Chicago, NYC Marathons

Can anyone make sense of Alan Steinfeld's quote about Chicago being run for the top five finishers? New York Marathon gets how many trials qualifiers compared to Chicago? NY is supported by foreign tourists, local runners. Chicago Marathon is tops. S.Khannouchi is telling it like it is.

To me it sounds like anybody who is associated with the NYC marathon was lobbing some serious sour grapes in the direction of Chicago and London.

The problem with New York (and Boston to an extent) is that they are stuck in this old-school mentality that people run for the love of it and that their "prestige" should be enough to bring the elites to their races. The fact is, running is a job for these people, one that they would like to make a lot of money in. Not to mention, a marathon runner's career is relatively short, so you have to strike when the iron is hot. If I'm offered 100K to go to New York or 250K to go to Chicago and get a bunch more in time bonuses, what am I going to do? It's a no-brainer. This notion that NYC is up to the length of an Olympic gold medal, and the idea Khalid would break the bank in endorsements if he won, is totally obsurd.

I've only run Chicago, but I can't see any race being better. The course is fast, the accomodations are first rate, and the ease of getting around town make it attractive. For the elites, they stay 300 yards from the start/finish and all talk about how well they are treated by the city and the marathon organization. Oh yeah, they make a lot of money in Chicago, too.

Live in the now. If you open your checkbook, they will come.

I strongly agree with fleck. I've been saying the exact same thing to all my buddies since I ran Chicago three weeks ago. I've run NY, Boston, and Chicago. Chicago is by far the most convenient for the runners as well as the spectators. The only beef I have with Chicago is the majority of the last three miles being run through no man's land where there are hardly any specators until the last half mile or so. I'm a New Yorker and I went to college in Boston and those marathons are are awesome but I must admit that Chicago is "awesomer."

I don't understand Steinfields quote either. From what I have seen and experienced Chicago is a race that goes out of it's way to make it as easy as possible for ALL( not just the select elite) participants, to have a great big city, big marathon experience and to run a fast time if they so desire. On the other-hand NYC and Boston as well, I have heard it be said that, "they make the participants run a marathon even before they have begun the real marathon" Both NYC and Boston are great and hsitoric races. However, if the 30,000+ participants are the customers here, clearly Chicago wins the Customer Service Award for the best run big city marathon. People will keep flocking to Boston and New York - Personally, I want to run each of them at least once - but in the big marathon business, Chicago I believe has pulled into the lead. The only negative that I have heard about Chicago is the the crowd support on the route is a little weak compared to NYC and Boston, but I hear that that is now improving.

If you want a fast time and a lot of money go to Chicago. If you want to run an actual race, go to NYC or Boston. Really, what's the difference between $100,000 and $250,000? It's still more money than most could know what to do with. I guess it would depend on how you choose your races. If you're a guy trying to get a trials qualifier then you should definetly go to Chicago. If you're an elite looking for money then you should go to Chicago. But, if a fast time isn't your number one goal and money isn't your number one goal and you simply want to experience the prestige of NYC or Boston then that's where you should go.

Alan

as far as nationwide publicity goes, KK probably WOULD get more exposure by running (and WINNING) nyc over chicago. it's been around 30 years and at least to the tv networks, it's probably higher profile, ie., more advertising dollars. whether or not that would translate into $$$ in KK's pocket in the aftermath would have to be determined.

but for now, KK is a New Balance guy, and chicago is a New Balance race, so they fit well together.

I think it's intesting that the article doesn't quote Khalid himself, only Sandra.

It's a fact that LaSalle Banks Chicago doles out more money. A few age group awards in the local 5K notwithstanding, Sandra is a businessperson, not a runner. She is understandably focused on the bottom line. <

> Khalid, as a runner, (and as a New Yorker) has said that he wants to win the New York City Marathon. He will someday, too. For the record, Hicham El Guerrouj (and I believe Haile Gebrselassie) have also said they want to run the New York City Marathon, but that's neither here nor there, I guess.I like David Monti's quote about LaSalle Banks Chicago being a laboratory to see how fast one can run. Not that there's anything really wrong with that, but Chicago feels way too carefully orchestrated for almost artifically-fast performances. When that orchestration falls apart (see Ben Kimondiu, 2001) they barely break 2:09 (and that's WITH Paul Tergat). When it clicks...well, anybody who says they aren't impressed by a 2:05 marathon is a damned liar.I've run LaSalle Banks Chicago, I've been a spectator at the last three New York City Marathons. I think that both races do some things exceptionally well, better than anyone else. I also think that both races do some things rather poorly. They're different things, but they're equally important and vital to the ultimate success of their events.But the city of Chicago having the better marathon because it was built on flatter ground? Come on...

Agree...

Chicago is a TOP notch event. The Elties love it--Carey treats them very well. Yes, they get high $$$ for running, but they also stay next to the start and have great Elite support. The masses prefer it over NYC because of the easy start logistics--no waiting around, GREAT expo--run VERY efficiently, and of course everyone loves the fast course.

Sure, Chicago does not quite get the publicity nationwide as NYC, but it is getting close. And WORLDWIDE I would say they are about the same, or perhaps Chicago getting a tad more publicity. I do think Carey and Alan have a decent relationship. I saw Allan at the Industry function on Saturday night, plus he was on the press truck on race day. But it must kill him deep down inside to watch Chicago pull off a great race each and every year. And kudos to NYC for starting the women earlier, neat idea and helped get some attention on the ladies...but still, they are not up to the same level as Chicago or London in terms of getting the "real big" players.

Of course, the BIG question is, what does London and Chicago do for an encore next year? Does Geb run another? Can you think of any big names that may make a debut? Sammy Kippkiter? 2002 may be the best year of marathoning (in terms of interest level) EVER! Lots of big name debuts, lots of fast times, and of course...a whole lot of talk about it!

I agree with all of the above. I don't have any doubt that, from a mid-pack or even elite runner's perspective, Chicago has equalled if not surpassed Boston and New York. However, for the sake of our sport on a recognition level, we need the best in Boston and New York. The media still gives them more press. ESPN ran the top finishing times all day Sunday. NBC showed the race. I don't think the mainstream sports media will ever gain enough running knowledge to appreciate how prestigious Chicago has now become to the elite and the weekend warrior.. Culpeper gets little to no coverage for having an amazing debut in Chicago; yet I've seen and read more about Meb coming in 8th(or whatever) in a slower time in New York. That's never going to change, IMHO.

Excuse me, but there is a BIG difference between $100K and $250K, namely $150K and a lot more flexibility with future decision-making.

"We put together a championship race, not a time trial," Steinfeld says. "Carey (Pinkowski, Chicago race director) gets the best runners in the world because he's looking for a time, but after fourth or fifth place, there's a big dropoff. We go for depth."

HUH? Look at the results. Even if you assume that the NYC course is 2 minutes slower than Chicago, NYC is not a deeper field than Chicago. For example, 29th place at Chicago is 2:20:05 and 29th at NYC is 2:25:56.

NYRRC is not up to the big business required to compete vs. LaSalle Chicago or Flora London. A.Steinfeld's ignorance about his own field is staggering. Almost as staggering as not being able to attract a corporate sponsor to compete with LaSalle and Flora. Isn't this NY, economic capital of the world?

The NYRRC holds weekly races which draw in the thousands, and can't focus on the NYM needed to compete with the one-trick pony's. The mainstream media has begun to pick up the difference.

Add the logistical details and the NYM will continue to lose the elite and avg. runner to Chicago. The Chicago laboratory includes Pace groups for runners over the 3:00 mark. NYM does nothing of the sort. The start is a mess.

I find the whole pissing contest very juvenile....my race is better than yours...no it ain't...is too...is not...is too.

London, Chicago, Boston and New York are all great races each unique in their own way. Marathons have different characters and its pointless comparing them as if they were 10,000s on the track.

I've run 3 of the 4 and enjoyed them all immensely for different reasons; they are all great races. This sport gets little enough recognition without the organizers of our biggest events taking shots at one another and their respective events.

NYCM has LOTS of corporate sponsors, most notably J.P. Morgan Chase, which (within the geneaology of bank mergers) has been huge for them ever since the 1970s Manufacturers Hanover Trust came on board. But also Continental Airlines, asics, the NY Times, and the uber-rich Rudin family (there since the 1970s as well), among others.

But Fred Lebow (who knew more about selling the sport successfully than just about anyone in the history of the US, boy do we miss this guy) and his successors have staunchly defended their "New York City Marathon" brand by not selling naming rights, and that's why it appears on the surface of it that they have little sponsorship.

And the race is more expensive to put on, such as busing tens of thousands of people the 12 mi or so to the start. (the bigger spectacle comes at a cost). Security? The difference must be staggering b/c 2-3 times as many people watch the NYC Marathon. Maybe that's behind some of the differential in payments. maybe not, just a guess, but a studied one.

Which would you rather have?

1. Chicago win in 2:07:00 and $250,000

2. NYC win in 2:09:00 and $150,000

3. Olympic Gold in 2:11 and $50,000

number 3.

3,2,1

Yup #3...

A little on the NYC Marathon. I think its a great race I grew up in NY and well I went in most years to watch it, so I am biased. I love the race (This past weekend was my second time running it). As far as Organization goes I (and some others I have spoken to) thought that this weekends race was worse than past years. The Expo was good took a little bit to get in but I posted last week on what I saw and who I met. Much more standing around and they actually ran out of bagels at the starting area can you believe that? Much more congestion during the race and well a fairly long and tedious walk after... NYC drew a very good field this year and I hope that the big time folks do come back to this race I would love to see someone like KK, Geb and Tergat run here... shoot I might even not run so I could go out on the course and see them! From what I have heard here and from friends that have run Chicago it is a very well run race for what thats worth.