Boston Marathon doesn't count for World Record

London, Rotterdam, Chicago, Berlin, even NYC are more lucritive races based upon prize money alone. Even though Rotterdam and Berlin offer less prize money for winning than Boston, they more than make up for it with time bonuses and sponsor kickbacks. Boston is definetly "third fiddle" of the Spring races behind London and Rotterdam. It always will be. Fortis wants KK, el Mouaziz and Haile G to race again, but this time on the Rotterdam course not in London. John Hancock & Citgo seem uninterested in setting up an event like London, Chicago and now Rotterdam try to do. Their race will continue to decline if they don't. I don't know why they don't hire a guy like Salah Hissou to just go out and crush the Kenyans to at least get people interested in a race that has degraded into a slow, team tactic, kenyan squad exhibition. Boring. BAA, John Hancock and Citgo need to bring in some fast guys from Morocco, Italy, Spain to provide the race with some interest. But they don't. Boston is the worst of the "big three" spring marathons. London and Rotterdam are the only spring races that real runners care about.

As noted earlier, Meyers ate, slept, and breathed the Boston course. I think someone would have to do that in order to be ready to run a WB (that's BEST, not RECORD, even if it didn't "count"). They'd have to run the course SMART, AND, they'd have to get the right day, with perfect temps and wind at their back ...

yeah, IMHO, it could be done ...

Joseba, I was really starting to like you until you brought up all this anti-Boston sentiment. Boston is The Hub, always has been, always will be.

The best marathons to win in terms of money, fame and respect: Olympic Games and the B.A.A.

Unless Khalid K wins the Olympics or Boston, he will be but a footnote in marathoning history, while the pantheon of greats remain Rodgers, DeMar, Bordin, Fultz, Benoit, Roba.

Forget Ullrich...

Down goes Beloki!! Down goes Beloki!!

Boston and New York are the only marathons that get television coverage. Take a nation-wide survey "What's the most important marathon in the world?" #1 BOSTON

I have to agree with Bob Roll on mesurements of courses. The IAAF/TAC rules use to let you measure three meters off the curb in the 70's/80's now you have to measure curb to curb no more cutting corners like in the 70's and 80's There is alo a fudge factor now and it is 200 meters in the marathon. All these races are 200 meters long, a good 45 sec. in a race of 42k.

Make that a long 4.8. Anyone who calls that a five-mile course does so with tongue planted firmly in ass.

Hey fellow CMS person,

How do you know Slattery's short?

How about the "Irish feet are running" 5 mile race in Lowell?

I got a PR there.

Personally, I dont think that there is a true Marathon World Record, since courses vary so much. Every course is different, and until they start having marathons on a 400-metre track, times are somewhat meaningless.

The 2;07 and 2;08's of Jifar and Ikangaa rate very highly due to the difficultly of the NYC course, and the Olympic Record of Lopes in the heat of Los Angeles is a great one.

I measure courses for certification in MI and have done so since 1981. The standards by which courses are measured for certification have changed since '85, but very little. Since the mid-80's, courses are measured the shortest possible route, SPR,(and sometimes this takes on creative measuring to ensure runners can't run less than the nominal distance), one foot from curbs, 8" from non-curbed edges and we add .1% to our calculations. This .1% is referred to as the 'short course prevention factor'. It's added to ensure courses are as long as advertised (especially important if a record is set and the course length needs to be validated for accuracy.)

The additional length 'added' to a marathon is 42.2 meters, not 200 meters. Of course, runners never run the SPR and go further than the listed distance all the time, elite and back of the packers both.

The debate about whether the fastest time ever run by a man in a marathon can be called a WR is clinical compared to that surrounding conditions that are considered for the women's mark. Are officials w/the London Marathon right about only recognizing marks from 'women-only' races or should the door be thrown open to mixed races w/escorts also?

Thanks Scott.

Most of the questionable times are pre-1985. Since you've been measuring from 1981 on, can you tell us about pre-85 rules as compared to SPR rules now in place?

KK, Haile, Tergat at Boston. Who could handle the hills?

Who could break the course record?

COURSE RECORDS

Men's Open:

Cosmas Ndeti (Kenya), 2:07:15, 1994

Women's Open:

Margaret Okayo (Kenya), 2:20:43, 2002

The record is SAFE!

Bob, prior to around '84 when the current rules of certification went into effect, course were measured a yard from the edge, .1% wasn't added to the calculations (the SCPF) but the SPR was followed (or it was supposed to be.) The actual distance of Boston in the early years varied due to road reconfiguration and such. You'd be wise to read Tom Derderian's book Boston to get the low-down on actual course accuracy long ago.

I recall the furor when the more recent rules were established that made for 'record-quality' courses about a dozen years ago: a course can't drop more than 1 meter per kilometer (42.2 meters in a marathon) and the start and finish have to be w/in 30% of the race distance from each other (7.86 miles in a marathon.) Boston, as we know, fails both of these criteria.

Internationally, the start and finish are allowed to be 50% of the race distance apart for records purposes. Personally, I like the 50% rule. The math involved to support the rules is beyond me but I understand the attempt to 'level the playing field' for time comparisons.

A problem in marathons that can be changed fairly easily are the qualifying systems now in place. The problem lies in that standards are set which treat the marathon as a track event and do not account for differences in courses. For instance, someone looking to run a 2:22 and qualify for the US Olympic Trials faces the decision of attempting to run that 2:22 in London or Boston. Even though he may prefer Boston for its many strengths he is likely to go to London due to the ease of the course. Additionally, someone looking for an Olympic Qualifying mark will do the same. Its not a tough decision to go to the course that is the easiest. This may not affect those runners that are finishing in the top 5 of these races but it can affect the depth of the elite field.

To fix this problem USATF could take the lead and change their qualifying format and begin taking into account the difficulty of courses. There are two possible ways to do this. They could implement a fixed system where courses are judged on their difficulty and the time difference this results. So, 2:20 could remain a a base for the US Olympic A qualifying standard. But then over/under changes could be made according to the course that a time was run on. Chicago could be deemed 1:00 fast so someone would have to run 2:19 (2:20-1:00)at Chicago to qualify. Boston on the other hand could be determined to be 1:00 slow so a 2:21(2:20) would be required to qualify. This could be done to all major marathons. Another way to do it which would be most fair but more difficult would be to account not only for course disparities but also disparites in weather conditions on race day. In this case if Boston were run on a 90 degree day then this could be taken into account and a standard could be set for Boston based on that particular day. This system would be much more difficult to implement.

USATF should begin accounting for course disparities and stop the trend in marathoning of going to an easy course to run a fast time. What makes marathoning great in large part is that it is not a track race and is run on a trying course. It is rediculous to assign a set standard to all courses when they differ so much in difficulty.

In the past 2 men's USOT marathons, there have been competitors that did NOT meet the standard (missing by 0:01 and 0:07) and who were allowed in on petition due to weather conditions. At least one of the petitions, and probably both (based on my knowledge of the second guy), was NOT filed by the runner in question, so don't start the "cried his way in" canard -- in the one case I know well, the guy objected to the petition filed by the RD.

I disagree with the thinking tho. Set the standard and stick to it. As far as courses, weather, etc., they vary, but no one's operating in an info vacuum. And I wonder about guys who think they can't get the mark they want without a boost from the course.