Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
what seems more ridiculous is that they don't make clear how the race works at the outset--i.e., that there are two separate races and only the "elite" one matters/is eligible for prizes/trophies. I can see how it's not entirely fair to tell runners who get a head start that "hey, btw, there may be some runner starting 20 minutes behind you who's running faster, but we won't know until the finish line if they made up some of that time, so carry on."
Presumably Coltrane can answer this--why did marathons change to a staggered start instead of just putting elite runners at the front of the line (even with a modest gap)? Too much jostling from the hoi polloi in the first few miles?
|
Exactly. Many runners overestimate their speed, which forces the actual faster runners to zig-zag through them (sometimes for miles), which slows you down.
Regardless, if she's running a 3:07 (her qualifying time), she should have been seeded fairly high (by the race officials). However, that time likely won't get you an elite seeding at a major marathon. It's probably (and I'm guessing here) a club quality time, but not an elite time. Of course, I don't know how much the hills of SF affect times - Boston's hills make it a much slower course than flat Chicago.
