Congratulations Slave and Catrin!!!

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Speaking of which, this is ridiculous:



The race officials ought to hand their brains back in, since they aren't using them. Just. Do. It.

Some marathons seed you by previous times. You don't seed yourself. For example, the Chicago marathon has different start corrals, which are designated as "elite", "preferred", etc. Eventually, there is a general corral for everyone else. When you register, if you enter in a previous time that is faster than the cutoff time for the general corral, and you are placed into a designated faster corral.

Many big races do this. The Shamrock Shuffle (8k) has 40,000 people. No way I'm running it if I have to wade through a bunch of people to get up to speed. One year, I was placed in the first corral and actually started right behind a few Olympians. I got to warm up just like they did by running out from the starting line and back. And then the race started, and they disappeared. Quickly.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

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.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Some kid in the 15-19 category beat out all of the "elite" athletes in the first triathlon I did last year. Because that race is run in waves, the "elite" athletes were probably finished with the race by the time she started. Danskin didn't have a problem handing her the trophy.

I was contemplating trying to run my best time next year (2009) in the Chicago marathon, which would enable me to get a start right behind the elites in the second corral (that's where I usually am) in 2010. The ultimate goal would then be to try to lead the Chicago marathon for the first two or three miles in 2010 (and then drop out from exhaustion). I figured, with speed-specific training, I could do it...but that's because I thought that the elites ran at about 5:10/mile. In reality, they run at about 4:50. There's no way I could run more than one mile at 4:50. Evans Cheruiyot ran the first 5k of the Chicago marathon in 15:00. Not a chance. Ever.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Some marathons seed you by previous times. You don't seed yourself. For example, the Chicago marathon has different start corrals, which are designated as "elite", "preferred", etc. Eventually, there is a general corral for everyone else. When you register, if you enter in a previous time that is faster than the cutoff time for the general corral, and you are placed into a designated faster corral.

Many big races do this. The Shamrock Shuffle (8k) has 40,000 people. No way I'm running it if I have to wade through a bunch of people to get up to speed. One year, I was placed in the first corral and actually started right behind a few Olympians. I got to warm up just like they did by running out from the starting line and back. And then the race started, and they disappeared. Quickly.

I get this. But if the point of the seeding is to spare the elite runners from having to run with all the other runners in the race, then they can't really complain about the unfairness of being "caught" by someone in that pack who posts a better time.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I get this. But if the point of the seeding is to spare the elite runners from having to run with all the other runners in the race, then they can't really complain about the unfairness of being "caught" by someone in that pack who posts a better time.

Well, what if the declared winner was told by race officials or her coach that her nearest competitor was way behind her, so she took her foot off the gas and cruised in? Isn't that basically the race's reasoning? If the elites were really that slow (relatively speaking), then it's the race's fault for not seeding Arien as an elite...unless Arien never provided a previous race time.

ETA: If I were as fast as Arien, I would have looked up previous SF race times to see if I could contend. This is an experienced runner we're talking about. If there is a good chance I'll be in the top ten of a race, I'm calling the race organizers to get an "elite" start.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I get this. But if the point of the seeding is to spare the elite runners from having to run with all the other runners in the race, then they can't really complain about the unfairness of being "caught" by someone in that pack who posts a better time.

I guess. On the other hand, if you do not know you are being caught, you cannot react. Although not as tactical as a bike race, I assume the point of the marathon (for the elites) is to beat everyone else, not necessarily to go as fast as you can. I think the way it worked out, it would be unfair to somebody no matter what they did.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

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.

but three hours won. how was that elite? isn't women's elite more like 2:40?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

but three hours won. how was that elite? isn't women's elite more like 2:40?

Something like that. Again, maybe the hills make it a much slower race.

ETA: It's either a slow course or there aren't any real elites who run it. The men's winning time for the past few years has been around 2:25-2:30, and the women's around 2:55.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I guess. On the other hand, if you do not know you are being caught, you cannot react. Although not as tactical as a bike race, I assume the point of the marathon (for the elites) is to beat everyone else, not necessarily to go as fast as you can. I think the way it worked out, it would be unfair to somebody no matter what they did.

the one time i could have ever won a race was in the "clydesdale" division of an "out and back" on Hain's point. there was a division for over 180 pounds. The beauty of the out and back, is that everyone ahead of me had to run past me on the way back. I was second for people who have a man's body. But they gave 1,2 and 3rd to others. Fucks ruiz'ed me, I swear to this day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Well, what if the declared winner was told by race officials or her coach that her nearest competitor was way behind her, so she took her foot off the gas and cruised in? Isn't that basically the race's reasoning? If the elites were really that slow (relatively speaking), then it's the race's fault for not seeding Arien as an elite...unless Arien never provided a previous race time.

Seriously? I can see why someone who listened to race officials in those circumstances would be more than a little pissed, but that would not make her time faster.

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

ETA: If I were as fast as Arien, I would have looked up previous SF race times to see if I could contend. This is an experienced runner we're talking about. If there is a good chance I'll be in the top ten of a race, I'm calling the race organizers to get an "elite" start.

Maybe I would have, too, but her failure to do so did not make her time any slower.

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I think the way it worked out, it would be unfair to somebody no matter what they did.

Indeed. The unfairness starts with the decision to break contestants into the elite runners and everyone else, to spare the elite from having to run in a crowd. Maybe the elite "winner" didn't get a chance to react to the faster runner's time, but she didn't have to cope with the crowd at the start, either.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Indeed. The unfairness starts with the decision to break contestants into the elite runners and everyone else, to spare the elite from having to run in a crowd. Maybe the elite "winner" didn't get a chance to react to the faster runner's time, but she didn't have to cope with the crowd at the start, either.

Which is why they should make clear at the outset that there are in fact two races, one for "elites" and one for recreation, with prizes/trophies only for the former. The solution is to award another trophy for "first place-recreational division" (or something), because there's no way to figure out which of the two effects you identified meant more.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seriously? I can see why someone who listened to race officials in those circumstances would be more than a little pissed, but that would not make her time faster.

It's a race. It's not an individual time trial.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Indeed. The unfairness starts with the decision to break contestants into the elite runners and everyone else, to spare the elite from having to run in a crowd. Maybe the elite "winner" didn't get a chance to react to the faster runner's time, but she didn't have to cope with the crowd at the start, either.

There isn't much "coping with the crowd" in the corral directly behind the elites. Everyone is pretty fast, and it's not that crowded.

Again, it's unfair, but she probably should have requested elite status. That's what I would have done had I been in her situation.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Well, what if the declared winner was told by race officials or her coach that her nearest competitor was way behind her, so she took her foot off the gas and cruised in? Isn't that basically the race's reasoning? If the elites were really that slow (relatively speaking), then it's the race's fault for not seeding Arien as an elite...unless Arien never provided a previous race time.

ETA: If I were as fast as Arien, I would have looked up previous SF race times to see if I could contend. This is an experienced runner we're talking about. If there is a good chance I'll be in the top ten of a race, I'm calling the race organizers to get an "elite" start.

Then why not just call it two separate races? Because that's what you're saying it is. One race for the elites and another for everyone else.

But if it is to be considered one race and you slow up because you're beating the small elite field and assume no one else can touch you, you deserve to lose if someone else runs a better race.

This woman ran her best race ever. The question is, would you rather allow everyone within 15 minutes of the slowest elite race time be automatically put in the elite corral, just in case? It's a race. Whoever runs it faster wins. If you ignore the possibility that a sub-standard time will be beaten by a non-elite runner, you should lose. Why should you be rewarded for easing up and taking that risk?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

It's a race, not an individual time trial.

Apparently it wasn't a race, but two races, and only one set of runners were allowed to win. But -- speaking of fairness -- organizers didn't tell anyone that in advance.

eta: Maybe it was an Ecclesiastes thing, since the race wasn't to the swift.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Then why not just call it two separate races? Because that's what you're saying it is. One race for the elites and another for everyone else.

But if it is to be considered one race and you slow up because you're beating the small elite field and assume no one else can touch you, you deserve to lose if someone else runs a better race.

This woman ran her best race ever. The question is, would you rather allow everyone within 15 minutes of the slowest elite race time be automatically put in the elite corral, just in case? It's a race. Whoever runs it faster wins. If you ignore the possibility that a sub-standard time will be beaten by a non-elite runner, you should lose. Why should you be rewarded for easing up and taking that risk?

TM

I agree it's unfair to her, but I also think that, since she is a very fast and experienced runner, it was partially her fault for not attempting to obtain elite status. I base that belief on what I think a reasonable (very) experienced runner should know and not know. She is a better runner than I am, and I would know to request elite status if I were that fast.