Boston....who cares?!?

I appreciate your point of view on all of this, but have to say I disagree completely. Once the '04 Olympic marathon was over, I promptly forgot it. Baldini? In the great history of the marathon, he's a midget's midget...pretty much utterly insignificant. You may dislike the "time trial" courses--I have no problem with them.

Hope you have a jolly good time watching Boston...

As you said, London does indeed have better fields and better times (no-I don't think better times mean better races, but I think London has better races anyway). I've also been to both marathons and still think London has an unprecedented atmosphere about it-but no way I can prove it really. Great fans? Yeah London does have great fans, as does Boston, but I didn't mention this anywhere in my thread so what you trying to prove? I guess you just wanted to try prove your point with the whole gay joke (was hilarious by the way).

And did I say that money was nothing to do with it? no I didn't. It is ONE of the reasons why London is a far better marathon than Boston. If you're gonna disagree with me, at least disagree to what I say, rather than random shit you imagine I might think, Bum.

So its wrong for professional sportsmen (and women) to make money? Since you come from a country which gave the world the Big Mac, deep-fried chicken and beef with enough antibiotics, steroids and hormones to turn every teenager in the country into pre-Subway Jarred clones, I wouldn't crack on about the food.

No argument here, +1 for London.

Faster times do equal better racing. I'd rather watch Bekele solo a 26:xx than a 27:30 nip and tuck, but what I really like to watch and what London provides - a whole bunch of guys running really fast - how can you not ?

This is a bit of an odd comment, the young ladies at Wellesley have absolutely no impact on the elite race. Since when do fans make a great race, unless you are running for the "atmosphere"? Since never. As an aside, if running by Wellesley College is the highlight of youer marathon, (a) get out more, and (b) go post in the Coolrunning Clubhouse. Just an FYI - they don't think you're a superb athlete, they don't fancy you, and you aren't going to get any from them after the race.

It's funny how these threads always degenerate into "You said something bad about Boston so you must hate Boston, let me list the ways Boston is superior" which couldn't be farther from the truth. I like Boston, but lets be honest, the management sucks. They aren't putting on a race that means anything. Culpepper or Meb could win by a minute and it won't make a single wave in the media. Boston needed Deena, they should have given her whatever she asked for, money, pacers, whatever. The management of that race are too busy levering as much money out of the pockets of misty-eyed middle aged participants as possible to put on a good, fast race up front. When you rest on tradition, you ignore the realities of the present.

I have ran track for the past 10 years of my life but very rarely look forward to any track meet, other than a given race or two. Most meets viewed in person are horribly organized with long time lags and very poor annoucing. On top of that, there are a lot of events that I find boring like the steeple, 400, 100, hurdles, long jump, triple jump. Shit, I don't like almost every event other than the 800 - 10,000 meters, although the 10,000 can get boring if it is not a competitive race.

Television coverage for track is aweful. They do nothing to create excitement in the distance events. Too much time is spent on the sprints.

The Boston Marathon this year will have several different storylines to follow. This is the oldest marathon in the world. Can Meb win? Can Alan win? How good will Sell place? Will any other Hanson's runner run well? How will Pete Gilmore do? Many people might not find that interesting but there are so many things that can happen in a marathon than can change the end result. The US is getting more competitive at the marathon and that is exciting. I really feel the marathon is the ultimate test for a distance runner. Some get that and some don't.

"Faster times do equal better racing"

The fact that you can make such an unimformed comment means we are coming from two different planets. Guess you never watched the Tokyo 10000 with Mills - slow as molasses. I'm sure it would have been a better race if they would have all been 2 minutes faster. I'm sure that would have added a lot.......

Fattest country - perhaps. Although I've read that Australia is about to pass us. But, what do the US and Aus have in common that England doesn't. Yep, you know. Women. Go back to your bangers and mash, and I'll be scarfing down a big mac and watching some nice looking women.

Nobby Nomates wrote:

(and since when did a couple of hills make a course special - do the hills make the racing better? If so - why?)

Yes they do make the racing better. Since always, I would say. Not necessarily better than another race, but certainly better than the same race would be if it were flat.

Hills change the nature of the race entirely. They multiply the strategies and tactical decisions required. It is one thing to chase your opponent when he makes a break on the flats. It is another altogether to do so when he does it on the hills.

The hills of Boston are especially vexing given WHERE they arrive in the race. They give it a far greater "wildcard" potential, IMO. Go out too hard in a flat race like London and yes, you'll probably die towards the end. Go out too hard in Boston and you'll die horribly. It makes those early race decisions all the more important.

That factor makes Boston a far, far more exciting race than it would be if it were just flat.

Does that make it more exciting than London? No. That depends on the year and mainly on the field running it. All I'm saying is that hills make the duels more exciting. I'm not saying anything else about the rest of this "debate" though. I love Boston and I love London. I love Chicago and New York too. I think they're all great races and have all been exciting in years past. Do we really need to get all tribal about them?

Nobby Nomates wrote:

I like Boston, but lets be honest, the management sucks. They aren't putting on a race that means anything.

Not everyone agrees with your assessment. From yesterday's newspaper:

London was the original plan. A pancake course that she knows well. A challenging field , led by Paula and Deena and a few other first-name stars. Big Ben for a backdrop. But then, Reiko Tosa began thinking about hills and history and changed her mind...."It is a very historic race," she says. "I want to run it because of that." As far as her homeland is concerned, Boston is The Race and has been for more than half a century.

Culpepper or Meb could win by a minute and it won't make a single wave in the media.

Sorry to disappoint you, but the media are already all over this thing, as usual. The newspapers have been running stories for days, including special pullout sections devoted to the race. And there will certainly be quite a few pages printed following Monday's race. And I've got to believe there will be a picture from Boston on the cover of at least one running magazine in the coming weeks. Also, I would love to report on the hours of pre-race, wire-to wire, and post-race television coverage from the THREE separate channels covering the race, but I'll be out on the roadside doing some support work.

So, please don't tell the media they shouldn't be getting so excited over the Boston Marathon.

Do we really need to get all tribal about them?

You are preaching to the choir here. I agree with you 100%, I love Boston and London equally, for completely different reasons. I've run both and enjoyed both. What I don't enjoy are posters like Bum who feel the need to tear down one in order to build up the other, when I see it I feel the need to make the other case. Pretending that Boston's 2006 race is even remotely as strong as London's is pathetic, but admitting that it isn't doesn't condemn Boston's history or any of the other great things about the race.

Also, I would love to report on the hours of pre-race, wire-to wire, and post-race television coverage from the THREE separate channels covering the race, but I'll be out on the roadside doing some support work.

Don't overstate the case, it's three channels in the Boston area, not national not international. I see OLN is giving you a whole 3 hours - tell me are they a network or do you have to get the channel as an extra on your cable? The Boston media is probably getting excited about their marathon, the international media is getting excited about London. Do tell me which race is doing a better job brining our sport to the world?

Geez Nobby, You sure are fulfilling the stereotypical brit - whiny, pompous, no sense of humor (wait, humour). The problem with you guys is that you don't know how to use your fork properly. You're probably still pissed off at me for starting that "Favorite British Phrases) thread a few years ago.

Hey, I didn't start this tearing down thing. Old tymer felt the need to bring London into it, and you piled on. I'll gladly take any opportunity I can to hack on your stiff upper lips.

Bum wrote:

"Faster times do equal better racing"

The fact that you can make such an unimformed comment means we are coming from two different planets. Guess you never watched the Tokyo 10000 with Mills - slow as molasses. I'm sure it would have been a better race if they would have all been 2 minutes faster. I'm sure that would have added a lot.......

Fattest country - perhaps. Although I've read that Australia is about to pass us. But, what do the US and Aus have in common that England doesn't. Yep, you know. Women. Go back to your bangers and mash, and I'll be scarfing down a big mac and watching some nice looking women.

BUM: If you want to pretend to some sort of superiority here, it helps to have a small clue as to what you're talking about. The idea that the 1964 Oly 10,000 was "slow as molasses" is utterly laughable: it was 9 seconds off the WR; essentially the equivalent today of an Oly 10,000 going in, say, 26:30. One reason the '64 race really meant something was that it WAS FAST--the winner (Mills) was truly the best on that day, not merely the cleverest or the luckiest.

What I meant is that by today's times, it was slow. My point is that times are rather meaningless. Better tracks today lead to faster times, but not better races. That's all I was saying.

Even more incredible in the 64 race is that the runners carried big clumps of the very soft track in their spikes. Mills told me a while back that his were getting sore from landing on the clumps of cinders that were sticking to his spikes.

Bum wrote:

What I meant is that by today's times, it was slow. My point is that times are rather meaningless. Better tracks today lead to faster times, but not better races. That's all I was saying.

Even more incredible in the 64 race is that the runners carried big clumps of the very soft track in their spikes. Mills told me a while back that his were getting sore from landing on the clumps of cinders that were sticking to his spikes.

With all due respect, if that's what you were trying to day, you failed. Times--seen in the context of the period in which they were made--absolutely do matter. Every race ever run has a winner--and, therefore, at the end of the day, winning is not necessarily all that big a deal. Hell, even I've won races in my life--so what? Winning high-quality races is another thing entirely--and quality is measured, in part, by times. So, I've never bought the "competition is everything" shool of thought about running. A 5:06 high school mile may be wonderfully competitive, but have no larger significance whatsoever.

Nobby Nomates wrote:

Don't overstate the case, it's three channels in the Boston area, not national not international.

A careful reading of my post will indicate nothing was overstated. There are three channels: one is a national cable network, the other two are local network affiliates.

The Boston media is probably getting excited about their marathon, the international media is getting excited about London. Do tell me which race is doing a better job brining our sport to the world?

I'd say the international media is getting excited about both of them, for good reasons. As for which is doing a better job of bringing our sport to the world, I believe the Boston race is better known around the world. I'm not taking anything away from London, but that is the way it seems. The Japanese sure seem to think so.

"winning is not necessarily all that big a deal"

Correction - it's the ONLY deal. These are races. The goal is to win. Fast, slow - doesn't matter. You're probably one of these guys who gets on here and bitches that Olympic final races are slow.

You can only beat those who show up. No one ever needs to apologize for winning a race. Only idiots on letsrun do that.

Bum wrote:

"winning is not necessarily all that big a deal"

Correction - it's the ONLY deal. These are races. The goal is to win. Fast, slow - doesn't matter. You're probably one of these guys who gets on here and bitches that Olympic final races are slow.

You can only beat those who show up. No one ever needs to apologize for winning a race. Only idiots on letsrun do that.

Couldn't disagree more. And please note that there are at least several varieties of idiots on Letsrun.

Cheers.

I agree with the original poster. Unless we're talking about the Olympic marathon, following marathoning is just following road races - who cares about that? Do I know or care who won Peachtree, Falmouth, Bay to Breakers, etc last year? Not remotely. Probably just some 2nd-tier Kenyan.

after all that debating...Astounded made the best comment...a marathon is a long, boring to watch road race....

and who's the dumbass that said hills make a race more exciting??....if thats the case, then track as a sport wouldnt be what it is and cross country would be in its place.

Sad to say that you are fulfilling every stereotype of the typical American - go get yourself some plaid shorts and a large beergut, you'll be all set. Your parochial attitude is just another stereotype.