At the New York Marathon last weekend, I hoped to beat my PR from Boston in April, partly because of my training, but partly because I had decided that NYC was an easier course than Boston. It didn't go that way. I went out a bit faster, but hurt more on the last 10k, and ended up 30 seconds slower. I walked away thinking, no, New York is the harder course. It wasn't a PR, but is was an NYC PR, so good for me!
Hmm, it's starting to sound like every time I run a marathon I decide that it was the hardest course ever. Time to get some hard evidence to support my self serving conclusion. Sure, I had lots of ideas. Boston is famous for it's hills, but NYCM has some hills too. NYCM has more turns, and NYCM is more crowded -- a lot more crowded. Turns and crowds definitely through me off my stride, and in theory could account for increased fatigue. Still there must be a more scientific way to compare.
Comparing average times doesn't work, since Boston is mostly runners that qualified by time. So how about course records? Boston has the faster records both for men and women, by about 2 minutes. That might not work either though, since these marathons pay top runners to show up. If one spends more money than the other, they could skew the results. Except for Margaret Okayo.
Margaret Okayo of Kenya holds the course record in BOTH New York and Boston. She won New York in 2001 in 2:24:21, then won Boston in 2002 in 2:20:43, and then repeated in New York with a course record 2:22:31.
So there you have it. New York is the tougher course. Pure science has spoken.
 |
| Digging deep at the end of the NYCM |
Posts
2 comments:
After running both this year, NYC definitely has the harder course. I think you hit the nail on the head with the pros - consider that the women ran a "pedestrian" 2:28! Crazy. Funny part is I ran both my times within a minute of eachother but I definitely worked harder in NY.
To me if you run Boston smart, it's a lot more forgiving
great post John!
Post a Comment