Chicago better or worse without pacers?

That was a dull race on the men's side. I'm not interested in watching LP run just off the leaders. Pinkowski used to have a couple sub-60 half marathon guys pace and those guys would have won 98% of the marathons on the planet. There was a certain insanity about to take place. The tension was palpable. Miss the Sammy Wanjiru and Khannouchi days. Those races were epic.

It was great theater, but they were jogging? That doesn't make sense.

teddy_farley wrote:

I might be in the minority, but I thought it was definitely better this way. I think the presentation/announcing could still use some work (I watched on universal, so it didn't cut away from the leaders, but the commentary was probably the worst I have ever heard). I hope Chicago gives no-pacers another go next year.

It was real racing. A boring time trial is not a race.

It's ironic how most posters on Letsrun complain about doping, yet also want to witness superhuman records.

Chicago now has a problem.

It seems that they never advised the top runners that there would be no pacers. (See the Lucas Rotich thread)

Marathoners can't really run more than 2 (or 3) marathons/year

Top guys effectively lost one of them. They didn't get time bonuses and running a 2:10 marathoner really doesn't help you negotiate better appearance fee for the next marathon (they did not improve their marketability)

Pretty sure that no (or very few) top marathoners will show next year.

This could spell the beginning of the end for Chicago

It also seems that the Chicago race organizer doesn't get it which makes things even worse.

It doesn't really matter if it's more interesting or not. Coincidently, in my mind, it was more interesting because Luke was in the mix for a long time. But that's a random event. Had he not been there, it would have been a complete snooze fest. Furthermore, when no top runners show up next year, it will be even worse as a bunch of Americans will be running a tactical race in 2:15(??).

Chicago will never be the best non-paced marathon in the states, NYC and Boston have that honor. It WAS the best record setting marathon in the states, and by not having pacers they gave up that title. I believe that the performances in 2010 and 2011, specifically, were world record performances but slowed by the hot weather. If Chicago pushed back the date to insure cold weather, and kept pacing, we would be talking about Chicago like we do Berlin.

Yygtgygytgytygt wrote:

Chicago now has a problem.

This.

A tactical race is fine on a course where you have enough challenges (Heartbreak Hill, Queensborough Bridge, etc.) but on a pancake flat course like Chicago, that's a real snoozer.

It would help if they had an American in contention or had it setup for one (Meb, Ritz, whatever).

But now we just got another noname Kenyans winning the Marathon in 2:10.

Plenty of 2nd and 3rd tier Euro races like that (Eindhoven, Cologne, Rome etc.)

1. 2:09 is not 2:10.

2. Your racism is showing.

-Won Rome, Eindhoven, and Tokyo marathons before this

-2:04:32 for 3rd last year

What more do you want? Clearly was a contender to win this race.

I liked this years version just fine.

Wasn't Chicago moved up in the calendar to avoid possibly severe, cold weather?

If the incentive structure is obsolete because the pacers are gone, obviously the structure will have to change.

The point about NYC and Boston being good non-paced courses because of their layout is interesting. If Chicago is looking to change its image and become a solid non-paced race, could the course be changed? Or does being super-flat draw in all the Boston qualifiers and non-elites? Because, seriously, what percentage of the crowd really cared about the drones up front. Questions I'd imagine the organizers have already considered.

It's pretty bad if the top runners were not advised well in advance that it wouldn't be paced.

The slow results hurt their lively-hood.

Having good runners in a non-paced race is great.

It's good for the runners to figure out how to compete and it's good for fans who are watching it fold out.

It's not so great for "fans" like me who just look at the results the next day. Sorry.

But it's also not good if the real elites choose not to come if it isn't paced.

We are going to be saying "Remember when Chicago was considered a major marathon?"

This wasn't a great race, but not all races are good, even without rabbity rabbits.

I think you have to convert at least some of the time bonus money into $ for place - otherwise you might lose some elites.

If enough elite guys show up thinking that maybe they can win $10,000 for finishing third - but don't think they can run 2:05 - you might get a large pack, which would be great.

It's the head to head matches that make the headlines and stick in your heads - less so another 2:05 time trial.

Yygtgygytgytygt wrote:

Chicago now has a problem.

It seems that they never advised the top runners that there would be no pacers. (See the Lucas Rotich thread)

Marathoners can't really run more than 2 (or 3) marathons/year

Top guys effectively lost one of them. They didn't get time bonuses and running a 2:10 marathoner really doesn't help you negotiate better appearance fee for the next marathon (they did not improve their marketability)

Pretty sure that no (or very few) top marathoners will show next year.

Here is a little bit of a counterpoint: How much does a 2:09/2:10 marathon take out of a 2:04 runner's legs? Kitwara himself said it was like a training run as far as how hard it was ... so why can't he run another race in a month?

Not that Chicago wants to become known as a "training run marathon," but instead of seeing it as a "lost" marathon, it was maybe more of a "bonus" marathon. For those who didn't finish in the money, sure, it is rough - but it is a race, and not everyone is a winner.

Regardless of winning time, finishing first or second at Chicago will still be a marketable point on your resume.

Star wrote:

The slow results hurt their lively-hood.

This is what it comes down to. Will the top runners continue to show up even with solid appearance fees still available? If not, even as someone that likes a non-rabbited race, if the quality of the field deteriorates I won't be tuning in.

I think it was better, its an actual race when you don't have pacers. if they wanted to go faster there was nothing stopping them, it pulls out the men of the race, the people who can take the pain

Save that for Boston wrote:

It was boring, the point of a race is to get fast times.

That is definitely NOT the point of a race.

minong wrote:

Star wrote:

The slow results hurt their lively-hood.

This is what it comes down to. Will the top runners continue to show up even with solid appearance fees still available? If not, even as someone that likes a non-rabbited race, if the quality of the field deteriorates I won't be tuning in.

Let's be honest. The field this year wasn't particularly stacked. As the brojos pointed out in their race preview, there were only like 3 guys who were realistically going to win this race and even those guys weren't top-tier Africans. Realistically, if the event had pacers this year, I think you would have seen a really small race at the front for a majority of the 26.2 miles. A lot of guys in the top 10 would not have been in the lead group and you would have seen maybe 3-5 guys time trialing for two hours. Yawn. Even though there was no surprise winner, it was nice to have a bigger pack at the front for a majority of the race.

I think Chicago is much better off without pacers, because its an actual race. It's cool to have Berlin as a time trial to see if the record falls, but the rest of the time I want to see actual races.

This race had pacers and guess what, it was infinitely more exciting than this years.

agip wrote:

It's the head to head matches that make the headlines and stick in your heads - less so another 2:05 time trial.

I don't know about that.

The head to head matches only stick out if the runners are big names.

And they only become names by consistently running fast times.

It's not the Olympics. And they only run two, maybe three marathons a year.

If they aren't going to post a fast time and might not beat a top name then they won't show up next time.

We'll talk about the nice race for a minute but at the end of the year we will be scrolling through results and analyzing the fast times.

Here's a good example of what it means to run fast:

Bekele was 4th at Chicago last year, which wouldn't get a headline in a 2:09 win.

But since he ran 2:05, it made him one of three people last year who ran 2:05 or better twice during the year.