Rotterdam, NYC, Berlin, Boston are they 2nd class?

your answers are in your post.

Rotterdam and Berlin are totally First-Class on the Concorde.....especially Berlin.

The athletes are treated so well in Berlin, the pre-race set up is so perfect.

Berlin is a great course for negative-splitting the 2nd half, and very historic.....the first man under 3;00 per km and the first woman under 2;20.

Rotterdam is also a great race, the first marathon under 2;07.

Another great race, perhaps the most underrated marathon in the world, is Hamburg. Very fast course, great people, hundreds of thousands of Screaming Germans on the roadside.

Look Beyond simply times-on-the-clock "2:05, 2:06" and "2:17, 2:18" and you will see the magic of other great races around the world.

Jason

Jason, yeah right. Not sure Concord flies to Rotterdam or Berlin yet. But anyway..what are you up to in Zhongdian now?

It would be good to hear about your current training plans. Provide some desktop inspiration for people like myself in more domestic situations

Thanks

DavidW

Perth WA

its all in your post -- runner is right.

95% is just money, maybe 5% for the lame excuse that the Boston hills hurt too much waa waa waa we might as well run 26.2 on the track.

I'm a bit confused though -- what's wrong with a tactical race, which Boston usually turns into ? In a tactical race, more people have a chance . . . makes it more interesting . . . instead of the carefully orchestrated record attempts we see in London and in Chicago

The article on the front page today was very good:

For some time, I've been meaning to do a feature story with interviews of Pinkowski (Chicago) and Bedford (London) to talk about how they certainly have eclipsed Boston/New York in elite circles. For anyone to say otherwise is ludicrous.

The New YOrk people seem to be in denial. They have to stop resting on their laurels and innovate. They keep trying to tell people that the reputation of New York is worth a ton in potential endorsements. If that's the case, then why don't they freaking sell some more sponsorships. If there are millions of spectators, then sponsors will pay to be seen by them.

It makes no sense. They say they are not-for profit. Well then they should have even more money left over for the athletes.

Look at Steinfeld's quote:

"If you win in New York, the world knows about it. It's almost like getting the gold medal in the Olympics. If you win in Chicago it's not the same."

They also talked about how New York had worldwide t.v. coverage. So what? It's barely on t.v. here in the US. The Chicago race was a big event in London. I also bet that it was big in Japan because of the men's national record.

Which marathon do you think is most likely to get takahashi? If Chicago gets her, certainly it will be bigger in Japan once again.

There was one thing in the article that did make some sense. I think Khannouchi possibly could benefit from running New York. However, it may not benefit him to the extent to m ake up for the lesser appearance fee. (moreover, he might not do as well as he bombed in his o nly tactical marathon).

That being said the quote about selling Chevrolets is way overstated. How many athletes make much from non-shoe endorsements. Hardly any. I mean I don't see Chris Webb selling chevrolets either.

-Robert

rojo wrote:

Look at Steinfeld's quote:

"If you win in New York, the world knows about it. It's almost like getting the gold medal in the Olympics. If you win in Chicago it's not the same."

-Robert

Like it or not he's correct.

Most of your complaints are Steinfeld are valid, but in the past couple of years the marathon scene has been gripped by WR fever. You think Haile's gonna try another marathon where there's only a course record carrot? From Takahashi, to Nrebda and Radcliffe it's too strong a story for people to back away from.

And the one thing that NYC can't offer no matter how hard they try is a WR time.

I do think joseba's missing the point, tactical races and difficult courses seem much more about the spirit of the marathon. Plus it's kind of tedious to watch an unchallenged front runner for 16 miles.

Maybe NYC Marathon could sell naming rights to beef up the piggy bank some. If it lasts, it's just like stealing too -- after all, even Weldon and Robert Johnson, who have each been on the payroll of the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon within the past 2 years, don't even honor that naming-rights deal.

Fellas, please, if you keep s---ting on the sponsor's good faith, that faith will stop being good.

Joseph Aloysius McV. wrote:

Maybe NYC Marathon could sell naming rights to beef up the piggy bank some. If it lasts, it's just like stealing too -- after all, even Weldon and Robert Johnson, who have each been on the payroll of the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon within the past 2 years, don't even honor that naming-rights deal.

Fellas, please, if you keep s---ting on the sponsor's good faith, that faith will stop being good.

JAM - I think I misposted. I meant that Steinfeld is correct not Rojo.

If an American were to win NY (or Boston for that matter) it would be national news as much as a running event can be. If an American were to break the WR at Chicago it is a mention in 'other news' in the sports section, maybe.

kk could win boston, nyc, and oly games in the same year, but he still aint gonna be selling chevy's. lets get real, pro running in its finest hour will still bring in less money than the XFL.

nyrrc charges $70 for entry fee x 30,000. also all nyrrc members must run in 9 nyrrc club races to qualify for the marathon($20 a race(give or take)) 9 x 20 = 180 + 70 + 30(annual nyrrc fee) = $280 for a nyrrc member to run the marathon. money from the sponsors, up to 5,000 for a booth at the expo, and all the volunteers who actually do all the work at the marathon. there is plenty of money, it just goes where the nyrrc wants it to go.

Back in the 80s when New York and Boston were offering Prize money and Boston wasn't, the buzz went from, "How can Boston compete?" to "How can Boston survive?"

Boston decided to offer prize money but I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't have been better off not doing it. The race still would have gone on. Thousands still would have run it. All of the surrounding communities would have loved to see what happened. As nearly as I can tell the only people who would be unhappy are the handful of people who might have a shot at that money and the handful of people who keep score that way. Most of the people who follow this stuff aren't as impressed by a 2:05 compared to a 2:08 as we all are on this message board.

While it may be tough to put on a prestigious (sp?) race without decent prize money, I think there's a point of diminishing returns. In the end, prestige doesn't come from the money that a race offers. It comes from the race's history and tradition. New York has built up quite a bit of both over the past few decades and has some decent prestige of its own. THAT is why people know it all over the world when you win New York

The fact is Boston has all the prestige it needs, thank you very much. They offer prize money, and every year a handful of Kenyan men take it all home. On the women's side things are more distributed, but the top dollars usually go to Kenya. Meanwhile the locals sit and wonder if a US guy can crack the top 20.

Somehow I doubt offering much more money is going to make a difference in how "prestigious" we all feel about Boston. We'll get a handful of faster Kenyan men (and maybe KK or Tergat or Geb) but whoever they are, they're not going to be setting any world records. Not on this course.

ru4real wrote:

rojo wrote:

Look at Steinfeld's quote:

"If you win in New York, the world knows about it. It's almost like getting the gold medal in the Olympics. If you win in Chicago it's not the same."

-Robert

Like it or not he's correct.

Total BS. Go ask anyone in Britain who won this year's Chicago Marathon. Go ask them who won the NY Marathon. Paula Radcliffe called Chicago the biggest thing in her career.

And go stop someone on the street in NY and ask them who won this year's NY Marathon. They won't have a clue. NY is still important but not as important as Mr. Steinfeld would like to believe. He wants to hold onto his little fiefdom. Well he had better then up the ante for his race.

Joseph Aloysius McV. wrote:

Maybe NYC Marathon could sell naming rights to beef up the piggy bank some. If it lasts, it's just like stealing too -- after all, even Weldon and Robert Johnson, who have each been on the payroll of the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon within the past 2 years, don't even honor that naming-rights deal.

Fellas, please, if you keep s---ting on the sponsor's good faith, that faith will stop being good.

Joe,

Typical New Yorker (or is it jersey) acting like you know it all. But I'm from Texas so I do the same thing.

We don't honor the sponsor's naming-rights deal? You must not come to the website much outside of the meessage boards. I assume you are saying we do not refer to race in Chicago as the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon. We sure do. Look at today's caption under the quote of the day: "Sandra Khannouchi, wife and agent of world record holder in the marathon, Khalid Khannouchi in an article in the NYDailyNews that acknowledges that the NYC Marathon may be losing some of its luster as the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon attracts most of the sports top stars for its race".

We pointed out as our pet peeve of the day how USAtoday refers to the FedEx Orange Bowl, the Nokia Sugar Bowl, but the Chicago Marathon.

If you look at our front page we say: LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon Race Day Recaps:

I have no idea what you are talking about. Within an article we may refer to the "marathon" or perhaps on occasion the "chicago marathon" but the race's official title is the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon. They are not the sponsor of the race. They actually own the race.

One more point. When a sponsor buys the name of an event or a stadium, they know 100% of the public at large isn't going to refer to the event with the sponsor's name attached. But they buy the name knowing a lot of the press will and all the official material will have the name. You don't hear people saying "joe 6 pack tailgating at the Fed Ex Orange Bowl is hurting the sport of college football because he referred to the game as the Orange Bowl instead of the Fed Ex Orange Bowl"

NYC used to be on live and in it's entirety, but not anymore. Maybe other's are catching on that it's not the "event" that it used to be.

I'll agree that NYC is more prestigious than Chicago, don't know about London. But it's losing steam.

Average Joe, Do you live in Boston? It sounds like you do (as do I), but I have an entirely different impression of Boston love for their marathon. I think the presence of an elite field really appeals to Bostonians and as a result, there is much more coverage in the press. Look at all the articles in the Globe in the week leading up to the race that focus on the elite field. Would they still print these articles if the leading contender was Joe Schmoe from Medford, MA?

Also, the BAA gets the Kenyans out into the community and especially into the local schools. Just another example of how the Boston area benefits from the elite field and how they enjoy its presence.

No, Boston will never see a time trial race like Chicago. Ndeti tried it in '96 and died an ugly death. The course just makes it impossible...or at least illogical. Thank goodness. It is so much more interesting to see an old-fashioned race, but the winning times are usually pretty fast anyway. All that has been missing the past few years has been depth, especially on the mens side.

That being said, I think Boston has the same problem as NYC: if it slips any further--and it has been slipping for a few years now, ever since the 100th--it will become marginalized. History and prestige only goes so far. Will Cloney thought that history would be enough to keep the elites coming back to Boston forever, but then they learned otherwise in 1985 and 1986.

It's all about the $$$. If either one of those 4 races offered more $$$ then they would attract more top class runners. Fast times matter but $$ talks big time. When a race combine both a fast course & tons of $$ more athletes will want to run. The quality of the field is all that matters, put up the $$ & they will run.

Weldon --

In this thread, "rojo" wrote:

"...I've been meaning to do a feature story with interviews of Pinkowski (Chicago) and Bedford (London)..."

"...The Chicago race was a big event..."

"...If Chicago gets her..."

I have noticed this brand of shortening out of you as well, I can't cite chapter and verse tho and am unwilling to look. I know it's unrealistic to expect 100% compliance 100% of the time from everyone in thw world, but they have every right to expect 100% compliance 100% of the time from their hired help. I do that for my employer. Please be careful, especially if, as "joseba" says, ABN-AMRO will be rebranding all their US subsidiaries to the parent name.

Maybe ABN-AMRO/LaSalle Bank would do well to take out the venue name entirely, following the lead of some NASCAR or PGA events like the "Pepsi 400" and the "Buick Open."

BostonGuy wrote:

Average Joe, Do you live in Boston?

Yes, I do. In fact I grew living in a house right on the Boston course. Obviously that skews my perspective a bit. I'm thinking about this from a local's point of view.

I think the presence of an elite field really appeals to Bostonians and as a result, there is much more coverage in the press.

Oh I agree. People love to see the elites, no question. The thing is, you'll still get elites if you offer money that's less than top-dollar, just not as many of them.

Would they still print these articles if the leading contender was Joe Schmoe from Medford, MA?

Absolutely. I can hear the chorus of voices telling me how wrong I am about that. My point is the Boston press will. Maybe it's not going to get the same coverage across the country as it was before. That just doesn't matter to me.

Also, the BAA gets the Kenyans out into the community and especially into the local schools. Just another example of how the Boston area benefits from the elite field and how they enjoy its presence.

Yes, it's great. Don't get me wrong, I like having the Kenyans here. And the BAA does a great job

I think Boston has the same problem as NYC: if it slips any further--and it has been slipping for a few years now, ever since the 100th--it will become marginalized.

My point was that I think it will only become marginalized in the eyes of the elites and those who follow the sport that closely. Not for the majority. They'll still hold the race. Thousands will still run it. Qualifying will still be the same challenge it was before and runners will train like mad trying for their BQ. Spectators will still line the streets 10 and 20 deep to watch it. The press will still cover it with choppers and the works -- they want a story. Personally I would much rather see a great duel between a few 2:10 guys than a solo 2:07. I'm guessing the Boston press would too. It makes for better drama and better copy. Most importantly, I think elite Kenyans will still run it. Just not in the numbers and depth they ran before.

What I do NOT want to see is Boston entering the money chase that Chicago and London have created. It's a never ending spiral that just leads to higher fees for the rest of us. Yes it might be nice to see here at Boston something like we got at London this year -- an unbelievable duel between the 3 best marathoners in the world. But somehow I don't see it as quite the tragedy that others make it out to be if we end up with Rodgers Rop