Hansons--Why London and not Boston?

Boston will always be the best wrote:

So while London has been racking in the bigger names, Boston still have some pretty impressive credentials. But when you put all that aside, Boston is the oldest/most historic marathon in the world(besides the olympics). That is part of the allure of winning Boston. If you ask anyone who doesnt follow competitive road racing, they will probably tell you that the Boston Marathon is the biggest/best in the world. London as far as I'm concerned can do all they want as far as prize money/attracting elites goes, but the prestige/tradition behind the race will never equal that of Boston

Regarding history London has had a marathon since the Olympics in 1908, from 1909-1996 it was the Polytechnic marathon which was one of the top marathons through much of that time.

At the time of its demise in 1996, the Polytechnic Marathon could claim the following:

• It was Europe’s oldest regular marathon

• It established 26.2 miles as the standard marathon distance

• It was the race in which the first-ever sub-2:20 marathon was run

• It had seen more world records than any other marathon

• It had been run over 26.2 miles more often than any other marathon (Boston, the only marathon in the world to have been run more often, did not adopt the 26.2 mile distance until 1924, but even then was slightly short for the first three years, as it was again in 1951–56)

The London marathon is a worthy successor to the Polytechnic bringing back the days of top quality races, world records and large crowds. Since 2003 the Sporting Life trophy dating back to 1909 has been renamed the Chris Brasher trophy and is awarded at the London marathon.