Paul Kedrosky asks readers why the Boston Marathon seems to have more variability in winning times than the New York Marathon in recent years. Here are a few explanations I'd add to the good comments he's already received:
(1) The Boston climb comes late in the race, which is mentally tricky. Few marathon designs are built to break runners late in the race. I've been humbled by Boston once, and I'm not in a rush to go back real soon.
(2) Boston weather changes A LOT on the day of the race. Even if the race starts cold, you often finish with warm temps. Two years ago, many people finished and had hypothermic like symptoms at the finish line--blue fingernails, purple lips, etc. And, that was a race where the weather was mostly fine. However, going from 35 degrees in Hopkinton at 7 am to 65 degrees at the end of a marathon is a tough physical adjustment.
(3) For mere mortals, the time out in Hopkinton pre-marathon is a huge pain. You're bussed out there three hours in advance of the marathon start time, and you're left to shiver with friends. The elites get better treatment than us mortals, but everything in one's routine (e.g., food intake, etc.) is a bit off.
(4) The wind problem of 2007, which is mentioned in the comments, is right on. Bob Lawson can tell you good stories of people in snowsuits at the start line that year!
(5) Going back to 1980, prize money for the two races has not been the same over time and has affected the fields.
HT: Tyler Cowen
Comments