Chicago Marathon (Read 1191 times)

  

What makes Chicago so special?  

 

I've lived in one of the burbs for nearly 20 years and I'm still trying to figure that out.   

What makes the marathon nice is that for nearly all of the 26 miles there is someone cheering you on. I don't know if other marathons are like that. Some would the scenery of the marathon, but quite frankly, when I'm pushing myself, I really don't notice much of the stuff around me. 

Sorry can't help you with coupons. We normally use the Metra.  

Columbus is a good alternative for you.   First half is pretty full with like 5000 fulls and 7000 halfs with good crowd support and I would imagine just as flat/fast as Chicago.  Raceday itself is well organized, Expo and shirt / goodies are below par.

 

After Halfers turn to home 2nd half of course gets a little thinner but still enough of crowd not to be running alone.  Crowd support starts to thin between miles 16 - 21 but always someone there and then picks up last 5 miles and last 3 miles is pretty good and a downhill finish into Nationwide arena area sure helps.

 

Hotels can be had pretty cheap if you book ahead,  I think I booked Doubletree (1 bedroom suite ) for like $89 and was only 1 block from the start.

If you like a pancake flat PR course, Chicago is special.

If you enjoy massive crowds and running with a herd of cattle, Chicago is special.

If you are fast enough that it is hard to have people to run with in smaller marathons, Chicago is special.

Other than that, the allure escapes me.  It is expensive, logistics are difficult, it is crowded, and there are big city marathons (and even medium marathons) with better crowd support.

If you want a pancake flat course, I can name a dozen choices easier, cheaper and less crowded.  but you may run large portions more or less along.

If you want great course support, it is hard to beat Boston (but you have to qualify or do charity).

Regarding hotels -- look out by OHare.  Take the El into the city.  You will save a ton of money and it's not difficult or incredibly time consuming (less than an hour).  I did that twice (staying with relatives out there).  It was less stressful and a LOT cheaper than when I stayed downtown.

 

I'll try not to be too much of a Chicago homer in responding, but I think your summary sells short on a few of Chicago's finest points.  The flat, fast course and amazing on-course support makes Chicago an ideal marathon for two key groups: folks looking to PR, and folks running their first marathon.  Indeed, approximately 1/3 of the field each year are first-time marathoners.  Race organizers go out of their way to make the experience friendly for first-timers while still attracting a world-class elite field.  Not many races can boast that their appeal spreads so wide.

 

Comparing the crowd support to Boston is a bit unfair, since Boston has (and will always have) an unmatchable history and tradition.  But I defy you to name another race that will draw over a million spectators (1.2 million estimated for 2010).  Are there sections of the course where crowd support is thin?  Of course.  But on the majority of the course -- everything downtown (miles 1-4, 12-14), everything north of the loop (5-11), Chinatown (20-22), and the finish (23-26) -- the crowds are 2-3 people deep every year.

 

I really don't understand your critique that the logistics are difficult.  I couldn't disagree more.  Since Chicago is a point-to-point course, you don't have to deal with busing runners or other logistics nightmares.  There are no two-wave starts, or multiple starting areas. Transportation to/from the start/finish is ridiculously easy.  I've driven, taken a cab, and taken public transportation in different years.  All were fast and easy, and public transportation costs about $2 each way.

 

Moreover, because of the course design, the logistics for spectators is unbelievably good.  I defy you to name another race where your family and friends can see you on course at not less than 4 different spots if they stay on foot, and not less than 6 different spots if they take the subway.  (This race doesn't count.  )

 

So as for negatives, I really think the only valid criticisms are that it can be crowded in the back, and that it's expensive.  As for crowding, every runner has the opportunity to qualify for a seeded corral.  You only need a 1:50 or better half or a 4:00 or better marathon to get a seeded bib.  So for anyone seriously running for a time goal: problem solved.  As for the expense. it is what it is.

 

Finally, if you and your family are going to spend 2-3 days in a city for a race weekend, there are worse places to pass the time than Chicago.

 

Any way, there are many great alternatives out there, but Chicago is pretty unique.  As further evidence of its continuing popularity, the pace of registrations is at an all-time high this year.  Its a pretty good guess that the race will close before the end of March - and possibly sooner.  So if you and the wife want to run on lucky 10/10/10 in Chicago, I'd suggest that you decide pretty soon.

The logistics ARE difficult -- and stressful.  The traffic coming in and out, the parking arrangements at most of the hotels (and their FEES).  To be fair it is no more expensive than New York.

The fact that the first time I registered I did so in August, and you must now commit what, 6 months in advance, is another major inconvenience.

Yes, there are good crowds in many areas, but there are plenty of big-city marathons don't have 1/4 of the course almost barren.  At least, that is what I experienced 4 times.

The comparison to Boston is perfectly valid, not everything in life is fair  I actually like the bussing in Boston more than logistics in Chicago because it is pretty stress-free, unlike trying to get into and out of Chicago.

You are correct, the logistics for spectators are awesome, as long as they stay on foot.  Congestion can get you in trouble if you try a cab.  It also gives you several convenient places to drop out within walking distance of the finish if you blow up (don't ask me how I know that).

I've run a number of big races and found nothing particularly unique about Chicago except the flat course.  Boston is unique.  New York is unique.  Bayshore is unique.  Chicago is just a flat big-city marathon and outside of a couple parks and Chinatown I did not find much pleasant about the scenery.

It's a fine course to PR, that is for sure.  Even when windy the course changes direction enough to give you an honest shot no matter the wind direction (it was very windy when I got my first sub-2:30 there).  The final straw for me was when the race management falsified the times of two competitors from the same team (in with a long history with race management)  to get them in the Olympic Trials but did not adjust the times of anyone else around them.  Very unprofessional in my book.

Columbus is a good alternative for you.   First half is pretty full with like 5000 fulls and 7000 halfs with good crowd support and I would imagine just as flat/fast as Chicago.  Raceday itself is well organized, Expo and shirt / goodies are below par.

 

After Halfers turn to home 2nd half of course gets a little thinner but still enough of crowd not to be running alone.  Crowd support starts to thin between miles 16 - 21 but always someone there and then picks up last 5 miles and last 3 miles is pretty good and a downhill finish into Nationwide arena area sure helps.

 

Hotels can be had pretty cheap if you book ahead,  I think I booked Doubletree (1 bedroom suite ) for like $89 and was only 1 block from the start.

 

 

I've done Columbus and I'm not a big fan.  If we don't do Chicago I think I am definatley doing Indy.  I love that marathon.  Well besides the traffic last year.  I don't do well with flat but would do this one for my wife.

 

No, no and no.  Love Indy do not like the monumental.  See above not about wife and Chicago.

 

So you're talking about the Lawrence one then?  I'm deciding which one to do myself.  Monumental is flatter I'm told but, much like Chicago, I imagine the scenery sucks.

It also gives you several convenient places to drop out within walking distance of the finish if you blow up (don't ask me how I know that).

 

The final straw for me was when the race management falsified the times of two competitors from the same team (in with a long history with race management)  to get them in the Olympic Trials but did not adjust the times of anyone else around them.  Very unprofessional in my book.

 

Sorry to hear that you've had some bad experiences that have colored your opinion of the race. Nevertheless, I still don't understand your issues with the race day logistics, and apparently never will. If you prefer to ride a bus for an hour to a starting area (so you can wait for another two hours for the race to begin), versus taking a car or train directly to the start/finish area, I'll leave you to your preference.

 

Boston may have better crowd support, but Boston isn't always an option for everyone. Also, your spectators definitely erred by taking a cab; the subway is far and away the best option to get to/from different areas of the course to see your runner. Chicago organizers even publish a handy spectator transportation guide that you can pick up at the expo.

 

The rest of your criticisms (cost, hotels, crowds, early registration closure) are endemic to all big city races, not just Chicago. I understand that some people just don't like big marathons. I personally don't share that view, but if you're going to do a big city marathon, Chicago is one of the best -- if not the best overall. At least, that's my biased opinion.