Boston Separates Elite Men's Start from Wave 1 Corral 1 by two minutes

cookierunner wrote:

You asked to be corrected if you were wrong soo...

The women who cracked the top 15 was based on their chip time. They did not start with the elite women. This is why they are also separating the elite men. It is a step in the right direction. They should not have caved and awarded the women last year because I agree, they were in a different race because they started at a different time. If you want to run with the elites here is the solution: RUN AN ELITE TIME.

Look I'm actually hoping to engage in real dialogue on this. What is to stop a 2:19:01 guy or a 2:45:01 woman from running a time out of the mass start that puts them in the top-15? Other than the fact that a 2:19:01 runner would have to front run the whole thing.

I'm not about this whole "bootstraps" kind of an argument. Just run faster. Rules are rules. Races like Boston have the money + resources to invest in sub elite athletes and give them the opportunity to get better. What is the argument against 2:25 & 2:50 "elite" standards and then having the elite men + mass start back together? My point is still that I think we didn't have equity because those women that cracked the top-15 could have been in that race to begin with. We might still have people out of the mass start with faster times. Is the problem then solved? With a 2:50 standard maybe a 2:45:01 runner cracks a 2:37 and lands some press and a small sponsorship. Maybe a 2:22 guy runs an OTQ and gets some local attention. How is that bad for the sport? We're going to miss out on some of those storylines and still might have someone not in the "elite" start finish in the money. But we're just gonna be cool now because rules are rules?

Way back on this thread someone talked about getting in the top-30, maybe even top-20 and then they could not get into the elite start the next year? Place should matter to some extent. In years past Boston has included low-2:20s runners in the elite field and have still excluded some folks that placed well but didn't meet the time standard. Boston is about racing. Reward people for having good days. They have the money to support as many athletes as possible.

darkwave wrote:

So...I"m wondering if any other women are reading this thread, and if they are in favor of the separate start to showcase the women.

I ask, because I've heard this argument made several times, often quite vehemently, but never by a woman. While I have heard quite a few women talk about the challenges of running in a separate women's only start, and the dilemma of choosing which start to run in.

I support women having a separate, early start. It's better for media, for spectators, and for the top competitors. The only people it's not good for are the women who are only going to run 2:40-2:45 (on a normal weather day), because they're going to fall off the back and get stuck running along for quite some time.

It's not rocket science to make the separate women's start better. Just make it bigger! Offer everyone with a sub 3 hour qualifier the option to start in the early women's start. Some women wouldn't choose it, but lots would. Then the prize money isn't going to be an issue, and the barely-elites and sub-elites will have other women to run with.

This is sort of what I was trying to get at. I would think, with last years weather, that the women that cracked the top-15 got some help by running in a giant pack. Put a reasonable standard out there so people know what it is. Give people a chance to chase PRs together. I think this is a solution that approaches equity versus just putting narrow standards out there and starting the men early. It feels like the BAA doesn't care about helping out runners on the cusp of an OTQ. Their goal is to avoid paying out twice. So just increase the field size. Make it known like Chicago does with the American Development Corral. Have a staging area with food/water/warmth before and after the race.

I imagine they have concerns about the men’s leaders (and lead vehicles) passing more 2:45+ women. If the women’s elite field is going to get any larger it’s going to happen incrementally. (I believe it’s already about 10-15 runners larger this year than last year.)

Also, I highly doubt their #1 goal is to avoid paying out double/extra. The money isn’t a huge issue to the BAA (as numerous people in this thread have noted). I take them at face value when they say this is them trying to come up with the best solution that serves the logistics that go into protecting different groups of runners’ experiences, the media value and presentation of their elite race, and gender equity. I don’t think it was handled perfectly, but I also don’t have enough knowledge to fully assess that. I also don’t think they have any reason to lie about their motivations or to screw the male sub-elites just because they feel like it.

Bio Dome wrote:

I do agree that a false sense of "equality" is a dumb reason to do this, but keeping the television seeking idiots out is a very nice side effect of this change, and protecting the elites from the masses and wannabes is a sound goal to have for a major race.

I enjoy watching those guys run with a piano on their back after 5k. One of the highlights. If they can run that pace for even 3 miles, more power to them.

What is the time range to be considered a "hobby jogger" 2:25 must be on the fast end.