A big question that will raise a lot of opinions. As it stands, Boston would still be Boston, the race would be just as succesfull numbers-wise like it was pre-prize $, the people would still be there, etc.
It would be interesting. Any thoughts, especially the "old guard?"
In the mid-1980s, after prize money and appearance fees had become commonplace in major marathons, the Boston race organizers tried to maintain the race's longstanding policy of offering no prize money and no appearance fees, taking the attitude that "Boston is Boston" and good runners will continue to show up. They were wrong. In 1984 and 1985, only one runner of any stature showed up, and he won the race by a huge margin both years. The race was actually becoming something of an embarrassment for the city. The following year, in 1986, Boston started paying for quality runners, and the race returned to a level of some prominence.
Boston's experience in the mid-80s showed that you can't ignore the elite field without consequence. These days, without prize money and appearance fees, Boston would soon resemble the Marine Corps Marathon -- a fine race, but not a race that many people other than the participants really care about.
>Would the Boston marathon be better with no prize $? -<
No.
No, it would not be better with no prize money. Nothing that has prize money would be better with no prize money. What a stupid question.
Depends on what you mean by better.
Take away the prize money and you take away most of the elite runners. You'll end up with a field of mainly 2:20+ runners. Some very good Americans and perhaps one elite if you're lucky. The prestige will always bring a few fast people, but most will go elsewhere looking for money.
Regardless, the Boston Marathon will always be a very big deal around Boston. It's got too much history. And fortunately its prestige was not built on prize money. Go to Chicago, London, or Berlin and you're running a different course every other year. At Boston, you run down the same streets that Clarence Demar ran. I doubt that means much to Kenyans, but it means a hell of a lot to the 20,000 or so runners who pay the bill.
The people will always come out in the thousands to cheer for the runners. You'll always have some local sponsor willing to put up money for just being associated with it. Charity runners will still show up by the thousands to raise millions for charities. Is that "better"? Probably not. But I don't see that it's any worse for Bostonians either. Just different. It's not a such bad fate to be (as someone else put it) like the Marine Core Marathon.
In the end, what did prize money do for Boston? Well, it turned it into the Kenyan national marathon championships, that's what it did. Or the Kenyan Olympic Marathon Trials. It's a privilege to see such incredible runners go by each year but I remember watching even in those "terrible" years of 84 and 85. It hasn't made Boston "better." Merely faster.
But the point is moot. You have to be realistic. Prize money is here to stay at Boston. We're always going to get fast runners. Now that we offer less money than Chicago, London, and Berlin we won't be getting the Khannouchis and Tergats of the world. Just some Koreans and the Kenyan "B" team. I can live with that. Give me a good duel between some fast guys and I don't care if they're running 2:20s, really. I just want to see a good race. Or run it.
Average_Joe wrote:
At Boston, you run down the same streets that Clarence Demar ran. I doubt that means much to Kenyans, but it means a hell of a lot to the 20,000 or so runners who pay the bill.
Come to think of it, scratch that particular point. I doubt if even 1% of those 20,000 have even heard of DeMar.
don't have to go to that extreme...just get east african blood crits back to a legal 50 or less and watch the americans beat them like billy rogers and frank shorter did....remember, shorter lost no marathon to a clean african....