Letsrun Faithful: What changes would you like seen made to road races

I see this thread and I see a bunch of whiners. I'm amazed and how much people have complained on this thread. Suck it up people and just run the dang races.

Caveman makes a good point. Many "races" are marketing mechanisms designed in part to generate a mailing list with emails to sell and to use to get more customers.

My objection is that entrants become treated as customers rather than competitors.

For example I would like to see the competitor's club name ahead of the town name. You compete for your club or unattached, not your town (unless the citizens of your town chipped in for your uniform and shoes.)

Tom

All major marathons (i.e., New York, Chicago, L.A., etc.)should adopt rigorous, Boston-like qualifying standards. It is ridiculous how these events are now filling in a matter of days with joggers who are just glad to finish, while serious runners are getting closed out. Not they they shouldn't have the opportunity to run a marathon, but the top marathons should have the deepest fields, not a bunch of 6 hour charity runners. Just sayin'.

Qualified wrote:

All major marathons (i.e., New York, Chicago, L.A., etc.)should adopt rigorous, Boston-like qualifying standards. It is ridiculous how these events are now filling in a matter of days with joggers who are just glad to finish, while serious runners are getting closed out. Not they they shouldn't have the opportunity to run a marathon, but the top marathons should have the deepest fields, not a bunch of 6 hour charity runners. Just sayin'.

Good point! In order to run the big marathons, you should at least have to have some documentable evidence that you have run at least a respectable 10K or something. Most races have results readily available. They should require one result to be attached to the entry from the past 12 months.

ricky wrote:

my two cents would be to paint the actual course. "How" exactly did you get to your distance? I love the idea of chalking a line as you measure the course. but for rain, it should hang out long enough to be visible for all to see. what tangents did you take, what loops, etc.

i had a cop car and a cyclist on my race this last weekend, the cyclist dropped back to me at roughly 5 miles and told me they measured the course curb to curb. Solid info and totally changed my mindset. I knew then i could sweep the course a little more and still be accurate.

Huh? You don't know that all courses are measured and certified running tangents? Read the USATF guidelines.

dirty qwerty wrote:

More cute women with tight butts.

I secind this because I'm slow enough where I can enjoy this part of the race.

dirty qwerty wrote:

More cute women with tight butts.

I second this because I'm slow enough where I can enjoy this part of the race.

stuck with match.com wrote:

I see this thread and I see a bunch of whiners. I'm amazed and how much people have complained on this thread. Suck it up people and just run the dang races.

I think they're just responding to a question re. the ideal road race. Really, as long as they're put on by human beings, ideal races will not exist. But people are being asked to imagine what would be ideal for them. In that respect, there have been some interesting, some useful, some funny, some ... um... other types... of comments.

Maybe the question could be phrased as "what road races have you liked best and why?"

But I think that basically people are, to some degree, by saying what they'd like, are saying what they've liked in past races.

Personally, I enjoy variety, and have happily participated in large and small races, of diverse distances. The best experiences were generally at (a) smaller events; (b) those with some sort of challenging feature that made them more attractive to serious runners (i.e. hilly races, xc or track meets, distance less often raced such as 25k, etc.); (c) relatively low price (although I'll pay a decent amount for some that I otherwise like); (d) some quirky races that are meant as much for fun as for racing--while the James Joyce Ramble also offers some of "(b)," due to its hilly course, I enjoy the entertainment value of it as well. While we can be serious about training/running, it doesn't have to be all dead-serious.

Good racing to all!

As few turns as possible. And absolutely no hairpin turn-arounds. Those are inexcuseable.

stuck with match.com wrote:

I see this thread and I see a bunch of whiners. I'm amazed and how much people have complained on this thread. Suck it up people and just run the dang races.

So there's a thread titled What changes would you make? And what are we supposed to say? "Nothing every road race is perfect I wouldnt change a thing because I dont have the time, know how, money, or connections to put on such an event so I will make no further comment."

The guy asked for opinions and he got 'em. Now STFU

You're implying that there's no room for improvement. In that case, why are you even reading this thread, let alone replying to it?

stuck with match.com wrote:

I see this thread and I see a bunch of whiners. I'm amazed and how much people have complained on this thread. Suck it up people and just run the dang races.

agreed

LATER START TIMES PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

Aquafina wrote:

hardset nipples wrote:

Ditch age groups, instead go with competitive classes like cycling has.

A guy 2 posts up just blasted me for the same idea. personally I like the idea that we could have competative classes. Runners would work harder to try and move from one to the other.

Aquafina - I'm guessing you're referring to my post a page back. Wasn't meaning to blast" you, I apologize for being unclear. The concept of classes or a "running handicap" system like you and Derderian have mentioned has been something I've thought of for years and I think it would be a lot better/more meaningful than the current age group system running uses. My beef is with trying to say that Cycling's system is better than Running's. People vote with their feet and their wallets in terms of what events they choose to do, whether it be a race or owning a boat or going to films or whatever. I like the "competition classes" idea, I just wouldn't like Running to take a cue from Cycling because I think that is not a formula for access/success. (Perhaps that's not a bad thing to some people, but my perspective is that more people in a sport/activity = better).

Had conversations this winter with one of my assistant coaches on the ski team I coach. He was a Cat 1 Cyclist 30 years ago and still races mountain bikes. He hates mountain bike races around here because only a few guys will enter the Expert categories. Those entering the Sport category are not that much slower, or in some cases are competitive with the Expert racers. He would rather race someone, even dropping down a class, than compete in a class with no other entrants. I think it works better in road cycling, but still I have friends who ride Cat 3 or 4 who should have moved up but they choose not to. They like cherry picking good results.

I'd be more in favor of a handicap system like golf uses where a runners needs to be of a certain level to compete in certain races; similar to if you want to try to qualify for the US Open you need to be a 2.5 handicap or something in that range. If running had a handicap system you could do open awards plus awards based on who beat their handicap the most. I think that would have more meaning than splitting it up by age groups.

Seems like creating an ongoing handicap database would not be impossible. USSA has this for XC skiers. USA Triathlon used to have this (maybe still does?). USGA and USA Tennis both do systems...

That seems cool, too, I'm just wholly unfamiliar with the set-up of that sport.

d2xccoach wrote:

I'd be more in favor of a handicap system like golf uses where a runners needs to be of a certain level to compete in certain races; similar to if you want to try to qualify for the US Open you need to be a 2.5 handicap or something in that range. If running had a handicap system you could do open awards plus awards based on who beat their handicap the most. I think that would have more meaning than splitting it up by age groups.

Seems like creating an ongoing handicap database would not be impossible. USSA has this for XC skiers. USA Triathlon used to have this (maybe still does?). USGA and USA Tennis both do systems...

If it were up to me, I'd have a road race on a Saturday afternoon. I'm not a morning person, especially not a Saturday morning person. Obviously marathons could start in the morning, but the later the better. Forget the t-shirts. Forget the trophies for every single age group, gender, weight, etc. Give recognition to the top local runners, but don't expect to keep elites from prize money just because they are a different color than you. Put some porta potties near the start line. Have someone in charge of watching kids or have kids' activities going on (no strollers on the course). On the second thought, have "activities" for adult spectators as well. If that means more beer (to sell), then do it. Speaking of beer, have plenty of it and food after the race for the runners. This is another reason for having it in the afternoon. I don't know about most people, but I don't feel like drinking beer on a Sunday morning (I've been to races that had it). That makes it easier to go somewhere else with your race buddies once you're out of beer. Even if you have a crappy race, you'll soon forget you did.

Here are the two best suggestions I\'ve seen:

1. No award ceremonies. My home town has a 5K and a 10-mile race that start at the same time. They have always given medals to 10 in the 5K. Last year I got 7th, so I stuck around to get my medal. But the medals were handed out AFTER THE TEN-MILERS were finished. So I waited around for OVER TWO HOURS after I was done only to find out that this year they were only giving medals to the top three.

So yeah, I\'d love it if there were no award ceremonies. They take too long and nobody gives a shit anyway. Just hand out the medals already.

2. Hold the races in the afternoon. Good Lord, what a wonderful idea! Start the race at like four in the afternoon, or shit, what about SIX? Sounds great to me. Why doesn\'t anybody do this? Heavy traffic time, maybe.

I'd be stoked to see a running series similar to amateur cycling. Runners would have to qualify to be in different classes and would move up each year based on finishing positions or times. Have 6 to 10 races a season, ranging from mile to 10k, and on varied terrain (track, road, trail).

I see a lot more people running than cycling, but there are way more cycling races here in the SF Bay Area. There are cyclocross races every weekend in fall/winter and then crits and road races during spring/summer. Some people take it really seriously, and others just go to have fun and barbecue and drink beer afterwards (or even during in the case of cyclocross!).

I like bagels, bananas, etc., but could really do without the t-shirt. SELL t-shirts, don't force everyone to buy them by including it with the entry fee.

Other than that, I've been pretty satisfied with the road races I've run.