Boston vs CIM: I don't really buy that Boston is a tough course but CIM is super fast.

+1

If you think Boston is hard, try doing this:

http://www.harpethhillsmarathon.com/PWPmaps/Elevation.JPG

Where are you getting your elevation gain numbers? When I look at Strava I see 796 feet of gain for CIM and 985 feet for Boston. MapMyRun has 625 feet of climbing for CIM and 811 feet for Boston. So about 190 feet more of climbing at Boston according to both.

I'd say they're the same, Boston has slightly more climbs, but the slight extra net downhill makes up for it. Both are fast in my book. The issue is with the weather, the weather at Boston is rarely nice. CIM has been about perfect in recent years. That's why they have run slower in Boston the past two years, 2018 was complete crap weather, 2019 was actually decent but CIM in Fall 2018 was absolutely perfect weather.

Have you actually ran both? If not, you don't really have a leg to stand on in the argument..

Where the elevation changes are on the course also plays a role.

check your elevation gain figures for CIM. no way is it 800'. probably closer to 400'. On Strava I see a mixed bag from 200' to 500'.

Yeah, no. I don't know where you got your elevation gain numbers from, but there is no way CIM has more gain than Boston. Boston has four hills in Newton with 70 of elevation gain or greater; does CIM even have a single 50 footer?

I've yet to find a reliable source for finding elevation gain on a course; when I compare Garmin Connect, Strava, and Map My Run for the same route they often differ by a factor of 2x or more. The course profiles will give you a better picture, CIM shows a steady downhill with a few small uphill blips, while Boston has both steep downhills and uphills, in mostly the wrong places for running a fast time.

Go take a look at CIM's website- "Downhill to downtown!" "The Fastest Course in the West" "#1 Boston Qualfier" "340' Elevation Drop" "best chance to achieve their marathon goals" - Does that sound like a tough course to you?

downhill to downtown wrote:

Go take a look at CIM's website- "Downhill to downtown!" "The Fastest Course in the West" "#1 Boston Qualfier" "340' Elevation Drop" "best chance to achieve their marathon goals" - Does that sound like a tough course to you?

They can advertise whatever they want.

In my 21 marathons, CIM was certainly not the easiest. Yes, it has a net downhill of a few hundred feet, but I lost track of how many hills there after about #11. Large rollers, seemingly nonstop. I don't understand the appeal. Like the Vaporflys, I think a lot of it is marketing and hype. And all the fast people happen to be doing it. But no way is that course faster than St George, or Tucson Marathon, Mountains to Beach, or even Chicago.

CIM has two things going for it: 1. It's near perfect weather. It was calm in 2018, like 40deg at the start and pretty cold the entire way. I've never had a more ideal marathon weather situation. 2. Like Berlin, they set it up to be fast. There are massive packs of people running at every pace.. so many *fast people* go to CIM, which makes it easy to get in a group and just run along with essentially a lot of pacemakers. That probably helps as much as a fast course design. I don't know about elite water tables or how that works.. but it definitely draws a big group of fast people, which helps. Like Berlin, the race organizers set it up to be as fast as possible.

But as far as the course goes? I don't see it being much easier than the LA Marathon even. And for the runner who is 3hrs or slower, it's like any other marathon.. except it has a ton of long rollers that get really annoying.

Both are the same wrote:

I'd say they're the same, Boston has slightly more climbs, but the slight extra net downhill makes up for it. Both are fast in my book. The issue is with the weather, the weather at Boston is rarely nice. CIM has been about perfect in recent years. That's why they have run slower in Boston the past two years, 2018 was complete crap weather, 2019 was actually decent but CIM in Fall 2018 was absolutely perfect weather.

Perfect weather in 2017 too. You are correct, thank you!

It amazes me how many people on here don’t take into account the weather. It explains a lot of variance in a lot of situations.

ITWS wrote:

Both are the same wrote:

I'd say they're the same, Boston has slightly more climbs, but the slight extra net downhill makes up for it. Both are fast in my book. The issue is with the weather, the weather at Boston is rarely nice. CIM has been about perfect in recent years. That's why they have run slower in Boston the past two years, 2018 was complete crap weather, 2019 was actually decent but CIM in Fall 2018 was absolutely perfect weather.

Perfect weather in 2017 too. You are correct, thank you!

It amazes me how many people on here don’t take into account the weather. It explains a lot of variance in a lot of situations.

^This.

Did you set your PR at CIM?

I've had multiple people with PRs from CIM tell me that another course is faster even though they ran minutes slower on that course than they did at CIM.

I'd call CIM the fastest "fair" marathon in the US, on average.

Sure, Mountains to Beach or St George are faster, but those races boast significant drops in elevation compared to CIM or even Boston. CIM has just enough downhill to offset the rolling hills, and the weather is excellent on most years. We've had a lucky 3 or 4 years a CIM so there's a recency bias at the moment. Chicago and Boston could be faster, with the right weather conditions.

-CIM has very consistent (almost perfect) marathon weather each year.

-Boston is in April on the east coast and it's a total crap-shoot.

-The rolling hills in the first 12 miles of CIM can cause quad problems if you don't regularly train on hills.

-Hills at the end of marathons are hard. CIM is pretty flat the last 10k

If a fast time is most important, do CIM. You'll train your ass off but know the conditions will allow you to just run fast, not worry about heat or ice or whatever.

It has really competitive field and a great place to run consistent splits in my experience. I'd say the hilliest mile only affects your pace in the 6-10 second range. I've run low 2:30's a few times and usually my fastest mile and slowest mile are only about 10-12 seconds different. (maybe i just choose the right race pace for my fitness?!)

More importantly, do what race is closest to where you live.

Flying across the country, staying in hotels, and the time difference take their silent toll. For me, CIM is driveable and I can be home race day by early afternoon.

It's not even the fall and we are getting into another CIM argument? Come on, guys.

Sesamoiditis wrote:

I've had multiple people with PRs from CIM tell me that another course is faster even though they ran minutes slower on that course than they did at CIM.

That's definitely what they say at Boston.

Q: How was Boston?

A: It was hard, the hardest course that I've ever run.

Q: What was your time?

A: 2:04

Q: Isn't that your best time?

A: Yeah but I would have run several minutes faster on an easier course like New York.

reed wrote:

I'd call CIM the fastest "fair" marathon in the US, on average.

Sure, Mountains to Beach or St George are faster, but those races boast significant drops in elevation compared to CIM or even Boston. CIM has just enough downhill to offset the rolling hills, and the weather is excellent on most years. We've had a lucky 3 or 4 years a CIM so there's a recency bias at the moment. Chicago and Boston could be faster, with the right weather conditions.

It's not a fair marathon. It's aided. Chicago is a fair marathon. It starts and ends in the same spot same elevation. CIM is not a fair marathon. St George, not fair. Tucson Arizona, not fair. Revel, not fair. CIM, not fair either. You wouldn't say it is fair if you were impartial, not a resident of the town.

I guess you could argue what is the "most fair" all day. Or what is the fastest course, etc. I think CIM gets the reputation for being the fastest, simply because the fastest people show up. Take all 20,000 of those runners and have them do whatever... and you'd have "the fastest marathon in the country".

You'd think a gradual descent of 400' over 26 miles with no hills, would be better than 400' of descent with a ton of rolling hills. Just my opinion.

UA Runner wrote:

I guess you could argue what is the "most fair" all day. Or what is the fastest course, etc. I think CIM gets the reputation for being the fastest, simply because the fastest people show up. Take all 20,000 of those runners and have them do whatever... and you'd have "the fastest marathon in the country".

You'd think a gradual descent of 400' over 26 miles with no hills, would be better than 400' of descent with a ton of rolling hills. Just my opinion.

Flat Grandma's marathon ain't fair either. Tailwind the whole way like last year? Asterisk those PRs.