It says it's a "lottery" but they implimented a system to guarantee any sub 3:15 man and 3:45 female guaranteed slot. What will this do to this race? Why are they still doing a lottery won't it fill up off of sub 3:45 women?? seems like a lower standard. Either way i like the new standard.
I think you are overestimating the number of men and women who can actually hit those standards. ARen't average finishing times closer to 4:30-45 at these big races?
The new standards are skewed. Much easier for men to qualify than for women when compared with Boston. Same 30min difference but slower, they should have based it on percentage. 3h15m for men and 3h50m for women would have been fair.
What a ridiculous gender gap. World records are about 12 minutes apart? Eh, let's put a 30 minute spread for people running an hour slower.
Just make it sub 250 men and sub 310 women. Make it competitive. Get serious runners in there and give people motivation to work hard. 315 and 345 are not fast times, anyone with decent training can hit those times.
In the grand scheme of all marathon runners, very few men and women will qualify for Chicago.
NotAustin18 wrote:
Just make it sub 250 men and sub 310 women. Make it competitive. Get serious runners in there and give people motivation to work hard. 315 and 345 are not fast times, anyone with decent training can hit those times.
right, because a 250 marathon is soooo fast...
If you've ever been a spectator at chicago (I have several times), you'd know that this race is more a parade than a serious race.
The real serious runners can already get in through the American Development Program.
I don't like the idea of cutting out slower recreational runners. The posters above saying that "qualifiers" might not make too big a dent in the numbers are probably right, but this is a slippery slope and has the potential to dramatically change this race.
Looking at 2013 results, 1807 of 21618 men (8.4%) and 1686 of 17504 women (9.6%) hit the standard. Those percentage will go up since qualified entrants will be given preference, but I don't see it becoming a "qualifiers dominated race". One thing to consider is that destination marathoning tends toward middle-aged runners and those are not trivial standards for the average person.
I am all for qualifying times for big races. Arguments can be made about whether the times are fair, too easy, too hard, etc. But, I hate the idea that someone who trains hard, has some talent and has achieved a decent level of fitness has to put their name in a lottery with the gallowalker who does a 6:30 marathon. Races like Chicago also represent a limited opportunity for faster runners who are trying to hit time landmarks (sub 3, 2:45, 2:30 etc.). Runners will have lots of company at a race like Chicago when trying to hit time goals like these, but may be all alone in smaller races. I ran a 2:48 at a marathon with about 2000 people. After the half marathoners pulled off at mi 13, I was completely alone for the rest of the race. I probably could have run faster with some pacing from other runners.
well said roy
Houston qualifying times (non-gender specific)
Qualifying Race Qualifying Time
Marathon 4:00:00
Half Marathon 1:52:55
10K 51:08
Runners may register for either the marathon or half marathon races with a marathon, half marathon or 10K qualifying time.
Houston's times are very generous (especially to men) and obviously don't do much to shut out slower runners even though the race is in demand and has had a lottery for a couple of years. I don't see Chicago's QT's having much of an impact.
When asked about the QT's, the Houston race director's reasoning was that a group of "faster" runners helped ensure that the course would not be bottle-necked, etc. and could better accommodate the large number of runners.
NotAustin18 wrote:
Just make it sub 250 men and sub 310 women. Make it competitive.
Since when is 2:50 for men, and 3:10 for women "competitive"? Sure, it's faster then 3:15/3:45, but you're still nothing more than an also ran with these times.
NotAustin18 wrote:
Just make it sub 250 men and sub 310 women. Make it competitive. Get serious runners in there and give people motivation to work hard. 315 and 345 are not fast times, anyone with decent training can hit those times.
So Ed Whitlock has not been training seriously for the last several years?
For casual fat hobbyjoggers your gender is TOTALLY irrelevant in how fast you run a marathon. They don't need gender-specific qualifying times.
Agree strongly. Cutoffs that control for weight would be more reasonable. I've never liked qualifying times. Just cap the race and first come, first served. Running a big-city marathon these days is a curse, not a blessing. Too sardine-like.
I've run Chicago a few times and like the race a lot. Last year I was lucky enough to get in on the lottery a few weeks after the opening fiasco, so I'm glad they have a guaranteed way to get in now. For me its kind of tough though, at 58 a 3:15 takes a fair amount of training and it'd be easier to have a half marathon qualifier. Would not mind age graded either, but maybe that's selfish.
well...... wrote:
NotAustin18 wrote:Just make it sub 250 men and sub 310 women. Make it competitive.
Since when is 2:50 for men, and 3:10 for women "competitive"? Sure, it's faster then 3:15/3:45, but you're still nothing more than an also ran with these times.
My guess is that NotAustin18 is a 2:4X guy.
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
well...... wrote:Since when is 2:50 for men, and 3:10 for women "competitive"? Sure, it's faster then 3:15/3:45, but you're still nothing more than an also ran with these times.
My guess is that NotAustin18 is a 2:4X guy.
Actually, he posts all the time and has never ran a marathon. I believe he is just out of HS and ran a 17 min 5k. He also likes to change his training opinions from 140mpw is essential to 60 mpw is optimal, etc.
Average marathon finish times in 2010
2010 Overall Demographics
Percent Avg.
Age Avg.
Time*
Men 58.8% 4:27:11
Women 41.2% 4:54:25
All Runners 4:38:25
The fastest average age-group belonged to men aged 40-44 in 2010 with a mean finishing time of 4:19:51.
On the women's side, the fastest times were posted by women aged 25-29 with similar times for both the 35-39 and 30-34 groups.
2010 Finishing Times by Half Hour
Women
Finish Time* Total %
2:05:52 - 2:29:59 - 664 32 - 0.00%
2:30:00 - 2:59:59 - 8,430 750 - 0.40%
3:00:00 - 3:29:59 - 42,508 6,662 - 3.20%
3:30:00 - 3:59:59 - 98,971 31,292 - 15.00%
4:00:00 - 4:29:59 - 106,847 43,670 - 21.00%
4:30:00 - 4:59:59 - 96,227 44,495 - 21.40%
5:00:00 - 5:29:59 - 61,833 31,292 - 15.00%
5:30:00 - 5:59:59 - 41,475 22,079 - 10.60%
6:00:00 - 6:29:59 - 21,397 12,191 - 5.90%
6:30:00 - 6:59:59 - 12,915 7,645 - 3.70%
7:00:00 - 7:29:59 - 6,067 3,593 - 1.70%
7:30:00 - 7:59:59 - 3,228 1,927 - 0.90%
8:00:00 - 8:29:59 - 1,793 970 - 0.50%
8:30:00 - 8:59:59 - 1,136 601 - 0.30%
9:00:00 - 14:10:58 - 1,747 841 - 0.40%
Men
2:05:52 - 2:29:59 - 632 - 0.20%
2:30:00 - 2:59:59 - 7,680 - 2.60%
3:00:00 - 3:29:59 - 35,846 - 12.10%
3:30:00 - 3:59:59 - 67,679 - 22.80%
4:00:00 - 4:29:59 - 63,177 - 21.30%
4:30:00 - 4:59:59 - 51,732 - 17.40%
5:00:00 - 5:29:59 - 30,589 - 10.30%
5:30:00 - 5:59:59 - 19,396 - 6.50%
6:00:00 - 6:29:59 - 9,206 - 3.10%
6:30:00 - 6:59:59 - 5,270 - 1.80%
7:00:00 - 7:29:59 - 2,474 - 0.80%
7:30:00 - 7:59:59 - 1,301 - 0.40%
8:00:00 - 8:29:59 - 823 - 0.30%
8:30:00 - 8:59:59 - 535 - 0.20%
9:00:00 - 14:10:58 - 906 - 0.30%
All this is a bit off.
The women's ideal body composition is rather slim, so they're therefore at an advantage when it comes to Marathon running compared to men who are destined to be as big as possible and pressure into becoming so - mostly by women but also society.
So an ideal solution would be to have equal qualifier times for men and women.
Yes men are at a genetic advantage but need to adjust for muscle mass.