Get it right, there are three local channels plus one optional cable network. Couldn't you get a national network interested? They're probably too busy showing Oprah reruns. So some people in the upper lefthand corner of the country and a few Japanese journos know about Boston, that isn't the world (perhaps your map is different to mine). I didn't ask which race was better known, I asked which was doing the better job putting our sport in front of the world. Hint - it ain't Boston. Sorry.
p.s. London last year, almost as hyped as last year, was the biggest bust of the season.
You obviously didn't watch the race. If you couldn't enjoy that race, you need to get involved in another sport.
Nobby, I have just one question for you, how many teeth do you have left?
Please get the insults right: Brits have crooked teeth, people from Kentucky have no teeth. Try to pay attention.
I love a good catfight!
I'm from Boston, I'm running Boston, you can guess where I stand on this issue. The only thing I wanted to say is that you cannot discount London's course for being a time trial. It was intentionally set up that way and they are hoping the course will (and does) attract the best runners.
I have never run London, although I do hope to. The reason why I'm sticking up for Boston is that it is a completely different course than the Chicago/Berlin/London completely flat course. After running 16 miles downhill, having to then turn and run up some long inclines and steep hills is very tough. The course makes running the distance even more challenging. Let's also not forget, this is the 110th running.
One important point to mention is that London is also known for dishing out very large appearance fees to the top runners. Boston will give the hotel rooms and the 4 star treatment, but no one is walking home with any extra cash, other than prize money. Some may feel that this makes the race less prestigious because it won't attract the top name talent, but the race directors don't need to because Boston has its history and still attracts a great deal of talent. There may not be 30 guys trying to break the world record, but overall, the mid-front of the field is just as good as that in London's (that is coming into the race ... the times are different due to the courses).
The reason why I find Boston might be more exciting (and please rebut me .. I like discussions), is that there are so many different points of focus in the race. There's the halfway point, where no one in the last who knows how many years has ever led and gone on to win. There's the hills, a make or break point for everyone. Then there's the downhills after Heartbreak Hill. It all makes for many different points of focus.
I honestly feel like in London, there's only one point, the finish. I won't watch the race at the halfway point, I will only care about the end, who won and whether the winner broke the record.
This is nothing against the folks who think London is better, maybe they're right? I haven't run London (yet), I hear it's an EXCELLENT time. But in the end, 110 years worth of history seem hard to beat, to me at least.
Alright, enjoy this fight, I'm going to rest up. Apparently the race is tomorrow!?!?!?
Nobby Nomates wrote:
So some people in the upper lefthand corner of the country and a few Japanese journos know about Boston,
Turn your map over. It's the upper righthand corner.
Wasn't Marc Nenow from Kentucky?
Truly written by someone under 25, I'd say. If Boston sucks, go win it. Yeah, I'm tawkin' to YOU.
Nobby Nomates wrote:
Get it right, there are three local channels plus one optional cable network. Couldn't you get a national network interested? They're probably too busy showing Oprah reruns. So some people in the upper lefthand corner of the country and a few Japanese journos know about Boston, that isn't the world (perhaps your map is different to mine). I didn't ask which race was better known, I asked which was doing the better job putting our sport in front of the world. Hint - it ain't Boston. Sorry.
I've been right in both of my post regarding the televison coverage. What have I posted that is incorrect? And I'm curious about to the television coverage of London. Do they have multiple stations offering hours of live coverage? One station? National? Local?
Regarding my map being different than yours, you got that right. See tuna's post above.
And wouldn't the folks doing the best job of putting the sport in front of the world logically be the ones associated with the best known race. Of course they would.
Finally, it was not the Japanese journalists I was referring to. It is their runners who consider Boston to be "the race" when talking about marathons. Considering their fine marathoning history, that's saying quite a lot.
Whoops, always had a problem with left and right.
And wouldn't the folks doing the best job of putting the sport in front of the world logically be the ones associated with the best known race. Of course they would.
Finally, it was not the Japanese journalists I was referring to. It is their runners who consider Boston to be "the race" when talking about marathons. Considering their fine marathoning history, that's saying quite a lot.
Nobby Nomates wrote:
So you are saying that the present management team, which has taken the most respected and historic marathon in the world (see, no one is arguing that) and reduced it to a class B (at best) international marathon are doing a good job - just because they were handed the job on a plate?
I'm not sure how your mind can translate an impressive international field into a "class B" marathon, but then I'm not a psychologist. Yes, London has a fabulous field, but Boston's is pretty good, too. Class B? Hardly.
So why are there only 3 Japanese athletes in the race? Are there only 3 Japanese athletes? Is Tosa the designated spokesperson for the entire nation? Or is it that, having taken the BAA's dosh, Tosa felt obligated (contractually?) to say something complementary?
Anyone knowledgeable about international marathoning will tell you that the Japanese compete abroad infrequently. As for Tosa's comments, perhaps she was just being sincere.
I've done both
both are great races - Boston is the more interesting course in terms of shape but London has a far more interesting course in terms of landmarks.
London isn't flat either like Rotterdam, Berlin and Chicago but it is a lot flatter than Boston.
London attracts the better runners mostly because of the money but also because it's more of a world championships and has more prestige world wide.
Boston has the history, undoubtedly but I've watched Boston a dozen times on television and it's often not that exciting with a pack of 30 kenyans.
This year could be different though.
London usually only has a handful of Kenyans but has a far better spread of international runners.
Because of the twists and turns of the course, it is never that boring and a number of London races have been won only in the last mile - it is hardly ever just a time trial.
The BBC, which is the main British television channel and national offers around 5 hours of live coverage, plus highlights and digital viewers also get the option of different views ie focussing on just the women's race, just the men's race and can even just keep a camera on the finish line.
Anyone knowledgeable about international marathoning will tell you that the Japanese compete abroad infrequently.Doesn't that "fact" negate the idea that Boston is held to be the Holy Grail of marathoning by the Japanese? Atfer all, if they hold Boston in such high regard, surely they would race there, not in Japan.
As for Tosa's comments, perhaps she was just being sincere.Perhaps she was. Did I say she wasn't? I'm just pointing out the possibility that she may not be entirely sincere, nothing else. It's a valid response to somebody holding her up as the spokesperson for an entire nation. Since it's taken Tosa 6 races to get there, it surely wasn't high on her "to do" list.
Oprah? Now THAT's marketing. I would rather watch every TV replay of every Boston going back to 1974 than watch her or Dr. Phil or Maury Povich and that ilk.
Of course, other than the fact that I took a vacation day to volunteer at Boston and would otherwise be at work, I never see daytime TV anyway.
Are you kidding? I'd take an actual *race* over a five-minute victory romp on a pancake-flat course any day. Last year Boston had *races* in both men's and women's. London did not. Stay on topic next time.
stupid letsrunners wrote:
Are you kidding? I'd take an actual *race* over a five-minute victory romp on a pancake-flat course any day. Last year Boston had *races* in both men's and women's. London did not. Stay on topic next time.
My, my, you sound quite a bit like BUM. So, let me get this straight: all you care about in running is that the best runners are EQUAL in talent. I presume that this is what "racing" really boils down to. You obviously don't care what the LEVEL of that talent is--good, bad, or indifferent, you're in hog heaven as long as there's 2 or more neck and neck at the finish, leaning for the tape. The time, after all, is irrelevant, right? Sorry to say, that I've seen many many many "close" and "competitive" races that simply weren't exciting or memorable.
Boston 2005
Men
Negussie, Hailu (M25) 2:11:45
Onsare, Wilson (M28) 2:12:21 +0:36
Cherono, Benson (M20) 2:12:48 +0:27
Culpepper, Alan (M32) 2:13:39 +0:51
=114
London 2005
Men
LEL, MARTIN (M25) 2:07:26
GHARIB, JAOUAD (M30) 2:07:49 +0:23
RAMAALA, HENDRICK (M30) 2:08:32 +0:43
EL MOUAZIZ, ABDELKADER (M35) 2:09:03 +0:31
=97
Here's your sign, son.