Boston is my PR. I come from a very flat area, and don't train on hills, but despite that I found the course a rewarding downhill. The ups didn't bother me. I've only run Boston twice, but both times I thought the course was easy. I realize this is not a common perception, but I could really tell gravity was on my side.
Boston - Ran 2:55 twice, one of them was the course record year with the tailwind, so after my PR. One was right at 3 hours. One was 2011 which was hot, ran 3:11 (1:28/1:43). The other two were my first and last times around 3:14-3:15, not in great shape for either of those.
Since I can’t really train for the hills where I live, I think Boston is about a 4 minute harder course for me than something flat. Even the tailwind year probably just brought me back to even.
2011 was the record tailwind year when Ryan Hall ran 2:04. That was my marathon PR as well for almost 12 years. But I also did Boston on a hot year (2015 or 2016, can’t remember) and OMG it sucked. The race starts relatively late so it’s already warm when it starts and then the hills are late in the race when it’s even hotter.
Best 2:49:31 (Melbourne), Boston 2:51:42. Ran my PB to qualify to travel to the other side of the world (Boston) and race BM. A month out I equaled my half PB, even though I ran 2-3 hundred metres off course. Big positive split @ Boston, purely out of adrenaline and ignorance; I pulled over to the side of the road for a minute or so in the last mile. It was the same year Armstrong ran and it was while I was by the side of the road he'd have passed me.
If weather is good, Boston is fast. Other PR 3:01:27, Boston 3:03:02. But I ran Boston conservatively due to a short training cycle (injury). To ensure I requalified I went out easy and let it rip on the back.
If weather is good, Boston is fast. Other PR 3:01:27, Boston 3:03:02. But I ran Boston conservatively due to a short training cycle (injury). To ensure I requalified I went out easy and let it rip on the back.
False. Boston is never "fast". With good weather, it is only less slow.
The many posts above make clear that a PR at Boston is rare indeed. That's very unlikely to happen unless someone has a very short career and/or never trains properly for a truly fast course.
It is always funny to hear "Boston can be fast" from folks who ran it slow. With excuses like "I was taking it easy", "I was just running for fun", "I was injured", , etc. Yeah right -- if Boston is "fast" give us a result not a theory.
2:41 at Sun City Marathon, 80 degrees at finish and net uphill course
2:50 at Boston, seven years after PR. In between had cerebral malaria and a couple weeks in intensive care.. and didn't race at Boston.
I was in about 2:45-48 shape for Boston I think, based on the 10k 35:10 from 3 weeks before and 1:17 half in training. But wanted to 'have fun' and planned to run my first and only negative split marathon (out of about 60), duly did that. I had to ask the spectators for confirmation that we were past Heartbreak Hill, as I didn't notice it while running up.. raced Two Oceans in South Africa every year for well over a decade, 35 miles and mountains, so the Boston hills felt negligible.
Boston is a fast course, barring headwinds and/or freezing rain, and assuming your training has done due diligence for downhill running on tired legs.
2:41 at Sun City Marathon, 80 degrees at finish and net uphill course
2:50 at Boston, seven years after PR. In between had cerebral malaria and a couple weeks in intensive care.. and didn't race at Boston.
I was in about 2:45-48 shape for Boston I think, based on the 10k 35:10 from 3 weeks before and 1:17 half in training. But wanted to 'have fun' and planned to run my first and only negative split marathon (out of about 60), duly did that. I had to ask the spectators for confirmation that we were past Heartbreak Hill, as I didn't notice it while running up.. raced Two Oceans in South Africa every year for well over a decade, 35 miles and mountains, so the Boston hills felt negligible.
Boston is a fast course, barring headwinds and/or freezing rain, and assuming your training has done due diligence for downhill running on tired legs.
HAHA another guy who ran Boston slow but claims that is "fast". And then makes the "fun" excuse for his slow Boston. Oh please.
What is your evidence, Sir, that Boston is "fast"? Not your experience. Not that of the posters above. I've run it 15 times in all kinds of weather, including 2011, and believe me it was never fast. Only less slow in a good year.
A ton of the top all-time Americans have their PR from Boston, which to me means if the weather is good you can run your fastest time on the Boston course. This is largely because it's point to point and net downhill by quite a bit. So if you get a tailwind or no wind at all you can run very fast. But if it is a headwind then forget about it.
However, many of the top Americans don't run a big variety of marathons. Some people do the New York/Boston cycle every year. Someone doing that will probably have their PR from Boston simply because they haven't run on many other courses, and New York is a challenging course, so if they have a favorable wind one of their years at Boston then of course their PR will be from Boston.
Boston was definitely fast in 2011. Look at all the top times compared to what people were running back then (pre-super shoes!).
2:32 best at Boston - PR 2:29 on a flat, fast course in perfect conditions. I think the course itself adds about 1 minute, and the weather typically adds 0-3 minutes. So probably about 2 minutes slower than a fast course. I've also noticed the super shoes give me more margin to open up the downhills, since they protect the legs better than my old flats did.
If weather is good, Boston is fast. Other PR 3:01:27, Boston 3:03:02. But I ran Boston conservatively due to a short training cycle (injury). To ensure I requalified I went out easy and let it rip on the back.
False. Boston is never "fast". With good weather, it is only less slow.
The many posts above make clear that a PR at Boston is rare indeed. That's very unlikely to happen unless someone has a very short career and/or never trains properly for a truly fast course.
It is always funny to hear "Boston can be fast" from folks who ran it slow. With excuses like "I was taking it easy", "I was just running for fun", "I was injured", , etc. Yeah right -- if Boston is "fast" give us a result not a theory.
A ton of the top all-time Americans have their PR from Boston, which to me means if the weather is good you can run your fastest time on the Boston course. This is largely because it's point to point and net downhill by quite a bit. So if you get a tailwind or no wind at all you can run very fast. But if it is a headwind then forget about it.
However, many of the top Americans don't run a big variety of marathons. Some people do the New York/Boston cycle every year. Someone doing that will probably have their PR from Boston simply because they haven't run on many other courses, and New York is a challenging course, so if they have a favorable wind one of their years at Boston then of course their PR will be from Boston.
A "ton" of them PR'd in Boston? Interesting -- names please.
And here are my excuses... Naturally my pr was when I was trying to pr and Boston was years later after not training as intensely. I would like to think my Boston pr would be about 5 minutes slower within a 2 year standard deviation of my pr when attempting to run a pr at Boston. And while training 100+ mile weeks.
A ton of the top all-time Americans have their PR from Boston, which to me means if the weather is good you can run your fastest time on the Boston course. This is largely because it's point to point and net downhill by quite a bit. So if you get a tailwind or no wind at all you can run very fast. But if it is a headwind then forget about it.
However, many of the top Americans don't run a big variety of marathons. Some people do the New York/Boston cycle every year. Someone doing that will probably have their PR from Boston simply because they haven't run on many other courses, and New York is a challenging course, so if they have a favorable wind one of their years at Boston then of course their PR will be from Boston.
A "ton" of them PR'd in Boston? Interesting -- names please.
You actually doubt this? Here you go: Ryan Hall - 2:04:58 Boston 2011
Bob Kempainen - 2:08:47 Boston 1994 Alberto Salazar - 2:08:51 Boston 1982 Dick Beardsley - 2:08:53 Boston 1982 Greg Meyer - 2:09:00 Boston 1983
Scott Fauble - 2:09:09 Boston 2019
Jared Ward - 2:09:25 Boston 2019 Bill Rodgers - 2:09:27 Boston 1979 Ron Tabb - 2:09:31 Boston 1983 Benji Durden - 2:09:57 Boston 1983
About a 40% of the all-time Americans who have run sub 2:10 have their PR at Boston, so obviously if the conditions are favorable it is fairly common to run pretty fast at Boston. But the conditions could be not favorable which would result in slower time. These extremes are due to the fact it's a point to point course and wind makes all the difference.
A "ton" of them PR'd in Boston? Interesting -- names please.
You actually doubt this? Here you go: Ryan Hall - 2:04:58 Boston 2011
Bob Kempainen - 2:08:47 Boston 1994 Alberto Salazar - 2:08:51 Boston 1982 Dick Beardsley - 2:08:53 Boston 1982 Greg Meyer - 2:09:00 Boston 1983
Scott Fauble - 2:09:09 Boston 2019
Jared Ward - 2:09:25 Boston 2019 Bill Rodgers - 2:09:27 Boston 1979 Ron Tabb - 2:09:31 Boston 1983 Benji Durden - 2:09:57 Boston 1983
About a 40% of the all-time Americans who have run sub 2:10 have their PR at Boston, so obviously if the conditions are favorable it is fairly common to run pretty fast at Boston. But the conditions could be not favorable which would result in slower time. These extremes are due to the fact it's a point to point course and wind makes all the difference.
Thanks! I didn't doubt you, I just didn't know the facts. Very interesting, though just a handful of elites (who, as you noted, didn't run a lot of races). For the rest of us, it is not at all "common" to run faster at Boston than elsewhere.
I just looked at the forecast for Monday (we're five days out from the race) and the weather is saying 13mph SW wind and racing temperature in the 40's. That's the direction of the course, so this year could be very very fast. And since it's an incredibly deep field with many good runners, some of them will surely have a good day and run fast. Nearly 20 guys in the race have a sub 2:10 PR including a couple Americans. I won't be surprised if we have three Americans running 2:08/2:09, and the winners could run 2:04 or maybe even 2:03. This is my hot take. It's going to be one for the record books, a lot faster than the fall version we saw in October. An elite runner could reasonably run a few seconds per mile faster with a 13mph tailwind, which can result in running a couple minutes faster in a marathon.