The Fastest Marathon: Boston or London?

As reported in the previous post, in 2004, London was a much faster marathon than Boston. However, Boston had unusually warm temperatures. So I decided to redo the stats for 2003.

Just like before, I took the average finish times of the top 100 runners. And again London easily won. For the men: London 2:26:59, Boston 2:35:52. For the women: London 2:57:23, Boston 3:02:26.

Here's is recap of the 2004 races. For the men: London 2:23:32, Boston 2:38:00. For the women: London 2:53:18, Boston 3:08:27.

Boston did better in 2003, but London still had the best times. So how did the weather compare? Both were in the 50's around race time in 2003. In 2004, Boston was around 80F and London was at 50F. There was a good excuse for Boston last year, but not in 2003.

Below are the detailed stats. For the 2004 details, refer to my previous post.

Race Day Temperatures from Weather Underground:

London on April 13, 2003:
9:20am 52F
11:20am 61F

Boston April 21, 2003:
11:54am 50F
1:54pm 50F

London April 18, 2004:
9:20am 50F
11:20am 50F

Boston April 19, 2004:
11:54am 78F
1:54pm 83F

2003 Men Comparisons

Boston:

Average time for top 100 male runners = 2:35:52

Number of Men Who Ran:
under 2:10 :   0
under 2:15 :   5
under 2:20 :  13
under 2:30 :  17
under 2:40 :  56
under 2:50 : 100+

London:

Average time for top 100 male runners = 2:26:59

Number of Men Who Ran:
under 2:10 :   9
under 2:15 :  14
under 2:20 :  22
under 2:30 :  52
under 2:40 : 100+

2003 Women Comparisons

Boston:

Average time for top 100 female runners = 3:02:26

Number of Women Who Ran:
under 2:30 :   4
under 2:45 :  12
under 3:00 :  26
under 3:15 : 100+

London:

Average time for top 100 female runners = 2:57:23

Number of Women Who Ran:
under 2:30 :  12
under 2:45 :  18
under 3:00 :  41
under 3:15 : 100+

Times were derived from race data provided by Boston Marathon Page at marathonguide.com and Flora London Marathon Results Page.