jecht wrote:
What did he think about Boston was easy? Or had he run it multiple times?
Because it's net downhill. I think he just ran Boston the one time, and New York just one time.
Also he said the up hills were nothing.
He asked someone when they'd get to the hills, and the reply was that they'd already passed them.
I'd agree that if you want a PR, Boston would be a bad choice because of the logistics and the weather. In fact, most spring marathons are iffy because the weather is less predictable than fall marathons, generally speaking.
I don't think it's a terrible course to pr on, but I don't think it's great. The logistics suck unless you are an elite. The weather is always a crap shoot and the course...while a "net" downhill isn't a straight downhill by any means.
I think people who think it's a good course probably have "course goggles." instead of evaluating the course objectively, they go by their race on that day.
I ran it twice and didn't PR nor PW.
In the most literal sense, if we are only talking about the *course* itself, and not the weather, it is actually a pretty good course for a PB. Net downhill, and the hills aren't terrible. That said, I do think a pancake flat course is slightly faster (unless you're a really good downhill runner).
Now, if we add in the weather (which I'm sure the author was thinking about as well), then it's a complete crapshoot. I would not register for Boston if my sole goal were to run my fastest marathon possible. In my mind, weather is more important than course profile, unless the course is mountainous. As we all know, Boston can be obscenely fast (2011), ridiculously slow (2018), or anywhere in between. If you had a Breaking2 style schedule, and could pick the day you ran it, then Boston would be consistently fast.
Why is everyone so up in arms about the course being net downhill? Net just takes into account two points on the course. It tells you nothing significant about the elevation profile between start and finish. The course's rolling hills take a bit out of you, you lose a lot of time out of Newton hills, and the roads aren't that smooth either. Don't get me wrong, the weather is a huge deal and plays the biggest role in a PR (especially wind since it's point to point) but the course isn't easy by any means to get a PR on.
Go tell that to Ryan Hall.
Thanks for the clarification Dunes!
Thank you for posting this Nicholas!
I ran ok in HS and then quit. I sometimes regret not running more during my peak years (22-28). I did do a 5k at age 24 and ran 18:33 but never took it beyond that.
At 35 I'm hoping to do my first 'thon this fall and go from there. 2:38 is damned good.
I've run 7 marathons.
All 3 non-Bostons were sub-3.
All 4 Bostons have been over 3.
The Newton hills are not that hard, on their own. When fresh, I can run them fast, no problem. But in the marathon, they've destroyed me every time. The downhill after, on wrecked legs, doesn't help.
Just my n=1 data...
Downhill point to point wrote:
It's almost all downhill and point to point course. As long as the wind isn't too bad and it isn't 100°, one can easily PB on the course.
Amen!
Thompson ran 2:34 today with a 3 minute negative split. I don't know if that is a personal best for him, but he's in the 40-44 so it has to be pretty good for him on an age basis.
kmaclam wrote:
Downhill point to point wrote:
It's almost all downhill and point to point course. As long as the wind isn't too bad and it isn't 100°, one can easily PB on the course.
Amen!
Amen, NOT!
Having run the course from Natick to Cleveland Circle at least 100 times I think I'm qualified to opine.
Boston's unique topography makes it a NET downhill race on paper, however, it's still certainly not as fast as a flat course. Not even close. Any "aiding" at Boston depends on the capricious nature of the westerly winds. Anytime you get a wind anywhere from the NW to SSW it's game on! Even with the benefit of a tailwind, the course is such that your legs take an awful beating.
Notice that during the first mile (a) there is a drop of 130 ft. At the end of four miles (b), a net drop of 310 ft. Anyone who's ever run a marathon knows that the first four miles means nothing and any gains during those first four miles are going to be negligible -- especially in world-class fields. From four to 21 miles (b-d) there is an elevation RISE of 50 ft., leading to a quad-destroying drop of 220 ft. over the last five miles (e-f). I cannot name one runner who has ever said that they were "aided" during those last five miles of Boston, can you? To the contrary, the race history is riddled with dozens of runners making it through 21 miles ahead of world-record pace -- facing only downhill ahead -- and then being cruelly humbled by the final descent.
In a nutshell: Minus 310 ft. over four miles. Verdict: small gain. Plus 50 ft. over the next 17 miles. Verdict: a loss. Minus 220 ft over the last 5 miles. Verdict: a big loss.
I cannot stress it enough the two most significant features of Boston's course are the downhills at (c) Newton Lower Falls (-100ft. at 15.5 miles) and (e) St. Ignatious Church (-80 ft. at 21 miles after Heartbreak). That -80 ft. drop at St. Ignatious is more like -100 ft because there is a little rise after it to the 22 mile checkpoint. Those downhills kill the superstars and plodders alike.
Here are the elevations above sea level of the mile marks on the Boston Marathon course.
Mileage City/Town Elevation ft. Netchange
Start Hopkinton 490 N/A
1.0 Hopkinton 360 -130 (a)
2.0 Ashland 320 -40
3.0 Ashland 265 -55
4.0 Ashland 180 -85 (b)
5.0 Framingham 205 +25
6.0 Framingham 180 -25
7.0 Framingham 155 -25
8.0 Natick 180 +25
9.0 Natick 150 -30
10.0 Natick 170 +20
11.0 Natick 180 +10
12.0 Wellesley 165 -15
13.0 Wellesley 145 -20
14.0 Wellesley 130 -15
15.0 Wellesley 160 +30
16.0 Newton/LowerFalls 60 -100 (c)
17.0 Newton 115 +55
18.0 West Newton 145 +30
19.0 Newton 130 -15
20.0 Newton 150 +20
21.0 ChestnutHill 230 +80 (d)
22.0 Boston/Brighton 150 -80 (e)
23.0 Brookline 95 -55
24.0 Brookline 60 -35
25.0 Boston/Back Bay 15 -45
26.0 Boston/Back Bay 10 -5
26.2 Finish 10 0 (f)
dunes runner wrote:
jecht wrote:
What did he think about Boston was easy? Or had he run it multiple times?
Because it's net downhill. I think he just ran Boston the one time, and New York just one time.
Also he said the up hills were nothing.
He asked someone when they'd get to the hills, and the reply was that they'd already passed them.
HARDOOOO
u lyin wrote:
dunes runner wrote:
Because it's net downhill. I think he just ran Boston the one time, and New York just one time.
Also he said the up hills were nothing.
He asked someone when they'd get to the hills, and the reply was that they'd already passed them.
HARDOOOO
Fastest American marathon of all time happened at Boston. Beating the eligible record by about a minute.
45 year old hobby runner here.
Last year I ran 3:21 and 3:19 on flat courses.
Today I was in better shape and did the first half at 3:18 pace.
But at the halfway point my quads were already killing me,so I knew it would be a sufferfest from then on.
Everybody talks about the 4 Newton hills, but the first half is a lot of rolling hills.
At the Newton hills I was really running slow and struggling big time.
On the downhill to the finish I was able to push and finish in 3:25.
I’m confident that running today on a flat course 3:16 3:17 would definitively have been possible.
So if you ask me Boston is NOT a PR course.
Congrats to Nicholas Thompson on running 2:34 !!!
I just can't for the life of me figure out how a 50 foot rise (common, it's not a hill) or 100 foot decent is quad thrashing. The people must not run any hills at all as that's a joke to call those hills. The flatest non track run I do where I live is 400 feet of gain in about 6 to 7 miles. That's my easiest / recovery run of the week. Tempo runs and long intervals are all done on a profile with more gain/loss than that...long runs even more and these are not runs I consider true "hilly" runs. None of this hill talk makes any sense to me.
* come on
....................................................... wrote:
u lyin wrote:
HARDOOOO
Fastest American marathon of all time happened at Boston. Beating the eligible record by about a minute.
Neat! Doesn't stop dunes runner's acquaintance from being a hardo.
Thanks! And yes, 2:34 was my personal best. A bit ironic that my piece is all about how hard it is to PR at Boston and then I just did it. But the weather actually turned out to be pretty good, and I took Alan Ruben's advice from the piece and keep it all in control the first 16.