People claiming Boston was better than London have a different idea of the sport.

You must be the most tedious person in the world.

All great moment in sports are about living up to the moment and PERFORMING. It is not about tallying up dedication and effort literally. It is about tallying it up metaphorically. In the long run, it tends to be fair. In the short run, who knows. Kipchoge is the GOAT because his consistency and effortless-seeming wins are a byproduct of his hard work and discipline matched with his natural gifts and competitor's edge. Kawauchi and Desi also deserve their wins, even while unexpected, if you're only checking off 6 months of dedication. They're been at it for years and no one says they don't work hard. Who are you to say Mo worked harder than the person who came in 4th?

And the unexpected is thrilling. The whole point of of a sporting event is to see who can execute at the right time under those circumstances. If we only want to know who is the best by panel committee, what is the point of any race or match? You can read a piece of journalism that ranks everyone.

Journey to Elite wrote:

If you come to running, and especially marathoning, looking for excitement in the form of unexpected twists, you are in the wrong place.

What is so great about running is the gradual progression of runners because the competition starts 6 months before the race. Kipchoge is the most dedicated runner in the field, extremely balanced and competitive. He won. Farah has been training very hard and got a deserved third.

so why do they televise the races and not the training?

In sports, practice only serves one purpose, to prepare for the competition. No award for best practicer.

Back to the theme of the thread. Was Boston 'better' than London? By whatever definition you might be thinking, yes, Boston was better. If you had me hooked up to a HR monitor early this morning I was pretty much flatlining this whole race. Never got out of my chair, never cheered out loud, never felt invested. Whereas Boston was compelling as hell from start to unexpected finish. I scored 1 pt. in the prediction contest and I finished in the Top 15%! Boston FTW. F these stupid paced time trials.

Boston literally had the perfect storm. Turned the results upside down. Made the races very unpredictable and threw up two very popular winners. If every Boston Marathon was like that it would suck. None of the fastest marathoners in the world would even turn up. It was great because it could only happen once, and because of the popularity of the runners who seized their moment.

A 2:15 marathon winning time. Gimmie a break. That's like walking.

Journey to Elite wrote:

If you come to running, and especially marathoning, looking for excitement in the form of unexpected twists, you are in the wrong place.

Well said OP. All those idiots on here championing Boston have me in fits of laughter - just to ensure it keeps that touch of "excitement" in external variables shaking it up I reckon the should anounce the Tough Boston Spartan for 2019 then they can enjoy the thrills of watching sub-standards climbing over various obstacles, with the lead changing hands multiple times! I'm sure that would appeal rather than simply watch the best there is in the event duelling it out to attempt to become the best there ever was in the event. Yeah, real dull that... Morans!

Agreed if Kipchoge isn’t in the race it is pretty much b-grade.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Agreed if Kipchoge isn’t in the race it is pretty much b-grade.

Wow, what a miserable outlook. Hope for your sake he runs more than 2 races in a whole year. And heaven forbids if he retires!

kmaclam wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Agreed if Kipchoge isn’t in the race it is pretty much b-grade.

Wow, what a miserable outlook. Hope for your sake he runs more than 2 races in a whole year. And heaven forbids if he retires!

I was just teasing those ultra-American patriots on here who are all "Boston's better than London" etc. As I have said on other threads I watch the Venice marathon each year for some reason, the Lake Biwa marathon was interesting a month ago, Paris was boring.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

kmaclam wrote:

Wow, what a miserable outlook. Hope for your sake he runs more than 2 races in a whole year. And heaven forbids if he retires!

I was just teasing those ultra-American patriots on here who are all "Boston's better than London" etc. As I have said on other threads I watch the Venice marathon each year for some reason, the Lake Biwa marathon was interesting a month ago, Paris was boring.

Didn't pick up on that, sorry. Similarly, I try & catch just about any 'elite' marathon I can as just by the very nature of the distance, drama can happen in any of them. Dubai about my fav. for some reason though I am coming to really dislike these time trials, the coverage is superb.

How about they were both great?

As were Paris and Rotterdam and Vienna, etc

kmaclam wrotend :

Back to the theme of the thread. Was Boston 'better' than London? By whatever definition you might be thinking, yes, Boston was better. If you had me hooked up to a HR monitor early this morning I was pretty much flatlining this whole race. Never got out of my chair, never cheered out loud, never felt invested. Whereas Boston was compelling as hell from start to unexpected finish. I scored 1 pt. in the prediction contest and I finished in the Top 15%! Boston FTW. F these stupid paced time trials.

Your'e right. The race for times are ruining the sport. People used to care about the race- in road races and in Indoor Track.

I remember multiple "pro" meets every weekend on tracks that were whatever size would fit. They were about the race not the time.

You weren't washed up if you lost, you weren't "in trouble" if your time was slow.

Journey to Elite wrote:

If you come to running, and especially marathoning, looking for excitement in the form of unexpected twists, you are in the wrong place.

What is so great about running is the gradual progression of runners because the competition starts 6 months before the race. Kipchoge is the most dedicated runner in the field, extremely balanced and competitive. He won. Farah has been training very hard and got a deserved third.

I disagree. You don't think that Desi Lindens consistency or Yuki's yeoman work day in and day out contributed to their wins? they train differently a bit I think but they are no less dedicated than guys like Kipchoge and Farah.

I think London showed what marathoning has become: a long track race.

Boston was what marathoning used to be: a whole different animal.

What has contributed this change? I think the drugs have allowed for quicker recovery and allowed these track athletes to extend their range out to the marathon (i.e Kipchoge and Farah) and the rabbited races chasing world records. Everything is controlled and timed to perfection like on the track. No one is racing each other, they are racing the clock.

We could have an argument over what is better for the sport or what we prefer but I think the different idea of the sport is just old school vs new school.

Real talk wrote:

A 2:15 marathon winning time. Gimmie a break. That's like walking.

Really????????? How many 5:10 miles can you string together on a nice sunny day with the temperature at 50 degrees??????

For once it was. wrote:

If every Boston Marathon was like that it would suck. None of the fastest marathoners in the world would even turn up. It was great because it could only happen once, and because of the popularity of the runners who seized their moment.

If every Boston Marathon were like that marathoning's popularity as a spectator sport would go through the roof.