Twin Cities vs. Chicago

Quoted message said:

I've loved my Chicago experiences.

marisa:

have run chicago twice. both very positive experiences. can't comment on TC, never done it. chicago
is flat, fast & very well organized. plus there is so much to do in the city....many hotels, many
restaurants but none of them cheap.

i would guess if you are on a budget, TC might be better. if not, chicago is something you should
experience at least once.

what are your goals?

cs

It sounds to me like you have a very easy choice. Sign up for Twin Cities and if you don't get in,
then sign up for Chicago.

Me, I was at Chicago last year and I was one of the very last runners to cross the starting line. It
looks like they could have packed another few thousand more runners in there.

Even though they had a cap of 37,500 last year, I think only about 31,000 finished. In other words,
if they do have a 40,000 cap, that means that they might get closer to 37,500.

I did not know Chicago changed their cap to 40,000 but if they did, it looks like they are going to
try and compete with London because I think their cap is 40,000.

Roger

Marisa wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to pick my fall marathon out now, so I can start increasing my mileage before the real
training. I'm deciding between Chicago and Twin Cities.

Chicago has increased its cap to 40,000. That's a pretty big negative to me, as I thought it was
too crowded with the 37,500 cap. Twin Cities is capped at 8,500 which sounds more reasonable.

Twin Cities will probably win out, as it would be a closer drive (and less expensive hotel stay).
I'm interested in hearing any feedback from people who've run TC before, especially compared to
Chicago. Aside from the congestion, I've loved my Chicago experiences.

Thanks, Marisa

Marisa said:

I'm trying to pick my fall marathon out now, so I can start increasing my mileage before the real
training. I'm deciding between Chicago and Twin Cities.

I did Chicago last year and my opinion would be to run anywhere but Chicago. I went 26.2 miles
without ever being able to go more than a couple minutes at a time without running around someone or
stopping to avoid a collision. Every water stop was so crowded that you couldn't run or even walk
fast through them. Lots of spectators, but they kept running across the road right in front of me
and others which added to the problem. It was the worst running experience of my life.

Quoted message said:

It sounds to me like you have a very easy choice. Sign up for Twin Cities and if you don't get in,
then sign up for Chicago.

That is probably what's going to happen ... I guess I just wanted to hear from some people that have
run the TCM to see what I can expect. I kind of know what to expect from Chicago, but know nothing
at all about the TC area. I probably should've listed specific things I wondered (hills, support,
aid stations, pace groups).

Quoted message said:

Me, I was at Chicago last year and I was one of the very last runners to cross the starting line.
It looks like they could have packed another few thousand more runners in there.

I remember your pictures from the start, and the shots looking back. But just because they can pack
more people in doesn't mean they should.

Quoted message said:

Even though they had a cap of 37,500 last year, I think only about 31,000 finished. In other
words, if they do have a 40,000 cap, that means that they might get closer to 37,500.

Good point about number entering not equaling number finishing (or starting). But I noticed a
significant change in the amount of congestion between '01 and '02. Maybe it was because I was
further ahead in the pack (running with the 4:15 group as opposed to 4:30), but I don't think that
should've made such a huge difference. The course was stickier and grimier in '02; I don't remember
getting stuck to the ground from Gatorade as much the first time. Overall, '02 just felt like there
were way too many people and the prospect of there being another 2,500 runners in there has made me
re-evaluate the possibility of running it a 3rd time.

marisa

I've never run TC, but I hear it's a pretty good course, well-run, and fairly fast. There's a hill

right near the end that kind of sucks though. ANdy Hass Roger 2k said:

It sounds to me like you have a very easy choice. Sign up for Twin Cities and if you don't get in,
then sign up for Chicago.

Quoted message said:

Me, I was at Chicago last year and I was one of the very last runners to cross the starting line.
It looks like they could have packed another few thousand more runners in there.

Quoted message said:

Even though they had a cap of 37,500 last year, I think only about 31,000 finished. In other
words, if they do have a 40,000 cap, that means that they might get closer to 37,500.

Quoted message said:

I did not know Chicago changed their cap to 40,000 but if they did, it looks like they are going
to try and compete with London because I think their cap is 40,000.

Quoted message said:

Roger

Quoted message said:

Marisa wrote in message <[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I'm trying to pick my fall marathon out now, so I can start increasing my mileage before the real
training. I'm deciding between Chicago and Twin Cities.

Chicago has increased its cap to 40,000. That's a pretty big negative to me, as I thought it was
too crowded with the 37,500 cap. Twin Cities is capped at 8,500 which sounds more reasonable.

Twin Cities will probably win out, as it would be a closer drive (and less expensive hotel stay).
I'm interested in hearing any feedback from people who've run TC before, especially compared to
Chicago. Aside from the congestion, I've loved my Chicago experiences.

Thanks, Marisa

Marisa wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Good point about number entering not equaling number finishing (or starting). But I noticed a
significant change in the amount of congestion between '01 and '02. Maybe it was because I was
further ahead in the pack (running with the 4:15 group as opposed to 4:30), but I don't think that
should've made such a huge difference. The course was stickier and grimier in '02; I don't remember
getting stuck to the ground from Gatorade as much the first time. Overall, '02 just felt like there
were way too many people and the prospect of there being another 2,500 runners in there has made me
re-evaluate the possibility of running it a 3rd time.

marisa

Now you have a good point. When I started way in the back at Chicago, I found Gatorade stops with
no Gatorade. I also found it was impossible to run through a water stop because everybody else
would be walking.

As for Twin Cities, I've heard a lot of good about it. I've also seen the course maps and I like the
idea of running by the lakes up there. But it is further for me than Chicago, so I'll probably do
Chicago again.

Roger

Quoted message said:

Twin Cities is extremely well organized, very scenic, tremendous crowd

support,

Quoted message said:

lots of aid stations, 5000 volunteers, etc. There is a long gradual uphill

(I

Quoted message said:

think from mile 21 to 24) that actually helped me. The grade is not steep enough to make it too
challenging, but enough that the fire in my hip

muscles

Quoted message said:

went away until we hit level ground again.

Thanks for the reply! The hill interests me, as I used to be really good at hills but haven't had
any to run on in 6 years. Luckily, I'll have a big one to train on to get prepped for the race. I
read on marathonguide.com that the aid stations have run out of drinks (especially the later
stations with the sportsdrinks) and food at the finish line. The people reporting this were in the
4:30-range, which isn't far off of me which makes me worry. Have you encountered this/hear of it?

marisa