NYC vs Boston Marathon Courses

It all depends on the weather.

Boston 2011 was the easiest Marathon in the history of mankind. Boston 2012 was one of the hardest.

NYC has favorable conditions in 2011, this year, not so much.

On average, they are comparable. Both run 3 minutes slow compared the Mickey Mouse courses in Europe (Rotterdam, Berlin, Frankfurt).

rihri 587 wrote:

where is heartbreak hill located?

Newton, MA

What follows is an analysis of the New York Marathon elites fields from 1999 to 2005. Specifically, I was interested in the performances of those marathoners who competed in NYC and one or more of the remaining four "Majors" in an attempt to establish an empirical performance bias across venues. Not surprising, the results confirmed what was already known anecdotally: there are fast courses (Berlin, London. Chicago) and there are slow courses (Boston, New York).

The career results of 87 elites who competed at NYC marathon (99-05) were meticulously recorded and analyzed, paying attention to their performances at the 5 Major Marathons: New York, Boston, London, Berlin, Chicago.

OVERVIEW

Of the 87 elite marathoners who ran New York, 27 ran London, 28 Chicago, 19 Berlin, and 31 Boston

2:09:56 Average PR for 87 runners

2:14:22 Average best time at NYC (87)

2:10:35 Average best at London (27)

2:11:55 Average best at Chicago (28)

2:10:33 Average best at Berlin (19)

2:12:24 Average best at Boston (30)

4:27 New York avg from PR

0:39 London avg from PR

1:59 Chicago avg from PR

0:38 Berlin avg from PR

2:28 Boston avg from PR

3:48 London overall avg bias over New York (3:01 headsup)

2:28 Chicago overall avg bias over New York (1:22 headsup)

3:49 Berlin overall avg bias over New York (6:58 headsup)

1:59 Boston overall avg bias over New York (0:29 headsup)

VENUE TO VENUE COMPARISON

For those runners who've run at each event

New York vs London 27 runners

2:08:40 average PR

2:10:35 (1:55) avg. London best

2:13:36 (4:56) avg. New York best

-------

3:01 time bias to London over New York

New York vs Chicago 28 runners

2:09:40 average PR

2:11:55 (2:15) avg. Chicago best

2:13:17 (3:37) avg. New York best

-------

1:22 time bias to Chicago over New York

New York vs Berlin 19 runners

2:09:32 average PR

2:10:33 (1:01) average Berlin best

2:16:30 (6:58) average New York best

-------

5:57 time bias to Berlin over New York

New York vs Boston 30 runners

2:09:39 average PR

2:12:24 (2:44) average Boston best

2:12:53 (3:14) average New York best

-------

0:29 time bias to Boston over New York

Just for kicks, I've thrown out from the data set all of the time differentials over 7:00 on the theory that large time differences would be heavily weighted towards circumstances and not the course differences. The results were as follows:

New York vs London 22 runners

2:08:30 average PR

2:10:24 (1:54) avg. London best

2:12:20 (3:50) avg. New York best

-------

1:56 time bias to London over New York

New York vs Chicago 25 runners

2:09:49 average PR

2:11:49 (2:00) avg. Chicago best

2:12:53 (3:04) avg. New York best

-------

1:04 time bias to Chicago over New York

New York vs Berlin 12 runners

2:09:38 average PR

2:10:41 (1:03) average Berlin best

2:13:34 (3:56) average New York best

-------

2:53 time bias to Berlin over New York

New York vs Boston 27 runners

2:10:05 average PR

2:12:11 (2:06) average Boston best

2:13:24 (3:19) average New York best

-------

1:13 time bias to Boston over New York

Check out this site. It provides comparison of the courses and scores each one. Factors in weather and hills. http://findmymarathon.com/marathon-time-conversion.php

Not sure if it is a good idea to compare certain athletes times between Chicago and NYC/Boston.

The way I see it: if you have a great race plan and execute it well then you can finish within 2-3 min slower than Chicago/Berlin.

But if you blow up, you blow up big time and you can easily lose 10+ min in NYC/Boston.

I ran nyc and it was more difficult than I expected. The major hills (Verazanno, Queensboro, Willis Pt) didn't effect me as much as the hidden gradual hills at miles 8, 13, 23 and 26. 26 felt awful. I didn't expected the course to be THAT difficult. It was cold and windy but that's no excuse

rihri 587 wrote:

The major hills (Verazanno, Queensboro, Willis Pt) didn't effect me as much as the hidden gradual hills at miles 8, 13, 23 and 26. 26 felt awful.

Agreed. You prepare for the bridges so they are what's expected. Mile 23 is certainly the worst, at least the first time you run it. It just doesn't seem to end.

There is no hill on mile 26 though.

I've done NYC seven times and Boston six. My experience is that Boston is about three minutes faster given similar fitness and similar weather. I'm no speedster though - most of those races were between 2:55 and 3:05. Also, I've found that the Boston weather is more varied than NYCM. You never know what to expect year to year at Boston, but NYCM is relatively the same. That can make Boston really fast (2011), really slow (2012), or in between.

rihri 587 wrote:

the nyc marathon was more difficult than expected, especially the long gradual hills near the end.

which course is more difficult, boston or nyc?

where is heartbreak hill located?

I ran NYC in 2013 and Chicago in 2014. While this may sound weird- in my experience NY is harder and faster.

I started at the end of the first wave for both NY and Chicago. In NY the pace of the pack was much faster (about a 7:30 pace on average) with a decent amount of room to go faster/slower. Chicago is much more tightly packed with people running a slower pace (8:15-8:30ish). The turns in Chicago also felt much tighter/slower. Chicago did not really open up until about mile 7-8.

If I run Chicago again I will be sure to get further up in the corrals to get into a faster group and hopefully take advantage of the "easier" course.

NYCRunner wrote:

Mile 23 is certainly the worst, at least the first time you run it. It just doesn't seem to end.

There is no hill on mile 26 though.

Looking down 5th Avenue after running around Marcus Garvey Park is demoralizing. Then you hit those 3 hills in the Park.

I'm sure it's especially hard if you don't know the course. A lot of people seem to assume New York is flat.

Mile 26 is a gradual 30' climb.