Living outside San Francisco and having run fifteen marathons over the past twenty years - - including New York, Chicago, and Boston --I can say that this is the worst promoted and run marathon event in any major city in the US.

As noted by another runner, there is no promotion by the major sponsor, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. The expo is a joke. The lack of support by the city is evident by the inability of the police to keep streets closed for the race. On more than one occasion, runners are routed onto adjacent streets at certain points and then remerged later. As a result, everyone does not run the same course!

If you want to see the sights of San Francisco, give it a go, or better yet run the 1/2 marathon on the same date. Otherwise, go elsewhere, where there is a commitment by the city to the race.

I ran this marathon in 2001 and 2002. What make this marathon worth running is the simple fact that it is held in one of the most extraordinary cities in the world. You can't get better surroundings then the Marina, Palace of Fine Arts, Pac Bell Park, the Embarcadero, the Presidio, and Golden Gate Park. I agree that the industrial areas of SOMA are not ideal, especially when you are at mile 23 and 24. Although, having completed several marathons, miles 22-24 are going to be dificult no matter where you are.

I would recommend this marathon to people who are expecting to run hills. If you want flat, don't run this one. It is hard, but in the end, it is worth it.

And I agree, the t-shirts are not that great. Plus, i didn't even get my medal in 2001. I was so happy i finished under four hours that I walked right past everyone handing out medals, water and those space age looking sheets, and went straight to my family. I'm angry. I want my medal.

The last time I ran this race was the mid-80's. I don't know if it's even the same course, but I remember I was not that excited about the course. At the time (and for many years) I lived there so I know all the great spots. There were some great points along the route, ie the Palace of Fine Arts area, but there were also miles of dreary pavement (South of Market) late in the race when I most needed some visual stimulation.

If you want to try a marathon with a great course, wildly enthusiastic crowds, and energetic and friendly volunteers, try the NYC Marathon. I've done it four times and was never disappointed.

This was my second marathon and on my home turf. Hill training is recommended. The local newspaper and sponsor, The Chronicle, does a lousy job of promoting this marathon so it's no wonder that relative to the venue, hardly anyone registers or shows up to cheer the runner's on. The water volunteers get SIX STARS. The cops get 2-1/2 stars. The medal is nice, but the t-shirt is only good for washing the car.

Some details...

COURSE -- I've read some of the comments on this site and disagree with the notion that the course was boring and should be flattened even more. San Francisco is known worldwide for it's hills. Why would you want to run here if it the course was flat? Go to Kansas. All things considered, I thought the course was pretty scenic.

Compare our course to Honolulu's. One would expect Honolulu to be pretty scenic, but I thought it was pretty boring. Almost two-thirds of it is on a highway and thru a track home development. Imagine a marathon that went on El Camino and looped thru Foster City. That's what Honolulu was like for me.

In contrast, our marathon spied some terrific areas: Embarcadero, Fisherman's Wharf, Marina, Presidio/Golden Gate Bridge, Golden Gate Park, Ocean Beach, The Haight. Okay, so running along 24th Ave and 16th St may not be ideal, but overall, I thought it was pretty good.

TRAFFIC CONTROL -- Over a dozen years ago, long before I started running, I remember when the course went down Columbus Ave. I was definitely one of those marathon nay-sayers. I was trying to go from Nob Hill to North Beach to visit my girlfriend, now wife. I was incensed. Now I'm a 'runner' and as such, I was really concerned to learn that there would be parallel routes to help ease traffic. While the routes were similar, they obviously weren't exact. Shouldn't everyone run the exact same course? I'm not experienced enough to judge. I haven't inspected the route, but it still seems to me that running down Haight to Laguna is a lot different than running down Waller to Duboce.

There were some pretty upset drivers on Potrero when we ran along 16th. I don't think they were honking to encourage us. It seems that a loop course through our small city is going to be disruptive regardless of the route chosen. Better publicity probably would help.

COURSE CLOSED EARLY -- By the time I got to the Lower Haight, I was on pace for a 4:40 finish time. I believe the area was supposed to stay closed to traffic until 10a. A number of us had about 20min left in the area, but a patrol car followed us and told us to use the sidewalk if we wanted to complete the marathon, because the streets were reopening. Everyone around me looked dismayed. One runner even balled out the cop at Market St, telling him we had until 10a. VERY BAD.

PUBLICITY -- One comment from www.marathonguide.com that I have to agree with is how paltry the publicity and media coverage were. I agree that it seems strange that an event that bears the Chronicle name didn't get much if any coverage in the Chronicle or its apparent new sister TV station, KTVU. Did KPIX do anything? I did see a number of Cause To Run TV ads, but they didn't really convey that a marathon was approaching. Many runners seemed surprised that there weren't any banners lining the Embarcadero.

When I attended the Expo mid-day on Friday, there were a number of perplexed workers from the area asking what the Expo was about. I overheard many asking or saying, 'is there a run going on?'

Is it any wonder then that there was very little resident support?

What has been commented on below is all true.

No fans at all (Millions live in the area and not one cares about the race).

Cops stopped runners to let cars go by--the cars all honked if they were stopped by the police and made to wait. Thus neither the police or motorists care about the race.

The elevation map was a big joke--Suckers!!

Awesome support stations and aid.

Excellent volunteer staffing.

Crowded, with the full marathon, half marathon, and early starters all on the course at the same time.

I have not run the SF Marathon since 1997. I enjoyed that race thoroughly and one of the highlights was the start and coming across the bridge into the city. This was a terrific start and I am curious why they changed it. Logistics in getting people out there? Traffic issues? Whatever the reason, in my opinion the race suffers as a result.

I'm glad to see that a lot of positive responses are being posted regarding this race. I ran the course in 2000 and again this year. I was surprised by all the negative comments I read before doing it again. The course is very beautiful. I would prefer going in the opposite direction, leaving Golden Gate Park, Presidio, Golden Gate Bridge and Marina for the end of the race.
The race support was great. Ample water and GU aid at all stations. And the watermelon and oranges were a surprise. Yeah, the race could become bigger with corporate sponsorship. Would be nice to see some of the elite runners take on this course to see how they fare. The elevation chart is way off as there are many more hills throughout the course.

I am a runner from Boston and traveled across the country to run the Chronicle Marathon as a practice for NYC and an opportunity to visit lovely SF.

This is my third marathon, and I have never encountered such friendly and encouraging hosts as I did in the SFRRC. I joined a pace group sponsored by the SFRRC. The pace groups are a wonderful concept and I think that more marathons should adopt this idea. Not only does it promote a safe and healthy marathoning experience, it's a great way to meet new people! Also, the pace leaders were an informative and encouraging presence the whole time. I felt so lucky to run with them.

I really enjoyed my experience in San Francisco. The scenery was gorgeous, the people were so friendly and the course was challenging, but not impossible. I may be biased because I trained on Heartbreak Hill and the Newton hills in humid 90+ degrees, so the hills along the Chronicle course weren't so bad for me.

I will recommend the race to my friends in Boston for next year, although I do have some constructive criticism for next year's race:

START TIME: 6AM is way too early. If the race were anywhere other than SF, a 6AM start time would be appropriate, but SF has very comfortable running weather in July. If the marathon started at 8 or 9, more of the city would be aware of the event (see below) and it would be bigger.

SPECTATORS, OR LACK THEREOF: SF is a world-class city, why isn't their marathon a bigger event? Why were there no fans? Even when we ran by PacBell Stadium and folks were lining up to go into the Giants game, no one cheered! Many were not aware that a marathon was going on! Quite simply, it was weird. Maybe it could be attributed to the 6AM start time (no one is up at this time to cheer) or lack of PR.

Perhaps the Chronicle could put banners on the street lights, as they have for the Giants, to advertise the race. They do this in Boston, Philly, NYC. Also, put the web site for next year's race the day after the marathon. That way you will attract more out-of-towners.

TRAFFIC: The cops stopped runners to let traffic through. That is simply unacceptable. I have never experienced such a thing in any of the races I have run. It probably ties into the fact that the city doesn't embrace this event as it should. Residents should be watching the race and having marathon parties, as they do in other big cities, instead of trying to drive through it!

Overall, it was a positive experience and I had a good time. The Chronicle Marathon has great potential. It's just that the rest of SF has to realize it!!

Tough course, with hills rivaling Boston. Enjoyed it so much I would run it again despite coming from flatland and having no hill training.

When I signed up for SF, it was after reading all the slashing reviews from the last three years. You can imagine how low my expectations were. Nevertheless, it is still 26 miles through San Francisco?how could it not be beautiful? It was beautiful. The bottom line: I was more than pleasantly surprised. This was a damn good marathon, and showed some hard work by a lot of people. This is a marathon with a troubled history?for whatever reasons. But the problems I saw could have happened to any marathon. Of course, there?s the now immortal screw up with the elite runners. Yeah, that?s unfortunate?but as a 4:12 marathoner, it really doesn?t effect me. What does effect me is the course, the aid stations, and the support. On all three, SF was great.

I loved the course; I wouldn?t change a step! Looking at the Golden Gate through the fog, the weeping women at the Palace of Fine Arts, the bison in Golden Gate Park, the out & back by the Pacific, I even loved the course through the Haight, Mission, and Potrero neighborhoods. Very different communities, great architecture. That?s part of The City, what gives it its character. I wanted to see it. Then, turning the corner & looking at PacBell?In the immortal words of Gene Autry: Yeah Baby! This was a blast & a half. Not only will I run this marathon again, I?m telling everyone I know to run it. You want to see The City? Go by foot at the marathon?.

But was the marathon perfect? Of course not. None of them are. The expo was miserable?but as this marathon improves, and more people run it, that will take care of itself. The marathon hotel was a little far from the starting line, but not too bad. The organizers are going to take some heat from the residents, though?traffic was mishandled by the police: The streets should have been shut down a block up, instead of at the course itself. Some people must have gotten stuck for hours.

The biggest knock I have is the course elevation chart. Now, I know all marathons lie about the elevation to make the marathon look easy cheesy. I don?t mind the fact the second half was all up hill--but the chart should have showed that. Instead, the chart showed a basically flat second half, with one hill. It wasn?t?not by a long shot. It made it tough to plan out a negative split (In fact, that elevation chart is why I took a point off organization?otherwise, I would have given SF a ?five? for organization??Which is a little harsh, but I am an old crank).

All that said?Do not forget this is San Francisco. This marathon is ***not*** a pancake flat & fast course, and it shouldn?t be. If you are looking for a course like the Rock & Roll, Houston, Las Vegas, Chicago?then do not run this. This marathon is comparable to Seattle?s (only without the damn lousy rain), and I think it?s tougher than the San Diego Marathon in Carlsbad. Definitely tougher than the Portland, Oregon marathon. Which is fine. But if you?re a five hour marathoner, you better take the 5:00 early start, because the police are not supportive of this race. For whatever reason, I?ve never seen crabbier, less helpful police at a marathon.

I want to quick make a public shout out thank you to the volunteers. I have never seen volunteers so well organizeds and professional. They had Gu at several places on the marathon. At every stop, there were volunteers on both sides of the road?striding that very tough line of being helpful, but still out of the way. Volunteers were vocal at directing to water & sports drink, and handed out cups without dunking their fingers inside the cup. It may not seem like much, but that really pisses me off. After a marathon, my resistance is way down?so I catch colds easy. So if there was a category for volunteer proficiency, that would be a solid five.

There were no bands?but that?s something that will change as this marathon gets bigger. Finally, in terms of crowd support, I thought there were lots of people who turned out. It wasn?t the Rock & Roll, but most of those people are there to yell for the Team in Training Purple shirts, and the Purple Shirts alone. I don?t need that.

But when all is said and done?SF put on a great, great show. If you?re at all on the fence about running this race, do not let the problems of the past discourage you. 2002 was a great year?and the marathon will be even better in 2003.