Is Boston really that challenging?

Dead easy. If you can't pr at boston you didn't try very hard.

It's a bit over 26 miles, from what I hear, and those people look pretty tired every year running down Commonwealth Ave, so it's probably pretty tough.

In all seriousness, though, the people that I know personally who have done it (3:00-3:10 types) all have run a few minutes slower on the Boston course.

Hard on the legs.

Runners routinely come through 20 miles at world record pace only to be humbled by the cruel descent to the finish. It's a difficult course.

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 northwesterly winds. 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 anfalling short on 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)

We have these discussions about Boston vs. a flat loop course a lot. George, I know your view from past discussions of the topic, and I respect your view. But, to the extent that you may be suggesting that Boston is nowhere near as fast as a flat loop even when there are cool temperatures and a tailwinid, I disagree. I think that the performances of many good runners support the view that, with cool temperatures and a tailwind, many runners can run faster at Boston than they can run on a flat loop course.

Avocado's Number wrote:But, to the extent that you may be suggesting that Boston is nowhere near as fast as a flat loop even when there are cool temperatures and a tailwinid, I disagree.

I didn't suggest that. A tailwind almost makes up for the cruel and strategically misplaced downhills.

Not for this old dude.

Only one course tougher for Me and that was the Sydney Olympic course.

That course had Martin Fiz at almost a walk.

Well I'm no elite and I certainly do not measure up to your typical Letsrunner, but I was in sub3hr shape and went to Boston and got killed. It was humbling experience. I think most my problems were due to the high temps, but the course didn't help at all.

it's not an easy course, but if one runs smart and knows how to run down hill, one can run very fast there

13 timer wrote:

it's not an easy course, but if one runs smart and knows how to run down hill, one can run very fast there

Joe McVeigh has previously posted a very thorough summary of an effective Boston course strategy...

I think that it can be a fast course, even without a strong tailwind, but it has to be run correctly. How to run it correctly, though, is the difficult part. Go out just a little too fast in the first six miles and you are pretty much screwed due to quads that have turned to hamburger. Go out a little too slow in the first six miles and you are just giving away time. Attack the Newton hills too hard, and the downhill after Heartbreak will destroy you. Just so many ways to screw up the course and pay very dearly.

I think it was the third time that I ran it that I realized that the final five miles are mostly downhill.

malmo is correct.

The downhills at 15.5 and 21 are quad killers.

I wonder if Boston is harder on the legs than other races for 2 reasons.

1) The 12:00 start - many people aren't as fueled with food as they normally are when they run? I wonder if this will change with the change in start times. Sitting out at the park hanging out in the cold doesn't help for peak perfomance.

2) I wonder if the streets are harder surface compared to other marathons. This may seem crazy but I have run other downhill marathons and my quads aren't nearly as beat up as they are after Boston. I wonder if Boston's course has streets that are built different to deal with Boston's weather - are they made up of a harder surface?

runover wrote:

2) I wonder if the streets are harder surface compared to other marathons.

they are not

The course is challenging, but the most difficult aspect for me, far and away, was the weather. I trained mostly in cold temps in Chicago yet, because of the time of year, marathon day turned out 70 with no clouds and no shade (at that time of year in New England the trees are still bare). Couple this with the (previous) noon start and that was it. A struggle with dehydration. I was ready for the hills, but there wasn't much I could do about the heat. I did some heat training, but since I don't like to run indoors it wasn't really effective (I wore layers and layers). Maybe the ideal Boston prep is to hit the treadmill with a couple layers on certain days while maintaining some downhill repeats outdoors.

The course is challenging, for a # of reasons:

1. It's so easy to get sucked into going too fast at the start (narrow road, long downhill, lots of people going for glory). I raced a 10k on Patriots day with a buddy, and his 10K split at Boston was faster than his actual finish time for the St. Pats race day . . . and he was an experienced runner, who just got sucked into going out too fast (and it didn't feel hard -- then).

2. The downhills, especially after heartbreak hill, are a killer. You've got to practice downhill running, to get the quads ready for the pounding.

3. The weather seems to be more and more of a factor over the past several years. Global warming? Plus, on a hot, sunny day, the foliage and buds in Boston just aren't developed yet, so there's little shade or respite from the sun.

4. I think you waste a lot of energy at the start (so many people on a narrow street). It feels more like a cattle drive than a race. Perhpas the split start made a difference/ I haven't run Boston in 4 years, and it was the jostling @ the start, and the tons of slower runners clogging up front that made the first 3-4 miles feel too crowded and stressful to run a smooth, relaxed race.