Should Chicago be cut as a major?

They are a major marathon bc they have 30000 plus runners and a cut off. They don’t need to be fast to me a “major”. Not sure what your point is?

I'm not sure how you found your way to this forum without knowing this, but there are 6 major marathons in the world based on them being the most high profile. 30,000 participants and a cut-off time has nothing to do with it - lots of races have that.

I also never said they had to be fast. But they do have to have competitive elite fields. New York and Boston aren't fast but I have no problem with them being majors.

I would argue Boston is much worse as a major when compared to Chicago.

From a US point of view I am always more excited about what happens at Chicago than I am at New York or Boston. Both Boston and NY will railways roll out the big names that are past their prime. Chicago will be the up and comers race.

I would propose that non of the US marathons be WMM. When was the last time Kipchoge ran one of the 3? The US races are afterthoughts for the very very top international athletes.

It pains me to say it, but this isn't an unreasonable take. But the reality, thankfully, is that the US is going to have a major.

I think Chicago is actually the best of the 3 US majors. The fastest of the three courses and one that is both world record eligible and capable of generating a world record. The best race day logistics of the 3, by far. Crowd support nearly on par with the other 2. In a city that has the infrastructure (hotels, airports, restaurants, non-race day attractions) to support a world class race.

But Boston has the tradition, and NYC has the appeal of being a world class destination city (and is much more of a tradition than Chicago, frankly).

The real reason why Chicago doesn't get a world class field is that it is sandwiched between Berlin and NYC which cannibalize it.

Here's what Abbott WMM says about what makes a major a major:

So it seems they care both about the elites and the mass participation, but maybe more about the masses?

If I had to power rank it:

1- London is clearly the best - deepest fields, biggest stars
2- New York next up - shallower field, big stars
T-3- Boston - deeper field, not as huge stars
T-3- Berlin - shallower field, but usually some bigger stars than Boston
5- Tokyo - Somewhere in between Boston and Berlin as far as depth, star level somewhere in between
6- Chicago - Shallow field, usually just 1 big standout star in the field if that

I think you could reasonably argue that Valencia is really the 5th best marathon typically. Not that it's significantly better than Tokyo or Chicago.

'Marathon majors' is a marketing device for mass participation. Collect all 6 medals to be a true marathoner, stuff like that.

All non-US marathon majors are legit fast courses in cities which are massive tourist destinations as of themselves. US apparently couldn't exactly tick all the boxes at once so they had to split that between NYC and Chicago: NYC is fun and touristy and all that but not a fast course, Chicago is a place where people can set PBs while also not exactly a rural hole.

Now Boston, that's the 'ugly duckling'. It's a great race historic and such, but everything is different. The course is point-to-point, not eligible for records. Any personal bests set there mean either your previous one was too soft or you got lucky with strong tailwind. There's no lottery for slower hobbyjoggers so they're locked out of their 6-star collectible. The city is no village of course but doesn't have that first-rate tourist appeal either. I think Boston Marathon could be celebrated enough as of itself without the 'majors' label.

I don't think it matters. When watching these races they hardly, if ever, talk about the WMM.

They SHOULD, of course and not only about who is going to win but about the secondary places as well.

Obviously, a major flaw with the WMM is that it's a two year thing that is always in both years one and two.

If any good can come from the super shoes it's that some of these people can now run 3 marathons a year.

But the races have to promote the contest and the announcers have to talk about it.

Watch a F1 race- they talk about the Driver's standings throughout the race.

You are under the mistaken impression that most runners care about the front. They don't. The best marathons should be judged by the experience they provide the big middle and back of the pack. Is it a historic course, does the whole city get behind the race, do the locals and sponsors do events around the city, stuff like that.

I don't care one bit if any pros at all even show up. Marathon running is and should be a fun a tivity to stay in shape and nothing more.

Well as far as I'm aware the two they have on the backburner in terms of joining the majors if they meet the requirements is a marathon in China and a marathon in South Africa

So guess you have to ask yourself if Chicago will be better than those options .. Guess will be more geographically spread that way ...

$ix Race$, $ix $t💫r$ $ydney i$ next!

Chicago is a great city to have fun in. That's why the participation numbers keep growing. NYC has more media attention, but that does not make it a more competitive race. Chicago pays better appearance fees than NYC.

Some goofball upthread described Chicago as "not exactly a rural hole". Absurd and kills any credibility poster might have had otherwise. Chicago is a massive, beautiful and historic city, one of the most important in the world on multiple levels. The race is fast, exquisitely organized and executed, has massive fields, huge crowds of spectators, I could go on and on. All of these same aspects apply to New York and Boston as well. The idea that any of them should be replaced is, frankly, stupid.

The only reason some of the other "upstart" Euro or Asian races offer more prize money is because the HAVE TO because they are not on the level of the WMM, several of which also served as some of the first, most important "legacy" marathons in the world. It's annoying that some secondary Euro race would be considered to take the place of one of these biggies because some (probably dirty money Saudi or the like) Daddy Warbucks throws money at prizes.

Marathon aspects that truly matter include the course, the field size, excitement/participation of residents, history, logistics, the city itself as a destination, with elites, records and prize money coming AFTER the other aspects.

I've been to the Paris race, one of the races noted by another poster, and it is (at best) somewhat adequately supported by the city and locals. Paris is one of the best cities in the world to visit but the Paris Marathon is absolutely NOT even close to being on the level of any of the American races in the WMM. Not even close.

Not my decision and I don’t really care. I will say that many parts of the Chicago course are booooooriiiiing. Crowd support is also sparse in many areas.

I think a Chinese race is on track to become another WMM and I don’t think they’ll replace any American ones.

Talk about a terrible take.

I disagree. I think London and Berlin are head and shoulders above every other marathon major. New York is probably the best of the rest.