Will there be any world class runners in the Boston Marathon?

People go to London to run fast, its shorter travel, less time zone changes

Meb & Hall probably have the longest flight,

Boston will still have a good field and it will be a strong race, not a bunch of pacers for 30k followed by a 12k

Boston has made a resurgence in the last couple of years with Robert Cheruiyot, but I agree that they're behind London, New York, Chicago, Berlin and even Fukuoka.

Greater payouts by Boston won't solve one big difference -- terrain.

Flora London's PR-friendly course is more conducive for a faster run by just about any runner, all else equal. A better PR means a little more bargaining power for future races of all distances and with sponsor deals.

So while you may call the BAA stodgy, I disagree-- in fact I compliment them for their eco-friendly policy of not bulldozing the earth between Hopkinton and Boston to make the course flatter for time-trialers.

The problem with Boston is how cheap John Hancock is with appearance money. They are dealing with 20 year old numbers. Until they change that, they will always be the second banana.

Too bad Ryan Hall isnt' racing this year. An American win in an Olympic year could make him a household name. Add to that his All-American persona. He can win London and get rise to his "Q" factor.

An american win at Boston is no longer worth what it once was. Although I bet that Brian Sell will tow the line.

Ah, the annual idiot parade has started again.

"Boston is being destroyed blah blah blah"

"The BAA is too cheap, blah blah blah"

"We need to protect the legacy of the greatest race ever blah blah blah"

Waaaaah.

And still the Boston Marathon goes right just fine no matter how much you Chicken Littles whine.

Boston will bend over backwards to get the defending champion but after that they do rely on the name quite a bit. I know a guy who was top American a couple of years ago and told me Boston did very little to get him to come back. On the other hand, the way London is set up almost as a charitable trust that has to spend all it raises every year; they really are untouchable in terms of what they can pay out. They make millions every year from people who apply but don't get in and don't even run!

The timing puts it in direct competition with Boston. Boston is a very well run race but I think the policy of increased charity/corporate runners will hurt it in the long run. This debate has raged on other threads. In 2004 Boston was ranked as more competitive than the Olympic marathon and the field is always deep although as has been pointed out, the course is tough.

Mandingo wrote:

Boston is a very well run race but I think the policy of increased charity/corporate runners will hurt it in the long run.

London has just as many, if not more charity runners than Boston. Watch the coverage and you'll see a sea of clowns in costume. Look at the web site and they promote charities big time. I don't think Boston's problem has been charity runners.

London is just plain out more aggressive in pursuing the best marathoners in the world. There was some great trash talk between Martin Lel and Cheriyot last year regarding the Marathon Majors. Lel poo-pooed Cheriyot's accomplishment taunting him to come to London and race with the best.

I agree that London has as many if not more charity runners than Boston. London also has many more runners in total and does not have the "niche" of having to qualify to run it. Boston, it seems to me, is trying to be everything to everybody. I would like to see them plow some of the fees from the charity runners into appearance fees for top runners. Of course, the charity money raised by the charity runners still goes to charity.

London is "selling" a fast course and as I mentioned, is uniquely positioned to pay for the best. Boston is selling tradition and exlusivity. (or it was)

let's see... the BAA has gone over it's acceptance limit for several years in a row... they got one of the Olympic Trials... they get live TV coverage... more volunteers than they can handle... and 112 years of history

yeah, London is destroying them....

you're an idiot.

the BAA is fine thank you wrote:

let's see... the BAA has gone over it's acceptance limit for several years in a row... they got one of the Olympic Trials... they get live TV coverage... more volunteers than they can handle... and 112 years of history

yeah, London is destroying them....

you're an idiot.

And this is the attitude that is bringing them down. They get one World class runner last year on the men's side (and mostly because of the marathon majors) and London gets over 10.

Do you think they would run trials in London? Who is the idiot?

112 years of history, so we don't need to pay out the money for the top runners to toe the line. They should be happy and proud enough to run Boston because it is a tradition (sarcasm for those who have trouble recognizing that).

Is it the course that brings the top guys to London? I don't think so. It's the fact that they can make so much more money there even before they line up. Without the World Marathon Majors (yes, it's about $ again), who would have lined up to run last year at Boston? Did they really work hard at getting the defending champion to return?

Nobody here can deny that the field is weak in Boston now. It's not because the course is slower. Just ask Decastella, Rodgers, Beardsley, Salazar (His NY time was on a short course), Meyer, and last years champion who had the course record the year before. All of whom have run their PR's or close to it on that course.

It's about the money. Can you blame these guys? They are good for a few years and then it's over. And it's not like other sports. they really do not have too many opportunities to make a lot of money. So you have to pay them to show up. Ryan Hall would have a great effect on running in the US if he ran Boston. But you're never going to see him there because BAA is too cheap. End of story.

~24,990 of the 25,000 entrants in this year's Boston marathon won't give a shit about all of what you just spewed

and neither does the BAA

if the BAA can get 25,000 runners and a few elites, they'll be happy

your thinking that a few elites 'make' a race shows a severe narrowness of thinking

How do we know "an American win at Boston is not worth what it once was?" Heck...let's find out!

the BAA is fine thank you wrote:

~24,990 of the 25,000 entrants in this year's Boston marathon won't give a shit about all of what you just spewed

and neither does the BAA

if the BAA can get 25,000 runners and a few elites, they'll be happy

your thinking that a few elites 'make' a race shows a severe narrowness of thinking

Disney World Marathon and Marine Corp Marathon is full of a lot of runners too. How much respect do they get as Marathons around the world?

Why is it that New York, London and Berlin manages to run a great race and also attract top runners? Do you really think that New York is an easy course? Why can't Boston have elite runners? They used to. Because the BAA doesn't care anymore?

Again, why even bother having qualifying times if you can't even attract elite runners to your race? Year by year this Marathon is becoming more like a parade rather than a race.

They will not be one of the World Marathon Majors for long if they keep this up. If you guys don't care about that, that's fine. If BAA doesn't care then people like me who care about the quality of the race are going to call them on it. 112 years of tradition are being reduced to a PARADE.

A few elites do make a race. All aspects of the race have to be considered.

Let me ask this, does the London Marathon display a narrowness of thinking by doing what is needed to bring the top runners to their race? Oh, well then you must be smarter then they are.

Are you one of the BAA members?

Maybe you guys can cheap it up enough so that one of your runners can win. Then as you put it nobody will care. As long as everybody finishes. Everyone is a winner.

hmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

Let me ask this, does the London Marathon display a narrowness of thinking by doing what is needed to bring the top runners to their race?

no, but they spend (waste) a stupid amount of money.

keep it up, you elitist pricks are always good for a few laughs

[quote]the BAA is fine thank you wrote:

no, but they spend (waste) a stupid amount of money.

Why don't you send them a letter. Let them know that they can have a Marathon major for a lot less money. I'm sure they will come to their senses after listening to someone as bright as you.

I'm glad we had this talk. You're right about Boston. There is no good reason why we should have elite runners here in the states. They should stay in Europe where they are appreciated (Again, I must warn you that this is sarcasm).

Who knows maybe even you and I can win Boston together. That would be something special.

hmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:

[quote]the BAA is fine thank you wrote:

no, but they spend (waste) a stupid amount of money.

Why don't you send them a letter. Let them know that they can have a Marathon major for a lot less money. I'm sure they will come to their senses after listening to someone as bright as you.

I'm glad we had this talk. You're right about Boston. There is no good reason why we should have elite runners here in the states. They should stay in Europe where they are appreciated (Again, I must warn you that this is sarcasm).

Who knows maybe even you and I can win Boston together. That would be something special.

You sure are a whiny little bitch, aren't you?

Define: World Class.

Boston won't ever get the Chicago/London types because of the course. Doesn't matter how much you pay the likes of Geb or Tergat. They are motivated by both world records and money. If you bring Geb or Tergat or any other top 5 marathoner you will bring others in the top 10 by default.

Because it is a part of the world marathon majors it will however continue to get a couple world class marathoners looking for wins and points.

Alan