Chicago better or worse without pacers?

Marketing is about finding where you offer a product no one else can. Chicago was the only marathon on US soil that could attract the best marathoners in the world and take a run at a World Record. That is what made Chicago a big deal. Now Chicago Marathon is no different than others, and these athletes will not come to Chicago because it will hurt their careers. This was a horrible idea and has ruined a tradition at Chicago.

I thought it was better without the pacers, and I agree with the quote on the home page. No one was preventing the runners from going faster. If someone wanted to go for 2:03, he certainly could have. It was the same "fast" course as last year. The men chose to run more slowly, and that resulted in a more tactical race.

If courses and races are set up for WRs all the time, then that's what people will expect out of the runners and that's where the drugs proliferate. Just like baseball got itself into a mess when the fans started expecting 70 hr seasons every year and the players obliged by pumping themselves up with steroids. Start advertising WR attempts every year and runners are going to have to do drugs to get through the training required to hit those times. Race directors start catering more and more to the elites in those attempts. Which race actually ran water out to the runners as they went by, Rotterdam? How long before rabbits jumping in mid race or motor-pacing to get the necessary split times for record attempts. Hopefully hyperbole, but who knows.

Nutella1 wrote:

runthecountry wrote:

I love it when the real facts are brought up. And Kitwara is number 11 of all time - both of them are also faster than any Olympic Marathon gold medalist, too.

How awesome is that?

Can you imagine Chicago advertising this?

Don't miss the opportunity to watch this EPIC race where the 11th best Marathon runner faces that 12th best Marathon runner.

Sarcasm OFF.

When I type in "chicago marathon" in google today, I get:

- Man Runs Chicago Marathon in Memory of Son, Former Running Partner

- How Notable Runners Fared at the 2015 Chicago Marathon (about celebrities

No mention of any of the winners.

The results returned from Google are typical of of any marathon. Even if a course record is broken you're still more likely to find out about a heart attack, marriage proposal, or some guy who walked it dressed as Elvis while juggling basketballs than the record.

Yes, great points.

I thought the race was better without the pacers.

It was...a race.

It strikes me that before there were designated pacers guys ran pretty fast, not incomprehensibly fast, but a good course on a great day with a guy in phenomenal shape resulted in a record.

If you want to go really fast, maybe Chumba and Kitwara should supply their own pace setters, have a team of your own guys pacing you....you see it in cycling in every classic.

How many times has the WR holder won the WC or Olympic gold?

Let them race.

For the same reason I prefer the Olympics, this was a race with no artifical interference. The best racer won.

Yes, let them race. With pacers.

There is this idiotic notion that all competition goes out the window when pacers are used and no one races each other. Countless examples could be posted showing how false that is.

Fast times + hard racing = most excitement. If I had to choose between a guy winning by 3 minutes and setting a WR or 3 guys battling over the final 5k in 2:08 I'll take the 2:08. But my ultimate preference is 2 or 3 guys going for broke battling running 2:04. Can't do that as of yet without pacers (except at Boston, but you all still find a way to bitch about that too).

100% agree. I want to see pacers with yellow eyes, who will help 5 or 6 racers with bright yellow eyes run 2:02...

That's way more exciting to me...

After the bright yellow eye guy wins in 2:02, I will learn his name...

It is better with out pacers. The leaders can complain about it but it's not like Mutai did not run a low 2:05 on a tougher course in NYC. Kiteara could have taken off early and I bet a coue of guys would have gone with him. If they did that, the winner might have run a few minutes faster.

Wanjiru's Olympic win remains my favorite marathon because of what he and Merga did.

If people want to see world records I would leave paced marathons to Berlin and Dubai. They are ok to watch but to me there is something odd about watching the Rotterdam race director hand of bottles from a motorcycle. I would ditch it for all other marathons, especially London, Chicsgo and Tokyo. .

Better

If you want to run fast, there is nothing stopping you.

Depends. The first few Kenyans would have gone faster with pacers. After that, the rest, including Luke, used the Kenyans as pacers. The point is you either have pacers for the fastest or use the fastest as unofficial pacers for the next rung.

I don't understand why people think having pacers is equal to not having legitimate races. Chicago WITH pacers has generally not been the time trial/world record assault of Berlin or Dubai. In good years, Chicago and London have been the two marquee races in which the fastest runners line up to race fast against each other.

Why is it exciting to watch a 2:04 guy run 2:09? Is that really an exciting race?

The truth is:

1. Chicago doesn't have to pay pacers

2. An American now has a better chance to win a 2:09 race on a 2:04-2:05 course.

*stipe wrote:

2. An American now has a better chance to win a 2:09 race on a 2:04-2:05 course.

I have seen this argument several times on this thread and I just don't buy it. All it does is make the American finish closer in time to the winner, but a guy who is 2:10 at best isn't going to beat a field of 2:04 runners in a slow race. Not gonna happen.

*stipe wrote:

perhaps the best marathon duel of all time was Wanjiru v Kebede. they had pacers.

+1

By your logic, none of the top people would run New York every year as they can't run a fast time. Totally absurd.

People will show up. They can put that extra money into apperance money. Next year, it will obviously be down a little due to the Olympics.

I really don't think the people pissing and moaning about time have any true passion for the sport. One of the best races I ever witnessed was won in 14:37. It was a D2 indoor conference 5k where 3 guys raced each other to the line. They hammered each other over the last mile. It was so exiting. I didn't even know the time till well afterwords.

Any race that you need to know the time to be exited is a shit race. Hell a world record can be incredibly boring. Woopy....some dude is by him self way ahead. But he's running "fast". O yeah. You have no clue the visible difference on tv from a 4:40 mile and a 5 minute mile.

Save that for Boston wrote:

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

I always thought the point of a race is to see who the fastest person is on that course on that day.

If you win an Olympic Gold Medal in a running event, you are called an Olympic Champion. If you run really fast, and are out of the medals, then you are NOT an Olympic Champion.

If I ran 2:17, (a slow time, for most of the posters on this forum) and won a huge marathon, I would not be complaining. I would cash my check, and not care that you thought I ran too slow.

Much worse, slow and boring and a waste of the super fast course Chicago is. I want to see the fastest athletes win and I want to see course records and some of the fastest times ever. We just went back 30 years in time.

The judge... wrote:

I have seen this argument several times on this thread and I just don't buy it. All it does is make the American finish closer in time to the winner, but a guy who is 2:10 at best isn't going to beat a field of 2:04 runners in a slow race. Not gonna happen.

Ever heard of an American named Meb Keflezghi?