Smoove wrote:
Agree Chicago is the place to chase fast times, which is why registered to go back this year. but if you were to put the tip 100 runners from each of Chicago and NYC on the same course, I think the top NYC finishers would end up disproportionately ahead of the Chicago people. Plus, the damn heat is starting to ruin Chicago as a fast race.
But I'll be going back to Chicago rather than deal with the logistics of getting to Staten Island and dealing with those bridges and the Gradual climb and the rolllers of NYC (even if NYC has probably the best crowds of he three marathons I've run).
I have not done enough analysis of the finishers from both races to further discuss this point, so I will let it alone for now.
I can't remember; have you run Boston before? I hear the crowds are pretty great there. I grew up near Chicago, so I am pretty ambivalent about the city experience there, it's not as exciting for me as for other people (and I am sure people from NYC feel the same as me).
The risk of heat in Chicago seems to be a factor every year and that simply should not be the case. They used to have the race in late October, and why it was changed it, I don't know. Perhaps some conflict with another major event in Chicago during that time frame. From an objective standpoint, it's a no-brainer to move it back to late October.
I am biased, but if you want a fast fall marathon in the Midwest without the risk of heat, do the Indy Monumental Marathon.