Will there be any world class runners in the Boston Marathon?

the best in the world do chase speed sometimes but for the most part that is rare among the real top. New York draws by far the strongest field of the fall marathons and it is slower then Boston never mind Chicago and Berlin. Also I wish everyone would please stop saying Boston needs to get a field like Berlin. Ok the other majors kick boston's ass in terms of elite fields but Berlin. they get 1 good runner and then nothing. It is far and away the easiest top 10 to crack and top 5 and top 3 and top 2(unless a pace setter hangs on to the winner like when Tergat won). Geb even said it himself about how it was important to go to a race without competition to set the world record so he didn't have to worry about his competition surging.

Now with all that said it really does seem Boston has let everyone who is anyone go to London this year and I do think it is a shame. Will it kill the race, no of course not, but still it is sad and disappointing.

money not speed wrote:

Now with all that said it really does seem Boston has let everyone who is anyone go to London this year and I do think it is a shame. Will it kill the race, no of course not, but still it is sad and disappointing.

Only to those who think Boston is all about fast times from a handful of runners. Fortunately you are in a minority.

london does not have all the top runners 100, runners ran 21040 or better for the marathon in 2007, and then you have great runners who have yet to run a marathon, z. tadesse, s, sihine and lots of undeveloped talent yet to be discovered who can and will someday run a great marathon.

i love how goo boston is at everything right now...pats, sox, celtics, revolution?(if you give s s**t)...and our marathon will still get more viewers and coverage to normal people(non-runners) than stupid london.

Boston doesn't need big names. Boston is about having an underdog come out of nowhere and win, albeit this rarely rarely happens (the 70s and early 80s come to mind). They don't care about world class times (they can't even set the WR if it happened), they just want a good, fast, competitive race with some pretty good American guys there and some no name Kenyans. Boston is about watching Gilmore or Sell or even one of the local guys like the Moultons or perhaps Nate Jenkins in the future take a shot at something. I'm sure that the BAA would much rather have a 2:10ish caliber race (given that's not a recent time, just saying) and have someone like Sell win it rather than have London's field. Boston is for the entertainment for the people, not the times.

when did that start happening? It wasn't always that way.

Boston...a shadow of its former glory. sad, really. one word: complacency

Yes, London gets some top names. What, 20 of them? They pay big bucks for this real elite group, and then the rest of the field sucks. Look at the top few hundred times, and you'll see SIGNIFICANT decline.

I like that the BAA organizes the marathon the way they do. They attract some top names, but the overall field (including the non-elites) is one of the best in the world (obviously because of the qualifying time).

Look at a race like Chicago. A 3:25 puts you near the start of the field. In Boston, you're lucky if you're even in the first start.

former baa runner wrote:

Boston...a shadow of its former glory. sad, really. one word: complacency

You fools have been spewing this crap for years and yet Boston keeps going along just fine. There will always be elite runners willing to toe the line for the money and prestige here.

Really, why not just run New York or Chicago or London and shut the f*** up already. The race doesn't need your whining.

last year....

100th place london - 2:37

100th place boston - 2:38

fromthe617 wrote:

i love how goo boston is at everything right now...pats, sox, celtics, revolution?(if you give s s**t)...and our marathon will still get more viewers and coverage to normal people(non-runners) than stupid london.

Right now someone in England is reading your post and thinking we're all illiterate idiots like you, thanks.

fil lander wrote:

last year....

100th place london - 2:37

100th place boston - 2:38

100th place boston - 2:38 into a 25 mph headwind

2006...

100th place London - 2:34

100th place Boston - 2:38

2005...

100th place London - 2:33

100th place Boston - 2:40

fil lander wrote:

2005...

100th place London - 2:33

100th place Boston - 2:40

Every year - Boston is generally regarded as a much tougher course.

just shows that 100 deep, boston is no more competitive than london. perhaps equal figuring in the tougher course.

fil lander wrote:

just shows that 100 deep, boston is no more competitive than london. perhaps equal figuring in the tougher course.

Okay, won't argue that point anymore, how about 200 deep?

2007

200th place london 2:43

200th place boston 2:45