Lauren HollandBy Lauren Holland

Updated November 2026

The first Boston Marathon winning time was 2 hours, 55 minutes and 10 seconds, set by John J. McDermott in 1897. That result is the starting point for anyone trying to understand how the race has evolved. In this guide, you will learn the exact historical figures, what the course and conditions of the time looked like, how that mark compares with modern winning times, and what lessons a runner can take from it when setting pacing goals.

The Historical Record: 1897 and the First Champion

The inaugural Boston Marathon was held on April 19, 1897, with 15 starters, and only 10 finishers. John J. McDermott, a New York runner, won in 2:55:10. Race records from that era are thinner than modern timing data, so it is worth knowing where the number comes from. The figure is widely cited in the Boston Athletic Association’s historical materials and in standard marathon reference works.

Shopping for one? See our guide: First Time Marathon Shoes: 7 Best Picks for Beginner Runners.

A few details help put the time in context:

  • The course was roughly 24.5 miles, not the modern 26.2. The distance was adjusted to the full standard marathon length in 1924, so the early times are not directly comparable to today’s results.
  • Runners were largely self-supported. Fueling, pacing and footwear looked nothing like they do now.
  • McDermott’s time is the official winning mark for the first race, and it is the number most often compared to later champions.

Because the distance changed, any comparison between 1897 and modern races should acknowledge the shorter course. Treat the first winning time as a historical benchmark rather than a direct speed comparison.

How the Early Course Shaped the Result

The original route ran from Metcalf’s Hopkinton Park out to Boston, and the terrain was not flat. The early race included hills, uneven road surfaces and weather that varied from cold to warm depending on the spring day. Runners of that period had no standardized shoes, no sports drinks and very little pacing information.

Factors that affected early finishing times

  1. Road surface. Dirt and macadam roads were common, and surface quality could slow runners considerably.
  2. Elevation change. The Newton hills, which are famous today, were part of the route in various forms even in the early years. Climbing them without modern training knowledge would have been a significant test.
  3. Weather. Spring conditions in New England can change within hours. Wind and temperature both influence pacing.
  4. Fueling and hydration. Early competitors had limited access to fluids and nutrition, which made late-race fading more common.

Comparing the First Winning Time to Modern Boston Champions

Modern Boston winners run times that are far faster than McDermott’s, but the course is longer and the competition is deeper. To make a fair comparison, look at pace per mile rather than total time.

Factor 1897 (first race) Modern era (recent winners)
Approximate distance About 24.5 miles 26.2 miles
Winning time 2:55:10 Typically between about 2:00 and 2:10 for recent men’s champions
Approximate pace About 7:08 per mile About 4:35 to 5:00 per mile
Footwear Heavy leather or minimal options Modern lightweight racing shoes
Fueling Very limited Planned gels, drinks and sports nutrition

Checking the official Boston Athletic Association results archive will give you exact winning times for each year, so verify specific figures there before quoting them in training notes or race reports.

What Modern Runners Can Learn From the First Race

The first Boston Marathon offers useful perspective for today’s runners. It shows how much the sport depends on support systems: nutrition science, footwear, pacing data and structured training. If you are planning your own race, a few practical takeaways apply.

  1. Use race history as context, not a target. A 1897 time is interesting but does not predict what you should run.
  2. Study the course profile before you race. Early Boston runners faced hills with little information. You can avoid that by reviewing elevation charts in advance.
  3. Build a fueling plan. Modern gels and drinks have made the late-race fade far more manageable when used on a rehearsed schedule.
  4. Match your pacing to your fitness, not to a historical number.

If you are newer to the distance, our guide on Realistic First Marathon Time: 3 Best Guides for First-Timers explains how to set a goal that fits your current training. For a broader view of how winning times differ across major races, see NYC Marathon First Place Time: Winning Times and What They Take.

Common Mistakes When Using Historical Winning Times

  • Comparing raw times across eras. Always adjust for distance and conditions before drawing conclusions.
  • Assuming the record reflects race conditions you will face. Weather, course and field size change every year.
  • Quoting numbers from memory. Confirm winning times against official race archives.
  • Ignoring pace per mile. Pace makes comparisons fairer than total time.
  • Setting goals from elite results. Winning times reflect elite training and talent that most runners do not have.

Tips for Researching Race History

  • Start with the official race website and its historical results section.
  • Note the distance used each year, since course length has changed over time.
  • Record both finishing time and pace per mile in your notes.
  • Look for race reports from the era to learn about conditions and equipment.
  • If you are preparing for your own race, review Best First Marathon Course: How to Pick Your Debut Route (7 Factors) to understand how course profile affects pacing.

If you plan to race a course with hills like Boston’s, fueling and footwear matter more than they did in 1897. The items below help with the parts of race preparation the first champion could not access.

  • Energy gels: Carbohydrate gels help maintain effort in the later miles of a marathon. View on Amazon
  • Racing shoes: Lightweight shoes designed for road racing reduce weight and support a consistent stride. View on Amazon
  • GPS running watch: A watch that tracks pace and elevation helps you run the planned effort on hilly sections. View on Amazon

FAQ

What was the first Boston Marathon winning time?

The first winning time was 2 hours, 55 minutes and 10 seconds, set by John J. McDermott in 1897. The course was shorter than the modern marathon distance.

Why is the first winning time not directly comparable to today’s results?

The original course measured about 24.5 miles, while the standard marathon is 26.2 miles. Equipment, nutrition and road conditions have also changed significantly.

Who was the first Boston Marathon champion?

John J. McDermott was the first champion. He was a New York runner who won the inaugural race in 1897.

How do I compare historical times fairly?

Compare pace per mile, adjust for known distance differences, and consider the weather and course conditions for each year.

Where can I find official Boston Marathon results?

The Boston Athletic Association publishes official race results and historical records on its website. Check there for the most accurate figures.

Does the first winning time tell me what I should aim for?

No. Historical winning times reflect elite athletes and different conditions. Set your goal based on your own training and recent race performances.

When did the Boston Marathon change to the full 26.2-mile distance?

The course was adjusted to the standard marathon distance in 1924, which is why early times differ from modern results. For another angle, check out How to Qualify for Boston on Your First Marathon: Standards and Steps.

Conclusion

The first Boston Marathon winning time of 2:55:10, set by John J. McDermott in 1897, is a useful historical benchmark. To use it well, remember the shorter course and the very different conditions of the era. Compare pace rather than raw time, and confirm figures against official archives. For your own race, let modern training and fueling guide your goals, not a number from over a century ago.

Ready to choose one?

Lauren Holland

About Lauren Holland

Lauren Holland is part of our editorial team and reviews and edits our marathon & half-marathon guides, checking product details against manufacturer specifications and owner feedback.