip to Hopkinton?

PortlandXCgirl wrote:

Lots of competition for this title but the winner has got to be...

PORTLAND!!! ????

Haha! Yup.

Pretzel Man wrote:

feldman wrote:

hot take: Boston, the logistics are a nightmare and it's expensive as hell. And yes I've run it 3 times flying halfway across the country to do it.

But yet you went back 2 more times ?

Yes, I acknowledge my post is rather contradictory. But the first time it was on the bucket list, but had a terrible race. Went back two years later to get some level of revenge. Then the bombs went off and knew I had to be there a year later.

Used to be Rono wrote:

feldman wrote:

hot take: Boston, the logistics are a nightmare and it's expensive as hell. And yes I've run it 3 times flying halfway across the country to do it.

Boston entry is: $185. NYC is $255. Chicago is $195. Is getting yourself to Staten Island a whole lot more wonderful than the trip to Hopkinton?

No idea, never tried to do it. You're welcome to argue it though.

Boston, but for different reasons than the other anti-Boston guy. The course is extremely uninteresting, the finishing area sucks, and the runners are rude. I enjoyed everything about Boston except the race itself. (And I PRd.)

Not a big city, but big marathon. Disney. Things they DON'T tell you in their ads:

Shuttles to start begin at 3 AM. Race starts at 6 AM, in the DARK. Hurried to leave park as soon as you cross the finish. No fans for 65% of race

feldman wrote:

Used to be Rono wrote:

Boston entry is: $185. NYC is $255. Chicago is $195. Is getting yourself to Staten Island a whole lot more wonderful than the trip to Hopkinton?

No idea, never tried to do it. You're welcome to argue it though.

Fair enough. So how then do you rank these marathons?: LA, Disney, SF, Chicago, Houston, Marine Corps, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philly, Lakefront, Flying Pig, Richmond, Dallas, Twin Cities.

I would say Boston. Because the course seems like one big boring mostly straight line and everybody in the metro area just seems miserable.

I would say the PNC Milwaukee Marathon (not to be confused with the Milwaukee Lakefront Marathon), but it wasn't really a marathon during its 2nd and 3rd years in existence. The course was long in 2016 and measured only 25.4 miles in 2017.

vivalarepublica wrote:

I would say Boston. Because the course seems like one big boring mostly straight line and everybody in the metro area just seems miserable.

0/10

Convexity wrote:

Philly

Interesting. Why Philly? I know that from a spectator's POV Philly gives me more opportunities to see my wife and her friends than other marathons they do.

You can first see the runners go by Logan circle. This is before the 1 mile mark.

From there go over to Chestnut about 4 blocks away as they run towards University City. This is right around the 6 mile mark. From there you can take your time walking about a mile towards the Art Museum where the 1/2 marathoners will finish but the full marathoners head to Kelly Drive for the out and back to Manayunk; 3rd time seeing the runner.

You stay at the art museum and you will see your runner for the finish; fourth time in the race.

I know plenty of folks in our running community who regularly run the Philly marathon mainly because their friends and family can see them 3 or 4 times during the race.

feldman wrote:

Pretzel Man wrote:

But yet you went back 2 more times ?

Yes, I acknowledge my post is rather contradictory. But the first time it was on the bucket list, but had a terrible race. Went back two years later to get some level of revenge. Then the bombs went off and knew I had to be there a year later.

I ran Boston once, didn't find anything particularly remarkable about the experience and have no inclination to ever run it again.

It doesn't have to be expensive either. Just stay out near the start and fly in to a city other than Boston. :)