WSJ: Should the NYCM course be changed?

Chicago should be changed too. Both courses are routed into no mans land on purpose.

The cities and store owners don't want the morning traffic problems from runners, but have no problem with them spending their money in the stores that don't want the inconvenience.

Boston is the only one that has it right.

... the support of Robert Abrams there would have never been a Five Borough race in 1976.

Percy was vocal but without... wrote:

... the support of Robert Abrams there would have never been a Five Borough race in 1976.

Translation please?

Hey agip, I remember you. You posted one of the most helpful answers to my first thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3696645&thread=3696403

The injury took more than originally thought (7 weeks off) and I was left with under 3 weeks to "train" (I did a 3-4-6-10 buildup) and ran a 3:50 first marathon, loving every second and never walked a step!

So in the end I fared ok compared to the intial response I received from let's run. It IS possible to run a marathon in under 4 hours without walk breaks and without crawling.

Now that I know the NYC course first hand (well I live in Midtown) I would think that the worst part is not 18-22 but 22-25. I love the park and enjoy it daily, but if you look at the entertainment the 26.2 only has 3 holes: pulatski, 59th st bridge and mi 23-25 (no room there). I loved the Bronx and music at mile 20.

what could be changed then is a detour in Manhattan earlier (Williasmburg or Brooklyn bridge) but that'd be crazy logistics. We could also go to the Bronx from Queens and run down 1st ave, skipping the 5th ave stretch. But I don't see NYRR doing anything, Time Sq is the key selling point of the NYC 1/2!!!

Again I want to thank you for your advice in the thread quoted above. I really appreciated learning from other's experience and ended up having the best day of my running life so far.

Take it back to the original course which was loops in Central Park. Easier for spectators to watch.

Who see landmarks when you are running hard?

Well, maybe the thousands of people running in the back....

If the race is going to a five-borough marathon, there's really no other possible start. And you know, the Bronx is actually part of the North American mainland, it's NOT an island, and it's pretty far away, and the race gets to it as quickly as possible. If this is going to be a five-borough race, there's no quicker way to get to the Bronx, even though that part of the race obviously sucks.

But Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn and first Avenue in Manhattan are very wide thoroughfares that can handle the tens of thousands of runners. And as Allan Steinfeld has said, the course is mainly after getting into the neighborhoods, especially in Brooklyn.

Some of the "landmarks" people are now talking about are on much narrower roads. I also don't see why anyone would consider a Times Square finish preferable to Central Park. Please.

Why not make Boston a loop course starting and ending in Downtown? That would be better. Why not have Big Sur do a loop inland, away from the big long hills? That would be better. Why not have the Paris marathon go out in the suburbs, away from the brick and cobblestone roads in the city? That would be better. Why not have the Marine Corps marathon finish at the base of the hill instead of making people climb up to the monument? That would be better.

You can't jack with the NYC course. Too much history. Too many legendary race moments: Tergat's sprint finish, Salazar's battles in central park, Ramaala dropping the hammer on 1st Ave, and so on.

Precious Roy wrote:

You can't jack with the NYC course. Too much history.

Not more history than Yankee Stadium, and look what happened there.

The start blows, everyone knows that and there wouldn't be any tears if they changed it.

Precious Roy wrote:

Why not make Boston a loop course starting and ending in Downtown? That would be better. Why not have Big Sur do a loop inland, away from the big long hills? That would be better. Why not have the Paris marathon go out in the suburbs, away from the brick and cobblestone roads in the city? That would be better. Why not have the Marine Corps marathon finish at the base of the hill instead of making people climb up to the monument? That would be better.

You can't jack with the NYC course. Too much history. Too many legendary race moments: Tergat's sprint finish, Salazar's battles in central park, Ramaala dropping the hammer on 1st Ave, and so on.

yeah - why change the marathon to that rigid 26.2 mile distance...why start using fiberglass poles in the pv...why let women run more than 800m...why change the javelin to fly less...why put synthetic tracks in instead of dirt...too much tradition - glad those things never happened!

on the other hand, the only reason why complete dumps like fenway and wrigley still exist is entirely tradition.

keep dreaming if you think that the nycm course will have anything other than tweak changes. it's always going to start at the verrazano, which gives those tremendous overhead shots, and it always is going to end in central park, which is the only place that can handle 45K finishers.

It was a nice article but I don't see any huge groundswell of demand to change the course much. I doubt many of the people in Sunday's race actually want it changed. And none of them care if it's not a world record course.

Someone needs to proofread that article.

agip wrote:

yeah - why change the marathon to that rigid 26.2 mile distance...why start using fiberglass poles in the pv...why let women run more than 800m...why change the javelin to fly less...why put synthetic tracks in instead of dirt...too much tradition - glad those things never happened!

So, you would be cool with the Boston marathon doing a flat loop course around Downtown? That would be way better than Hopkinton to Boston over all those hills. Could probably get a shot at a WR, save hundreds of thousands on bus transport, have double the number of runners by not having to start on a two lane road. Or is the fact that the course has been the same for over a century mean something?

Marathon courses are not like equipment or gender equity. That is a stupid comparison. They give a marathon its character and individuality. NY is a legendary course because of the start over the Verazzano Narrows Bridge, the massive accelerations on 1st street after the hard climb up the Queensboro Bridge and the finish on the hills in Central Park. Change the course in NY and you lose the legend.

It can't not go through the Bronx.

It needs something wider than First Avenue to accommodate the additional runners. You can't have sub 3 hour marathoners having to walk through water stops due to overcrowding.

Utilizing both sides of Park Avenue and taking the 3rd Avenue Bridge would be an option but the NYPD aren't going to close 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Lexington and Park Avenues.

In my opinion, the course is just fine, and not overly difficult. Is it slower then Chicago, Berlin, or London? Yeah. Is it 4 minutes slower (the difference between the course record and the world record)? No.

The one thing that people always forget is that the NYC Marathon is a RACE. There are no rabbits. For 99.9% of the entrants, this makes no difference to their time. For the elites, it definitely makes a 1:00-2:00 difference at least. You would see a lot more 2:06 marathons in NY if you had rabbits... so then people would say that it was only 1:00-2:00 slow. A rabbited race wouldn't have a 4:27/14:00 1mile/5k thrown in at 17/17-20 or whatever it was. Nor would it start so slow. Given the explosion in fast marathon times is a recent phenomenon (last 5 years) the NYC Marathon has never had the ridiculously fast guys that are around today run with rabbits.

You want faster times in NY? Employ rabbits. That will solve "the problem" right there.

HOWEVER, I think its the fact that it does not have rabbits that makes it such a great race.

I also do not think that starting down in Staten Island is so bad, nor that the Bronx/Harlem was isolated. I thought the crowd support from 19-23 was solid (at least in 2009). And why would you finish anywhere BUT Tavern on the Green? You can't get a better finish, imho.

Endo wrote:

Hey agip, I remember you. You posted one of the most helpful answers to my first thread:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=3696645&thread=3696403

Again I want to thank you for your advice in the thread quoted above. I really appreciated learning from other's experience and ended up having the best day of my running life so far.

Endo - Glad you had a good day and that I played some role in it. One of the great things about letsrun is that even if we are not coaches, we can coach a little bit.

Ain't runnin' grand? NYCM day is my favorite day of the year. Sort of like kids feel about Christmas - the whole city decked out for a race, and the one day running matters as a sport rather than something everyone feels they ought to be doing.

As long as the Bronx has to be included, you'd not going to have any major tinkering. There have been small changes in the last few years (the entrance into the park from Fifth Avenue occurs about a half-mile later than it once did) but the Verrazano is spectacular, the Pulaski Bridge is the way from Brooklyn to Queens and is an ideal midpoint, and, despite what someone where said, Park Avenue would definitely NOT be a better alternative to First Avenue.

I think the main thing they could change is to come over to Manhattan at its southern tip, running past some downtown monuments, through times square, north to the bx, then back down 5th avenue and still finishing in central park, but somehow eliminating the 27 and 28th mile.

You would lose some of 4th avenue in brooklyn, williamsburg, the 59th street bridge and the 1st avenue blast.

You would gain the brooklyn or manhattan bridge, downtown, flatiron bldg, empire state and a maybe a better finish experience.

Not a bad tradeoff I think. The 1st avenue wall would be the biggest loss probably.

You would lose Queens!