Twin Cities hills worse than Boston?

The hills are very similar. Since the Boston hills are a few miles earlier on the course, the Twin Cities hills may seem a little harder. Between the two courses, weather will be a bigger factor on how well you run.

TC is easier because your legs won't be trashed from the early downhills.

I've run both races and I find Boston harder.

Summitt Ave. is long but seems more gradual. I agree with the post about the early downhills hurting you in Boston so that could be the difference.

Just like in life, it's not the ups that kill you, it's the downs.

Hey, I think I have just spoken Squironian.

Thanks. I appreciate the info. I guess the legs wont be as tired heading into the hills at TC due to lack of downhill, I forgot about that.

I've never heard Twin Cities Hills, but Boston is not that bad. Their first album rocked it, back in the day.

downhills do not make your legs tired. if you don't pound they only help you.

the last 10k of TC is real tough. Hills on the river road before even hitting summit. very doable if you're in good shape, but keep that portion of the race in mind during the early flat stuff.

jjkkjj - thank you for the info about TC. Have you run Boston?

quikchik wrote:

I've run both races and I find Boston harder.

Summitt Ave. is long but seems more gradual. I agree with the post about the early downhills hurting you in Boston so that could be the difference.

I assume Summitt Ave is part of Twin Cities?

Be glad you don't have to run up Summit Ave on the Boston Course! You go by right it at about the 23.5 mile mark of Boston. It's like climbing a cliff.

Average_Joe you have me confused. What is at the 23.5 mile mark of Boston? I thought the hills at Boston were before 21?

Nothing is at the 23.5 mile mark of Boston. It's a gradual downhill at the point.

However on your left at that point is a road called Summit Ave that goes up away from Beacon St.

You do not run it when running the Boston Marathon course, but it is locally famous for being a very tough training hill. People who are planning to run Boston quite often use it for training.

When I saw the OP post about Summit Ave, for a second I thought he thought Boston went over it. Thank God it doesn't.

The Summit Ave. hill he is referring to is not part of the course. It's a hill that abuts the course, but for your purposes it hardly matters as you don't go up (or down) it.

i have not done boston, so I can't compare.

I don't know how common this is, but I was in the top 35 at TC and saw a few guys walking even up in those ranks over the last couple hills.

however, if you're an experienced marathoner and are fit, I don't think it's a huge problem.

I've done six Bostons and four (or three, I dropped out of one) Twin Cities.

Overall Boston is probably tougher due to the extreme downhill early that beat your quads to death. Then the series of Newton hills that just beat you down. The first of the four is probably the toughest, but they just add up. The one advantage that Boston does have is that if you survive through the hills, most of the last 5+ miles is downhill. Some people have so destroyed their legs that they seize up on the downhill after Heartbreak, which is quite long and fairly steep.

Twin Cities has mostly rolling hills until the river. Getting from the river to Summit Avenue is probably the toughest hill. The problem is that after you seem to crest the hill onto Summit Avenue, it is still gradually going up for quite a ways. A lot of people think that it is flat at that point and don't deal with it well. The rest of Summit Ave is rolling, but the downhill to the finish doesn't really help a lot since it is really steep. A friend who ran it (much faster than me) said that his legs were so beaten up at that point that he would have rather run up the hill.

Both are great races.

I've run both twice and feel quite strongly that Twin Cities is worse - primarily due to the location of the hills there. Both demand a lot of restraint in the first 16 miles to do well. I've had better success with that in Boston - perhaps because right when I really want to get carried away, I hit the Newton hills. In Twin Cities, the hills come so late and they feel like they never stop until the mad karem to the finish. My husband watched the finish in 2005 and saw a small number of the top runners fall on that out of control downhill. After all that climbing, your quads are toast. As some of the others have said, if you can make it through the Newton hills in Boston and hold off on the sharp downhill out of Boston College, you can have a great final 10k at Boston. Not the case in Twin Cities.

These are all great replies with the exact kind of info I was hoping for. Thanks. It appears that the best thing I can do is work on hills in the latter part of my long runs.

I haven't done Boston, but can say that the fairly steep climb *to* Summit Ave, followed by the seemingly endless grind that *is* Summit Ave, is a pretty substantial combination.

That said, knowing what I was getting into (as you seem to -- good work), I prepared specifically for the course with plenty of hills, sat a bit off of my goal pace until ~16 miles, ended up feeling good enough to try to "attack" rather than "survive" the back half, and negative split the race. You can certainly do the same...good luck. Enjoy it! (Really great course/organization.)

I have run both, twice.

You can run TCM with little if any regard for hills; try that at Boston and it'll eat you for lunch.

mplatt, are you saying that you think Boston is tougher?