Nov 14, 2024
Current Year Results
Results Search
Biggest/Best Boston Qualifier
2024 Results
2023 Results
2022 Results
2021 Results
2020 Results
2019 Results
2018 Results
2017 Results
2016 Results
2015 Results
2014 Results
2013 Results
2012 Results
2011 Results
2010 Results
2009 Results
2008 Results
2007 Results
2006 Results
2005 Results
2004 Results
2003 Results
2002 Results
2001 Results
2000 Results
☰
The San Francisco Marathon Runner Comments
Back to The San Francisco Marathon Information & Reviews
Course 4.3 
Organization 3.6 
Spectators 2.6
Number of comments: 503 [displaying comments 471 to 481]
|
A Runner from Portland, Oregon
(7/29/2002)
"Great water, potties---poor city support" (General Comments)
COURSE: 5 ORGANIZATION: 5 FANS: 5 I was considering the early start because I knew my time would be around 5 hours to finish. I went to the information booth at the expo and asked about the early start. I asked if the course would change after 5 hours. The woman I spoke with said NO that it was an option given to have a bit more time and cooler run. I decided to stick with the 6 am start. I kept my pace and as I came out of the park and into the city I was amazed when I suddenly had police motorcycles yelling at me to get on the sidewalk....traffic was opening up! This was before 10 AM. I had to run the majority of my run from 9:45 to barely 11 on the sidewalk.......dodging locals...homeless...roots coming up out of the sidewalk. There was no longer help at the lights......I had to jump in front of traffic. I nearly took 2 wrong turns because there were no more volunteers and no arrows pointing the way. Then as I am about to find glory in my possible sub 5 hour finish I have to dodge spectators in line for their Dodger/Giants tickets. I was getting a bit upset. I finished in 5:02:45 ....not my 4:59 that I was finally trying to get. But that is OK. I did enjoy the race. The first 30K or so was lovely. The Presidio was nice. The weather was perfect. The water stations were very well run (nice clean water......) and there were no lines at the Porta Potties after mile 6 or so. That was helpful. The timing was first rate.....great online coverage and split times. The pace groups were great. I hung out with the 5 hour group for much of the race. They were right on. I thought the course was pretty fast and worth it. If I had more course time I would do it again...hopefully under 5 hours. My suggestions. More literature on the race in the packet (there was nothing...no maps etc.). Better education of the runners regarding traffic happenings. I would have started at 5 if I knew I would be kicked of the road 4 hours into the race. Get an official hotel a little closer to the start/expo. | |
|
A Runner from San Francisco
(7/29/2002)
"A fun run in beautiful weather." (about: 2002)
COURSE: 5 ORGANIZATION: 4 FANS: 3 A nice running tour of San Francisco. Pretty good organization (I've seen lots worse). The weather was beautiful. The crowds were a bit sparse, but with all the races (full, half, relay and 5K) ending at the same finish line there were lots of cheering fans at the end which was nice. | |
|
A Runner from New York City
(7/29/2002)
"Who'd Have Thought -- A Great Marathon" (about: 2002)
COURSE: 5 ORGANIZATION: 3 FANS: 2 After reading all the negative comments from past races, I was of course anxious about running SF. Man, am I glad I did. The course really is terrific -- running along the bay and the ocean, through lovely parks, past awesome bridges, in and out of nifty neighborhoods. Not even particularly hilly. Cool weather, overcast skies. Perfect. As for the organization, I expected a horrorshow but was very, very pleasantly surprised. Plenty of water stops, the Gu energy drink was okay (better than the garbage at a lot of marathons these days -- why can't everyone just use good old Gatorade?), the start was nice and clean. Nonetheless, a couple of problems could be worked on: The website is not particularly user-friendly; maybe I'm just dumb, but I had a heck of time figuring out exactly when the race was supposed to start. And don't bother looking in the Chronicle for that information -- I didn't see a word printed on Saturday concerning the marathon that they were sponsoring. (Imagine!) Okay, the real problems: (1) The port-a-johns were lined up at the edge of a grassy field, and we were all waiting in line on the field. Fine, except that the super-turbo sprinkler system kicked into action at 5:45, absolutely drenching us just before the race. (2) Thank you to the volunteers, but could someone please inform them that runners should be allowed to take more than one cup of water as they're running by, and that it's bad form to sneer at the runners for asking for more? It was weird how often that happened. (3) The bottleneck just beyond the finish line was ridiculous. There was only one egress, through a small opening in the barricades, presumably because the organizers wanted to make sure no one escaped without surrendering their timing chips. There's got to be a better way. Anyway, these are of course minor problems. This was a beautiful marathon on a beautiful day, and I heartily recommend it. | |
|
A Runner from San Francisco
(7/29/2002)
"To David Deigan" (about: 2002)
COURSE: 2 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 Please spare us ALL the excuses for the organizers. This has been going on for 25 years now, well, 26 if you include the year they cancelled it in 1988. This marathon IS never going to become a world class event, and Runner's World certainly isn't gonna save it. San Franciscans are as unsupportive of this marathon as they EVER have been. Some of the best parts of the course have been eliminated--GG Bridge, Chinatown, Financial District, City Hall. After the first 5 miles of the current course, the rest of the course can't get any more boring, and running through neighborhoods at 6AM on a Sunday morning gaurantees ZERO spectators out there. Let's face it--the SF Marathon as we know it is at 'good' as it gets. And each year the organizers surprise us every year with how much worse it gets. I didnt run this year (have run 4 different editions of the marathon) but was out on the course volunteering today and have already heard the traditional complaints begin, the least of which was having runners led off course!!! The organizers should stop relying on the aesthetics of San Francisco to sell the marathon and actually 'organize' an event that wont embarass the city, b/c as the runners will tell you, looks aren't everything. | |
|
A Runner from Marina Del Rey
(7/28/2002)
"A pleasant surprise" (about: 2002)
COURSE: 4 ORGANIZATION: 5 FANS: 1 I had been reading the negative comments about this marathon for months, and had previously decided that I was not going to run it. But, I love S.F., and the comments posted by Dave Deigan made me reconsider. And I'm so glad I did. Everything about the race, from the expo to the finish, seemed to be well organized. I didn't notice anything terribly wrong, and I suppose that no news is good news as far as that is concerned. The race itself was very well organized, and I personally enjoyed the early start. And with the realization that this is a mostly volunteer organized run, I just have to congratulate them on a job well done. I've been to other races that have big time corporate sponsorships that don't do half as well as this one did. Sure, there could be improvements, and if this race grows in participation they will be needed in a hurry. But on this day, they did it right. Thank you. I had a great time. | |
|
David Deigan <> from San Francisco, California
(7/12/2002)
"Taking a new approach for 2002" (General Comments)
COURSE: 4 ORGANIZATION: 3 FANS: 1 I'm a runner, marathoner, and coach of the San Francisco Road Runners Club and feel passionately about this magnificent City and our marathon. I suspect that because this is the great City that it is, many runners come here expecting to experience the kind of event staged in New York, Chicago, Boston or Los Angeles. Those races are well supported and well-funded. This event currently has no major sponsorship or funding from any direction. It is being staged by a cadre of local runners and event organizations (West End Management and Race Central), who are donating their time and services so this event can be kept going long enough to turn the corner. To stage a marathon through a major city without sponsor support is one tough assignment. That's exactly what's going on here. There are a number of lights at the end of the tunnel, so I hope you will read on. While I appreciate the frustration and even anger represented by some of the reviews posted here at this site, I can only hope that anyone checking in on this race for the first time (or to follow up on where it's headed), will give this a bit of time. The good news is that Race Director, Peter Nantell, is deeply concerned about your reaction and your input. There is no way to correct all of the concerns expressed here, but many of them are being changed this year, and as Runners World Magazine adopts this race for 2003, as a part of it's Race Series, we look for improvements to continue. Here some reasons to give this another shot: 1. The start/finish have been moved from lush, but often dreary, Golden Gate Park, to the foot of Market Street, at Justin Herman Plaza, across from the Ferry Building's Clock Tower. The Health & Fitness Expo will be staged in the plaza (outdoors) this year, on both Friday and Saturday. Easier to get to using BART, Muni trains or buses, CalTrans, or car. Closer to major hotels, Fisherman's Wharf, South of Market and the heart of the City. 2. THE COURSE - The course has been reversed this year, easing the difficulty considerably. Our SFRRC training program has run the course in the last few weeks. It's considerably easier, and the second half, in particular, is F-A-S-T. The long hill up into the Haight is now the long hill DOWN from the Haight and into the Mission. The final miles are 'dead-flat'. No more hill to the finish. It's much more spectator friendly because the Full Marathon, the Half-Marathon (which will start from the Zoo at the Great Highway, at the South end of Ocean Beach), and the brand new, lightening fast 5K, all start and finish along the Embarcadero at Market Street. 3. PACE TEAMS/GROUPS - For the first time, the SFRRC will offer pacing teams at 30 minute intervals (next year, we hope to add more choices, but this is our first effort at this). We'll cover 3:30, 4:00, 4:30 and 5:00 for the marathon, and 1:45, 2:00, 2:15, and 2:30 for the half-marathon this first year. Sign up at the sFRRC booth at the EXPO. 4. A GREATLY IMPROVED SPEAKER/CLINIC PROGRAM - Free to anyone in the City who is interested. The SFRRC, working closely with West End Management, has put together an excellent series of speakers in a far better location than the noisy, uncomfortable Ft. Mason Center location. We'll be in the Hyatt Embarcadero. Just follow the foot-steps on the sidewalk to the speaker location. 5. BETTER WATER STOPS - We've been trying very hard to recruit running clubs here in the Bay Area to help by taking responsibility for some of the water-stops on the course. That's still a work-in-process because of a conflict with the Wharf-to-Wharf event in Santa Cruz the same weekend, but we will do better next year. 6. TIME TO FINISH: This one is the toughest one. The event will use the Chip for timing, so runners needing extra time to finish will be permitted to start an hour early (at 5 a.m.). Because San Francisco is the most popular tourist destination in the U.S., an event of this magnitude (covering 26.2 miles of the City's streets), is disruptive to traffic and to the City's vital tourist trade, we've got to deal with a time-limit. The Dodgers are also in town at PacBell Stadium at 1:15 pm on marathon day. We have to open the streets by 11 a.m. OUR SUGGESTION: If you cannot finish this marathon in 6 hours, or deal with traffic signals and other interference if you come in later on your own, enter the Half-Marathon and choose a marathon somewhere that is able to offer you sufficient time to complete the course. This is not arbitrary by the race organizers. It's a condition of putting on the race. THE FUTURE: Look for some changes in the 2003 race, and some possible surprises with the course itself. No promises yet...just stay tuned. To everyone who has been disappointed in the past, do your homework before you enter a marathon or half-marathon. Consider what you are able to do and select an event that is able to give you the challenge, the support, or the time you need to take part. Don't be angry with the event because you entered it with unrealistic expectations. I cannot promise perfection this year, but I think the SFRRC, Race Central and the event organizers, West End Management, are dedicated to improve this marathon. Please give this one another chance. DAVE DEIGAN/SFRRC Chronicle Marathon Chair - Head Coach | |
|
A Runner from San Francisco
(7/10/2002)
"Hope the race organizers are reading these" (General Comments)
COURSE: 3 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 I live in SF, and have run the SF marathon years ago and would never run it again because of the extreme poor organization. I do volunteer most years at the water stations and/or get on the course somewhere to cheer on the runners because I believe in giving back to the sport. However, it really is a shame that we cannot put on a better event. I have yet to be able to figure out why, is it because the organizers care only about the elite runners and making money or are there some real hardships that they face that other cities do not. Maybe they will respond here. One more note, it is a shame that they took out the GG bridge portion of the race. It would be so nice for out-of-towners to experience running across our beautiful bridge. | |
|
-net.com from Connersville IN 47331
(6/13/2002)
"Worst marathon ever" (about: 1999)
COURSE: 3 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 I'm so happy to read these comments. You must warn all runners and walkers about this terrible marathon. I ran it 3 times in the 80's, and it was passable. With great excitement, I returned in l999. (Would have logged in then, but just found this web site-I did yell at the race director for a good 15 minutes at the Chicago expo). Here's my story: I was a walker in 99,so my story concerns walkers and slow runners. We were promised police on the course for 6 or 7 hours, 2 hours into the marathon the cops started to leave, then some at aid stations began to leave. Spectators?????? Were there 49??(As in the 49ers) As we were going up Haight St. we literally got lost. Saw few runners-lots of tourists. We actually had to find a map, and a cellphone to find our way. The cops were useless. It was my slowest and longest marathon (at least 27 miles). I never felt sure where I was until I saw the finish line. The total shame of it all is that the marathon is just as bad as ever. The organizers obviously didn't care about the participants. The only reason I can possibly discern for continuing this disgraceful race is that someone is making a nice profit. Please warn anyone and everyone to avoid it,like the plague!!!! | |
|
A Runner from Chicago Illinois
(2/23/2002)
"Great City--- Poor Race" (about: 2001)
COURSE: 5 ORGANIZATION: 1 FANS: 1 The City is fantastic and I give the course 5 stars for beauty, not for ease, because the hills are tough, especially leaving Golden Gate Park. The best thing that happened to the race was the relatively low number of participants (2,000-3,000); the race organization was so poor that a larger group would have been a disaster. The pre-race expo was a joke. They had waited until packet pick up to assign a chip to your bib. This resulted in a long line of people waiting for something that should have been done in advance. The post race event was even worse. They were not at all prepared for the crowd. I left without anything to eat or drink after waiting in line for 30 minutes. The post race wireless internet connection to check the results was a nice thought, to bad the technology failed. Another planning breakdown. The Half Marathon started at the half point for the Marathon, but started 1:45 later. This resulted in the fast runners in the Marathon contending with the other runners and with more congestion at the finish. Apparantly the organizers didn't learn from last year because 2002 is designed the same way. Finally, the fan support was non-existant excecpt for the support group for the purple shirts (Leukemia runners?). I guess there is no law that says people should turn out, but given the other pitifull aspects of the organization I would guess that the publicity was nonexistant. I see Delloite and Touche dropped their sponsorship for 2002---no wonder. All that said, I did finish 10 minutes faster than I expected and only one minute slower than my personal best, so I likely will give them one more chance to see if they can get their act togather. | |
|
A Runner from San Francisco, CA
(11/19/2001)
"An adequate, scenic, urban marathon" (General Comments)
COURSE: 3 ORGANIZATION: 3 FANS: 4 San Francisco is a good to OK marathon if you're local, or if you're interested in running the city. But with nearly 1000' of climbing, it isn't a great race for a fast time. And while the course is reasonably scenic (as one would expect in San Francisco), it isn't nearly as nice as it was a few years ago, when it crossed the Golden Gate Bridge, went through Chinatown, and finished in Kezar Stadium. Traffic is an issue in some areas, where they have a trick of diverting runners along one of two parallel route sections, in order to allow cross-traffic to get through; not an issue if you're in a 'fun run' state of mind, but it can be disconcerting if you're really focused on maintaining a pace. Another gripe is that water/Ultima is only available about every 2 miles. I thought the crowds were fine, maybe lacking in quantity, but making up for it in quality; several good bands, a street person with shopping cart cheering runners on, and even a guy giving out beer. |
Quick Links
Marathon Search
Upcoming US Marathons
Upcoming International Marathons
Search Marathon Results
Latest Running News
Recent Newsletters
Race Director Tools
© 2000-2024, All Rights Reserved by MarathonGuide.com LLC
