I am curious what they are. Clearly Chicago, Boston, and New York top the list. I'm not sure how you would rank those relative to each other, but compared to the rest they are a step or two ahead.
What comes next? Houston, Twin Cities, Austin, Grandmas, and Phoenix (RnR) come to mind for tier 2. Again, I'm not sure how they would compare to each other.
How are you defining "most competitive"? Those marathons with rent-a-Kenyan's or the time for the top 100, top 500, top 1000?
Count Canadian marathons too.
Chicago > NYC > Boston
add to list:
Cal International (Sacramento)
maybe Los Angeles
Most competative up front (i.e. top 10 or 15 or so). Use your judgement from there.
clearly clear wrote:
Chicago > NYC > Boston
add to list:
Cal International (Sacramento)
maybe Los Angeles
Agreed.
1) Chicago
2) NYC
3) Boston
for sure.
I'm sure some nostalgic clown will come here and say Boston is #1 or 2, but times have changed.
According to MarathonGuide.com, here's the time for the 20th, 50th, and 100th finisher at each marathon in 2008 (or 2007 if it's a fall marathon). Races arranged by the 20th place time.
Chicago (2006) - 2:15, 2:20, 2:26
New York City (2006) - 2:19, 2:28, 2:35
Boston - 2:23, 2:29, 2:35
Grandma's - 2:27, 2:45, 2:58
San Diego RnR - 2:30, 2:51, 2:59
Arizona RnR - 2:34, 2:45, 2:56
Twin Cities (2007) - 2:34, 2:48, 3:01
Los Angeles - 2:34, 2:51, 3:09
Philadelphia (2007) - 2:36, 2:44, 2:51
Houston - 2:36, 2:48, 2:58
Dallas White Rock (2007) - 2:39, 2:53, 3:04
Austin - 2:40, 2:51, 3:00
*Chicago 2007 was anamoly with the heat.
*New York 2007 might be skewed due to fast runners being in the Olympic trials the day before instead.
Others?
Just find out what the top 10 payouts are (both prize money and appearance fees) and rank them in that order.
Cal International (2007) - 2:36, 2:44, 2:51
Marine Corps (2007) - 2:35, 2:43, 2:53
Honolulu (2007) - 2:39, 2:53, 3:02
Columubus (2007) - 2:45, 2:55, 3:02
Los Angeles is a huge marathong attracting over 35,000 runners each year. The atmosphere is awesome there and the competition is always hot. I would easily rank it in the top 5 in the US.
Twin Cities was also an anomaly with the heat and humidity the same weekend as Chicago. It was smaller, and as a result didn't face the aid station crises and negative publicity that plagued Chicago, but 07 performances aren't an indication of the typical Twin Cities year. Twin Cities should probably be #4 behind the marathon triumvirate: Chicago, NYC, Boston. Take a look at the 20/50/100 the last 2 years:
Twin Cities (2007) - 2:34, 2:48, 3:01
Twin Cities (2006) - 2:27, 2:39, 2:52
king wrote:
Los Angeles is a huge marathong attracting over 35,000 runners each year. The atmosphere is awesome there and the competition is always hot. I would easily rank it in the top 5 in the US.
The competition is always hot?!?
3:09 gets you in the top 100 out of that huge field.
3:59 gets you in the top 10%. Yes, that means 90% of the field doesn't break 4 hours.
And for the record, there weren't even half that many finishers in 2008 (only 16,941).
Unholy Cumulus wrote:
Count Canadian marathons too.
Ottawa (2008) - 2:19, 2:38, 2:55
Toronto (2007) - 2:24, 2:55, 3:06
Looks like Canadian marathons have a solid top 20, but lack the depth of the US marathons.