American Marathon Tiers

I'd put Houston over LA in my pantheon. And while I have run each of Boston, NYC and Chicago, NYC is the only one of the three that I probably won't ever run again (because of the combination of logistics and slow course), so I would be willing to accept if other people were willing to rate it behind Chicago (although my first marathon was NYC because if I was only going to run one, it was going to be in my hometown, so I would probably put all three US world majors on the same tier).

what about that revel one with 5000' net elevation drop people use to BQ last minute?

"Prestige/Talent": 1. Olympic Trials Marathon "General Opinion": 1. NYC 2. Boston Other Great Marathons: Chicago Grandmas Houston CIM Twin Cities (I haven't actually done that one though...but heard good things!)

central_park_laps wrote:

How would you group American marathons in terms of prestige/talent/general opinion, etc.?

Tier 1 - Boston, NYC

1.5 - Chicago

2 - LA, CIM, Grandma's

3 - Philly, Houston, Honolulu, MCM, Twin Cities

4 - San Francisco, San Diego, Eugene, Dallas, Austin

Past that who really cares

Sage, you've run LA right? Not a fan?

I have never done Revel Charleston but I wonder how much of a time advantage would you have over a flat course like Chicago?

Yeah I ran LA when it was the 2015 USATF Marathon Champs (I was 8th for US and barely in the money...but 12th overall in the race)...2:20:02. It is a pretty tough course with rolling hills (despite being net downhill). The weather was rather warm that year and it felt like there was some pretty bad pollution in the air. It is a nice event, and a good tour of the city with a nice finish on the beach, but I like the feel of a "small town" marathon like Grandma's better. I remember Max King didn't get elite fluid bottles at LA and I thought it was a travesty given his PR of 2:14 and being top 20 at the Olympic Trials multiple times (he then went out and smashed a 2:17 in the heat and was like the 4th or 5th American).

central_park_laps wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

"Prestige/Talent":

1. Olympic Trials Marathon

"General Opinion":

1. NYC

2. Boston

Other Great Marathons:

Chicago

Grandmas

Houston

CIM

Twin Cities (I haven't actually done that one though...but heard good things!)

Sage, you've run LA right? Not a fan?

pittsburgh has gotta be in there...

central_park_laps wrote

How would you group American marathons in terms of prestige/talent/general opinion, etc.?

Tier 1 - Boston, NYC

1.5 - Chicago

2 - LA, CIM, Grandma's

3 - Philly, Houston, Honolulu, MCM, Twin Cities

4 - San Francisco, San Diego, Eugene, Dallas, Austin

Past that who really cares

I am biased, but pretty sure that Indy Monumental Marathon is deeper than all of your Tier 4 marathons. Winning time is never that fast, but plenty of people show up to run fast times. 31 people under 2:40 in 2017. For comparison, Twin Cities had 34 under 2:40, MCM had 24 under 2:40.

I would consider Chicago Tier 1 because it is deeper than NYC, despite having a less stellar elite field.

And Toronto and Ottawa deserve a mention.

While I would put Chicago with NYC and Boston in tier 1, I wouldn't say Chicago is deeper than NYC. It may appear that way since the times are faster, but based on my personal experience I think that's the course more than the race. NYC had a lot of depth because of all of the international runners who will fly over from Europe to run it.

Smoove wrote:

While I would put Chicago with NYC and Boston in tier 1, I wouldn't say Chicago is deeper than NYC. It may appear that way since the times are faster, but based on my personal experience I think that's the course more than the race. NYC had a lot of depth because of all of the international runners who will fly over from Europe to run it.

Yea, I was talking solely in terms of times. But I do think Chicago is deeper because the sheer cost of NYC scares away a lot of fast runners of lesser means (the cost/hassle scared me away and I'm pretty sure I could run sub-2:40 right now on a fast course). Chicago is not cheap, but flying there from anywhere in the country is easier/cheaper and I imagine that the start line is less of a hassle than getting to Staten Island and standing around for a couple hours.

And sub-elites go to Chicago to run fast, period. NYC might be a better overall marathon experience, but in terms of cost and chasing times, Chicago is the better deal.

Agree Chicago is the place to chase fast times, which is why registered to go back this year. but if you were to put the tip 100 runners from each of Chicago and NYC on the same course, I think the top NYC finishers would end up disproportionately ahead of the Chicago people. Plus, the damn heat is starting to ruin Chicago as a fast race.

But I'll be going back to Chicago rather than deal with the logistics of getting to Staten Island and dealing with those bridges and the Gradual climb and the rolllers of NYC (even if NYC has probably the best crowds of he three marathons I've run).

Smoove wrote:

Agree Chicago is the place to chase fast times, which is why registered to go back this year. but if you were to put the tip 100 runners from each of Chicago and NYC on the same course, I think the top NYC finishers would end up disproportionately ahead of the Chicago people. Plus, the damn heat is starting to ruin Chicago as a fast race.

But I'll be going back to Chicago rather than deal with the logistics of getting to Staten Island and dealing with those bridges and the Gradual climb and the rolllers of NYC (even if NYC has probably the best crowds of he three marathons I've run).

I have not done enough analysis of the finishers from both races to further discuss this point, so I will let it alone for now.

I can't remember; have you run Boston before? I hear the crowds are pretty great there. I grew up near Chicago, so I am pretty ambivalent about the city experience there, it's not as exciting for me as for other people (and I am sure people from NYC feel the same as me).

The risk of heat in Chicago seems to be a factor every year and that simply should not be the case. They used to have the race in late October, and why it was changed it, I don't know. Perhaps some conflict with another major event in Chicago during that time frame. From an objective standpoint, it's a no-brainer to move it back to late October.

I am biased, but if you want a fast fall marathon in the Midwest without the risk of heat, do the Indy Monumental Marathon.

I've run NYC, Chicago and Boston, in that order. Fastest time and best position finish at Chicago.

I'd like Indy - I've heard good things about the race and the city itself - but I worry about falling into the gaps of no man's land. It's happened to me at times in each of my three races ', and I fell like it would be more likely to happen at Indy since it's a relatively smaller race.

Smoove wrote:

I've run NYC, Chicago and Boston, in that order. Fastest time and best position finish at Chicago.

I'd like Indy - I've heard good things about the race and the city itself - but I worry about falling into the gaps of no man's land. It's happened to me at times in each of my three races ', and I fell like it would be more likely to happen at Indy since it's a relatively smaller race.

If you are trying to run under 2:30 at Indy, no mans land is definite danger. The fast course is there, but the depth is a bit lacking. The best alternative to Chicago in the fall probably is CIM. Philly and Toronto also have decent depth. Something about Canada seems to attract a ton of international runners.

central_park_laps wrote:

How would you group American marathons in terms of prestige/talent/general opinion, etc.?

Tier 1 - Boston, NYC

1.5 - Chicago

2 - LA, CIM, Grandma's

3 - Philly, Houston, Honolulu, MCM, Twin Cities

4 - San Francisco, San Diego, Eugene, Dallas, Austin

Past that who really cares

This person must be from Texas. Dallas and Austin are garbage marathons.

central_park_laps wrote:

How would you group American marathons in terms of prestige/talent/general opinion, etc.?

Tier 1 - Boston, NYC

1.5 - Chicago

2 - LA, CIM, Grandma's

3 - Philly, Houston, Honolulu, MCM, Twin Cities

4 - San Francisco, San Diego, Eugene, Dallas, Austin

Past that who really cares

Pretty good list. My opinion:

1. Boston - stands alone at #1 due to depth and prestige

2. Chicago, NYC

3. CIM, Grandma’s, Houston, LA

That’s about all I feel comfortable ranking. I do think MCM and Twin Cities belong in the “best of the rest” tier.

Prestige:

1. Boston

2. NYC

3. Chicago

I feel like those are the three marathons that people will regularly ask have you done "X."

Depth of talent for sub-elites (2:20–40 marathoner)

1. Boston

2. Chicago

3. NYC

4. CIM

5. Grandma's

Honorable mention: Houston, Indy, Twin Cities, Philadelphia, LA

General opinion—This one totally depends on the person. For instance, I am sick of big city marathons and prefer something a bit smaller and more relaxed (e.g. Grandma's, Detroit, Vermont).

vivalarepublica wrote:

I am biased, but pretty sure that Indy Monumental Marathon is deeper than all of your Tier 4 marathons. Winning time is never that fast, but plenty of people show up to run fast times. 31 people under 2:40 in 2017. For comparison, Twin Cities had 34 under 2:40, MCM had 24 under 2:40.

I like your point about looking for depth.

If you only look at depth and times then 2017's CIM would outrank Chicago, New York and Boston. Might need to use a couple years of results to better capture prestige and talent.

Maybe the last tier would be a list of marathons with trials B qualifiers, which I know Indy would make that cut.

I haven't much to add except to say I would think Twin Cities ranks consistently above Grandma's having run both.

Its been a few years, maybe TCM has gotten softer?

I would put Chicago NY Boston in the same category - depends on who shows up each year.

Chicago is certainly the best for the journeyman runner to run a PR due to the course and weather stability.