London Marathon, The Best in World - Certainly Not ! - General running

Mick Rice

15/08/2002 at 15:37

A RW Article on this site rates the London Marathon as number one in the world and "the benchmark against which all others are now judged ". Even though I've never run London, and that has to be said up front, I can't believe that this can be true. The course is far from ideal, and that's even recognised in the article in question, the field is far too large for racing comfort. The running 'Rhinos' and people pushing wheelbarrows too have their place but London seems to attract very much more than it's fair share of this type of runner. The true value of the opinions expressed in the article are made clear when we see that Boston, which I have run, is rated as only fifth. I really don't mean to denigrade what is obviously a very well run race which has become hugely popular, but the best marathon in the world, not a chance.

MartinH

15/08/2002 at 16:01

But as its impossible to be empirical on something like this if RW have that opinion (and thats what it is, an opinion) then it can't really be contradicted?

I have no desire to run London for many of the reasons you say but I think 30,000 or so people might disagree with you.

Mick Rice

15/08/2002 at 16:03

That's exactly point. Can a race that many fairly serious marathon runners '...have no desire to run..." really call itself the best in the world.

drew

15/08/2002 at 16:44

Mick, don't knock it until you've done it. The atmosphere, the event organisation and everything else connected with the event does make it the top marathon. It's maybe not the ideal scenario for everyone but that all depends on what you're looking for from a marathon.

Wolfy

15/08/2002 at 16:59

I agree totally with Drew. I did it this year after trying to get in for 4 years. It was my 3rd marathon and I can safely say that regardless of the fantastic marathon locations that I WILL do in the future if given the opportunity I'd run London every year. It's a fantastic city, the crowd support is amazing and the enthusiasm and commitment of all those people (marshalls and police etc) that help to make the day a success is great.

I got a PB despite having an additional 28500 people running around me!

Nessie

15/08/2002 at 17:04

I would agree that it is the best "event", although possibly not the best "race". In terms of inclusion, it would be very hard to beat, but for serious runners, perhaps the crowds would get in the way of a good time (if you aren't in the elite start), and racing against rhinos perhaps doesn't feel quite serious enough.

Jamie Jones

15/08/2002 at 17:30

Nessie hits the nail on the head. London as an 'event' cannot be beaten but as a 'race' its just an also ran. The crowds, the course, the atmosphere and that undescribable feeling that you have because millions of people are watching on tv and cheering on the streets. You are of course also running against the best in the world. I won the Robin Hood Marathon last year but it was not a patch on London. London is only a 'race' for the top 50 or so. Over the last few years the quality has dropped through the floor. (Just compare the number of sub 2:20's this year to 10 years ago. This has created big gaps between runners at the front end and the average Joe). But just take London for what it is - a great opportunity for anybody in the country to run against the worlds elite.

Achilles

15/08/2002 at 20:58

I guess it depends on how fast you run - I did 3:24 last year and found it a pain (though I didn't spot any indigenous African wildlife) but did 2:55 this year and had lots more room to make a decent race of it than I've experienced in your average 10K. Maybe those who look down on hippos should just try to run it quicker!?? I have to say running in the same field as Kannouchi setting a new world record and Paula doing her extraordinary and inspirational "thang" is a pretty amazing experience, which you won't find in many other races in the world. And isn't the point about running for most of us that you're racing against yourself???? s.

Big Tim

15/08/2002 at 21:04

I've started both my London marathon's from the championship start. It's still very crowded. London is great for the masses who just want to run 'The London Marathon' with all the crowd support & atmosphere, but it's not for me. I shall be elsewhere next April.

Jamie Jones

16/08/2002 at 07:53

Oops! Rereading my message makes me look like a right prat! After a long training run I realised what I think I was trying to say was that every time I have run London I have never had anybody to race against. The gaps in the field just tend to be too big 'nearer the front' as the race progresses. But I think Achilles has a good point in that most of us are racing against ourselves. Anyway I will now hide my head in the sand and continue training for London anyway! PS Cheers to Runners World for improving this website beyond recognition.

'kk' aka 'knackeredknees'

16/08/2002 at 09:35

I got a PB of 5hrs 17mins. at this years FLM (Well it was my firstt marathon)

Even I found a problem getting round some runners. The 'Rainforest' was one notable one which some way into the race was uncomfortable to get past!

The FLM is a great event, I don't think I would have even tried to do a marathon if I hadn't had some first hand experience of it as a result of my, very fit!, son runniing twice. i made postive efforts to saty out of other runners way, most noticeably by starting in Pen 9 i.e. right at the back! Undoubtedly some 'runners' are way too optimstic in stating at time on their entry forms. However for the elite runners it didn't stop Khalid Kannouchi and Paula Radcliffe having absolutely stunning results. So the course can't be that bad!, can it?

The FLM is for everyone. If you are really 'elite' you get you own start!. The rest of us get spectators who are there to watch me (and others like me) set my PB 5hrs 17mins, or about 3hrs 12mins after Kannouchi finished.
I'm out of running because of injury for at least another 4 months. My target is FLM 2004 and a PB of 5hrs 16mins!!

Mick Rice

16/08/2002 at 09:41

Undoubtedly London is a good, well organised, positive event, with a place in it's large and welcoming heart for all runners from the Rhino to the Record Breaker. My point however in starting this thread was that I couldn't believe how anyone could seriously suggest it as the number one marathon in the world and the standard against which all others are judged given the shortcommings that all but the most enthusiastic recognise.

RichardM

16/08/2002 at 09:58

Obviously the number one marathon in the world is a pretty subjective statement. However, having done several of the big city marathons each one has their own particular positives and negatives. Boston has the history and the small field of good athletes, New York has crowds to match London and a city that really gets behind the marathon, Paris has a very interesting route and (apparently as I haven't done it) the Big Sur has the most beautiful route. I could recommend the Reykjavik marathon to anyone because it is a great ego boost to finish 6th in a capital city marathon when you are used to struggling into the top 1000!

However, I think London has got the balance between the elite race (and this year's was incredible), the club runners and the 'fun' runners absolutely right. The organisation is the best of any of the big races, New York is terrible and Paris is worse. But the feelgood factor involved in running a race that raises millions of pounds every year for charity, far more than any other race, surely make it number one. Can't wait for April.

Dustin

19/08/2002 at 08:44

Agree with the last post.
Ive done London 5 times and NY once before.
Course wise I don't think there is a lot to choose between them, but in terms of organisation London far surpasses NY. In my time I've started at the back with the Mr Men and in pen 3 this year (where it took less than 45 seconds to cross the line), so as long as you're in the right place the crowds shouldn't slow you down.
London is as much an event as a race but surely isn't that part of it?
The fact that it is 4-5 times oversubscribed every year says it all really.
However I will say the same polls say the GNR is the best halfM in the world, having done it once I'd never do it again and never recommend it to anyone.

Personal opinion I guess.

Ultra Ironwolf pirate

pirate

09/09/2002 at 21:00

I've run 28 marathons, including London 4 times, and I have to agree with Mick and v-rap, it's a great event but not necessarily the best race. Berlin is just as big but the runners are (nearly all) serious runners, there are also 8000 skaters in the inline race, and it's a great course. Also, until this year, London was the only big city marathon not to use the timing chip to give an accurate actual running time.
Sheila Anne.

Slaphead

10/09/2002 at 08:11

I totally agree with Dustin and I find Sheila Annes comments interesting. I've run 18 marathons (soon to be 19 in Florence) and among those there are 2 in Frankfurt, 1 in Berlin, 1 in Perth, Australia a couple of Potteries a couple of Lutons and a Manchester, but what makes the bulk of my efforts are 8 (EIGHT) FLMs. If it was crap (I'm a blunt talking Yorkshireman!!) I certainly wouldn't go back year after year. My PB is 3hrs and 3 minutes gained at guess where - London!!. Last year I ran in 3hrs 15mins so you can get a reasonably fast time if you want. If you're a slower runner than these times then its inevitable that you are going to be running with thousands more. If you want to try for a faster time then enter a race with a smaller field. Shiela I find your comments about Berlin amusing because I thought it was absolutely terrible. The organisation wasn't up to its usual German best (I lived in Germany for 6 years) and the course itself was awful - going through many of the former East Berlin drab housing estates.

What this thread shows after 16 postings is that there are 16 opinions!!! - ain't democracy great!

See you in April (those taking part of course)

Dirt Tracker

10/09/2002 at 09:09

I think putting an automatic qualification time of 3:15 (good for your age) and 3:45 for men and women respectively redresses the balance a bit. It means more faster runners will be there, and slightly fewer slower runners, preventing the bottle-neck at the finish at around 4 - 4:30hrs.
This is a way of 'engineering' the field that is no doubt neccessary considering the huge demand for places. It was my debut this year as a marathon runner, and I'll be gutted if I don't get a place next year, either throught the ballot, a 3:15 qualifying time, a club place or a charity place. I love it !

Slaphead

10/09/2002 at 12:31

Oops

How could I forget New York?!!! (98)

Mick Rice

10/09/2002 at 13:24

Ok so it's hard to rate one Marathon against another....fair enough. Hopefully after next year I'll have actually run London and will have a more informed opinion....BUT in the meantime....if you leave out London....what do you think is the 'best of the rest'?

David Jellis

13/04/2004 at 17:12

The best marathon ever done would be reyjkavic in Iceland. The scenery is fantastic with great bars too and surely the most beutiful woman on this planet are here!...wow!!

London Marathon, The Best in World - Certainly Not !

Hot threads

Most discussed articles