Is Boston really such a slow course?

Check out the interview I did a while back with Greg Meyer at http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Meyer.aspx He discusses many topics, but in his Boston win he had such a big lead that he basically ran in with some easy 5:20s and 5:30s and enjoyed the crowd at the end. He possibly could have broke 2:08 - at least run sub-2:08:30, but it was about winning back then, not just times.

Off the top of my headKempainen Bill Rodgers Beardsley Cosmas Ndetigranted that one year was nuts with a huge tail windOr a guy like Sell whose boston and chicago PRs are with in 10s.It is tough to evaluate marathons in that most people only run 1-2 a year and a lot of them keep running the same ones over and over.

Boston and Chicago Vet wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

The race's history is also full of athletes who ran faster in Boston than they did anywhere else, including record-worthy courses like Chicago and NYC.

OK, I'll ask. Did they run faster at Boston because they were injured, or heat, or after they developed as runners?

Name them please with their times.

I am bit skeptical of things like this. Being the american or world record holder wasn't a big deal? I have read interviews from the 70-80s where guys seem pretty proud of those feats.

Trailrunnergary wrote:

Check out the interview I did a while back with Greg Meyer at

http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Meyer.aspx

He discusses many topics, but in his Boston win he had such a big lead that he basically ran in with some easy 5:20s and 5:30s and enjoyed the crowd at the end. He possibly could have broke 2:08 - at least run sub-2:08:30, but it was about winning back then, not just times.

Yes it was really nuts. And Kempainen retired not long after. So really you've got Rodgers and Beardsley.

Beardsley, of course, was never the same runner after that race -- neither was Salazar. With the farm accident, car accident, drug addiction, achilles injury, etc, it's no suprise that he never ran that fast again. The only reason he doesn't have a faster time anywhere else is that he was never again fit to really race fast anywhere else.

That leaves Rodgers. Who never ran Chicago or London or Berlin.

Malmo, your stats suggest that NYC runs slower than Boston.

I never thought so before, but I do believe that to be accurate, looking at the stats you compiled and thinking over results from NYC. I wonder what makes NYC somewhat difficult. Ups and downs? Uneven terrain?