Explain to me why anyone who is n ot an elite would want to run Boston!

A BQ is every mid-life crisis runner's ambition. It's good to have ambition. Charity runners run Boston because the fast guys in their training group are running it.

New York is a destination marathon.

Chicago is the one all the fat people register for because they're told it's easy, then DNS.

haha there's so much cynicism on these boards. Boston has probably lost a lot of the grassroots zest it had in the years before I was born, but it's a lovely, gracious race on a course that tests you, in weather that's unpredictable, with crowds that come out regardless, and in some amazing amazing competition. I can't name many (or any other) races that require you to break 2:30 to be in the top-100 or so. I don't understand the hate or the cynicism. It deserves all the respect it gets - it really does.

One reason I can think of is to have the name "Boston Marathon" associated with you, kind of like getting a degree from a really well-known university instead of a good school that no one has ever heard about. It might not mean much to you, but it means a lot to other people. Your coworkers have absolutely no idea what your 2:32 PR means, but everyone knows what the Boston Marathon is, and everyone knows about the existence of the qualifying standard, even if you were a half hour under it. Since it's on a Monday, you have to take a day or two off, generating water-cooler talk. "Where's Fred today?" "He's at the Boston Marathon."

in two words: Wellesley girls!!!!!!

I ran Boston back when it started later in the day. I ate breakfast and then had snacks waiting to start (mostly energy bars, bananas, and bagels). It was a warm day (upper 60s to lower 70s). Things went ok starting out. After the half, my stomach gave out. I went from port-a-can to port-a-can for the next five miles. I was finally able to get it back together and run it in from heartbreak hill. It was my worst marathon ever.

Initially, I really wanted to avenge my bad race. My father lived near the finish, so it was actually a cheap race for me. But, after running NY, I realized that I have no business running a marathon with hills and never had any desire to try Boston again.

I do see why it is a big deal for runners. It is the fastest field you will find from 2:30 to 3:00 in a US marathon. If you are having a good day, the fans will give you a big boost. There is loads of history in the race. Boston is a fun place to visit, although spring is usually a few weeks away.

Yes it lives! wrote:

pop_pop! wrote:

Hey, what about the second oldest marathon in Yonkers? Talk about a destination!!!!

I'm an old dude, so the I remember the beautiful Culver city, ca marathon... with laps!!

Would that have been a marathon on a track?!

Sort of. They used city streets. I recall it being 4 laps. The race used to be the second-oldest event in the country. And then L.A.'s old men that run the city bought into the LA Marathon scheme and put Culver City's small-time event out of business.

DMVarea wrote:

haha there's so much cynicism on these boards. Boston has probably lost a lot of the grassroots zest it had in the years before I was born, but it's a lovely, gracious race on a course that tests you, in weather that's unpredictable, with crowds that come out regardless, and in some amazing amazing competition. I can't name many (or any other) races that require you to break 2:30 to be in the top-100 or so. I don't understand the hate or the cynicism. It deserves all the respect it gets - it really does.

Hate / cynicism comes from two groups.

1. Slow hobby joggers who cannot qualify for Boston. Other people in their running groups have qualified for Boston, but they cannot. So they are frustrated.

2. Fast hobby joggers who are well under BQ, but cannot qualify for the Olympic trial. They want to differentiate themselves from other BQ runners, but there is no easily identifiable "marker" for them. So they are frustrated.

DMVarea wrote:

I can't name many (or any other) races that require you to break 2:30 to be in the top-100 or so.

Just out of curiosity, I pulled the number of runners under 2:30 last year in a bunch of the biggest marathons. I'm sure I missed some.

Fukuoka: 129

Toyko: 112

Lake Biwa: 102

Boston: 84

Chicago: 83

Berlin: 70

London: 69

CIM: 50

Paris: 47

Rotterdam: 47

New York: 46

Grandma's: 45

Houston: 31

Twin Cities: 29

Ottawa: 21

Los Angeles: 20

boomheadshot wrote:

Race day was easy. Take a bus to the starting line, chill for a little while, line up and race, and then pick up your bag at the end. Don't be slow and you should have no problem getting your bag quickly.

It was an awesome experience and totally worth it.

I would not call the prerace easy

1) wake up early and get on a bus

2) sit in a cold, damp field for 3 hours

Then start the race tired and ready to run slow. The course is not responsible for slow times, it is the logistics. The course is easy, heartbreak hill is only 88 feet.

plus it is expensive for a slow time. Other big marathons have good competition, and are much cheaper: Baltimore, hartford, OKC...

individualist runner wrote:

runnerwhoprofesses wrote:

Some people need their ruNning validated. I hate crowds

^this

Out running today I met a group of around 50 cyclists, all dressed up in white and pink jerseys and black cycling shorts. They all looked very happy. Just like queers in a gay parade.

I just don't get it.

That was my only laugh today thanks.

But to answer the question I run Boston because I can.

Two good posts.

History and tradition

Being around like minded people who see distance running as a sport and worthy pursuit.

The challenge of the course

The crowd support

The volunteer support

Boston is a fun place to visit.

There are a lot of reasons and the draw isn't often to impress Billy at work that you completed it.

it makes NO sesne wrote:

Its expensive, the logistics to travel there and to get to and from the race on race day are a pain, and you lose a day of work.

IT MAKES NO SENSE!

As a runner who averaged around 3 hours, Boston gave me a chance to run in a group whose family and work life was similar to minds. My PR would put me in the top 5% in most local races, when I should be a mid-paker, which was the case in Boston.

Link wrote:

Intrinsically? It's BOSTON for Gad's sake - aside from the Olympics this is the oldest and most famously continuously run marathon on Earth. This origin of this race is also the genesis of road racing as a sport. It's Mecca, it's Athens, it's the sport's anchor. Everyone should run it (or try) just to pay proper respect.

Except no-one outside the US and Canada really knows or cares about it and it should probably stay that way.

If I wanted to travel to visit Boston, why not do it on marathon weekend and hop in the race while I'm there?

It's a unique atmosphere.

it makes NO sesne wrote:

Its expensive, the logistics to travel there and to get to and from the race on race day are a pain, and you lose a day of work.

IT MAKES NO SENSE!

Dude by your logic, why not just do it on a track? All marathons are expensive.

Why Boston?

1) The crowd is great.

2) It's historic. Like why do people go visit the white house? They want to be part of history.

3) I think the Monday start makes it better. You're family can go with you, see some stuff in New England during the weekend and then you race on Monday. Of course, it's hard as a runner to enjoy much.

4) It's not a boring flat as hell loop course. It's a challenge.