Your thoughts on Chicago marathon new Qualifaction stanard??

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Yes men are at a genetic advantage but need to adjust for muscle mass.

Usual bollocks from the man that knows nothing about running.

Age-graded score & time of 3:15.

Age 35: 64.06% (3:15:00) 5 min slower than BQ.

Age 40: 65.54% (3:10:18) same as BQ.

Age 45: 68.45% (3:02:29) 10 min faster than BQ.

Age 50: 71.52% (2:54:40) 15 min faster than BQ.

Age 55: 74.87% (2:46:51) 25 min faster than BQ.

Age 60: 78.55% (2:39:01) 40 min faster than BQ.

Age 65: 82.62% (2:31:12) 55 min faster than BQ.

Age 70: 87.12% (2:23:23) 70 min faster than BQ.

Age 75: 93.08% (2:14:12) 85 min faster than BQ.

Age 80: 102.73% (2:01:36) 100 min faster than BQ.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

The women's ideal body composition is rather slim

men who are destined to be as big as possible and pressure into becoming so - mostly by women

Unbelievable. Crossfit Guy, you don't have to be big if you don't want to. It is perfectly health to have a runners body. OK, women may ignore you then but if your goal is to run fast, all that BUFF and JACKED muscle mass is not going to help you.

Deal with it.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

All this is a bit off.

...

Yes men are at a genetic advantage but need to adjust for muscle mass.

Lol. Yes, xfit is great running preparation... but we need lower standards to account for our extra dead weight.

Priceless.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Usual bollocks from the man that knows nothing about running.

But he trolled you.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

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.

Why can it not be both a "parade" and a "serious race"? It is a race for a small % with the rest of the runners helping fund their payday. Boston, London, Berlin, and just about every other marathon can be described the same way.

peekay wrote:

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

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.

To address some points here:

1) 250 was the qualifying time for Boston like in 1977 or 1979 I think, the highest standard in history. Sure its not elite, or even sub-elite, but someone has to have pretty well structured training to run that time.

2) haven't run a marathon, but I'd be aiming for sub 250 if I did one in my current shape.

3) Yeah I'm 19 and have a 1653 5k pr. I tried 140 mpw, got burnt out, got lazy and hung around 60 for a few months, then rekindled the fire and decided to do over 100 mpw but have just been doing 110 mpw because it comes out to 2 hours a day (75/45 doubles and 2 hour long run Sundays) and speed twice a week. Focusing on 1500/800 this spring. I hate short stuff but want to work on my speed because going from no speed to practically no speed could help.

Running Formula reader wrote:

Age-graded score & time of 3:15.

Age 35: 64.06% (3:15:00) 5 min slower than BQ.

Age 40: 65.54% (3:10:18) same as BQ.

Age 45: 68.45% (3:02:29) 10 min faster than BQ.

Age 50: 71.52% (2:54:40) 15 min faster than BQ.

Age 55: 74.87% (2:46:51) 25 min faster than BQ.

Age 60: 78.55% (2:39:01) 40 min faster than BQ.

Age 65: 82.62% (2:31:12) 55 min faster than BQ.

Age 70: 87.12% (2:23:23) 70 min faster than BQ.

Age 75: 93.08% (2:14:12) 85 min faster than BQ.

Age 80: 102.73% (2:01:36) 100 min faster than BQ.

A clear case of age discrimination, time for a class action lawsuit. Maybe we can get Paul Ryan to start one for us.

NotAustin18 wrote:

To address some points here:

Do you care to answer my question?

Do you really think anyone with decent training can hit 3:15/3:45 regardless of their age?

I think it's a good idea and probably an attempt to claim some of the experienced runners who require fewer resources for the event. If person A and B want the same slot in the race, why wouldn't they want the runner who's likely easier to handle. It's a massive parade of a race with a very short entry period, and I don't think this is going to seriously alter the demographic.

I just moved away from Chicago, and I had stopped considering the race for the past 5 years or so, opting for smaller marathons in the MW instead with cheaper entry fees and longer registration periods. (I would be within the auto entry standards). It was too much hassle to register for it. Five to ten years ago I don't remember having to be on the computer at the stroke of midnight or whatever to enter. And the price seems so high-I know traveling to a smaller one is probably more expensive, but I still have trouble paying almost $200 for a race. The expo at McCormick place is not an easy place to get to by public transport and was a traffic disaster every time I went. IMO they'd be well served and attract more serious runners by also finding a way to allow people to skip the expo and offering some type of roll-over entry policy as injury insurance for the serious hobby runners.

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.

What about Masters runners? Guys and gals that can still run decent times for their age, but can no longer hit sub-2:50 or heck, even sub-3:15 anymore? Why no leeway for these folks?

Even Boston and NYC have different time standards for different Masters age groups. Why does Chicago just have ONE single time standard for men and women of ALL ages?

I ran 2:41 back when I was younger, and last year at age 55, ran 3:15:30. I know I'm not going to see sub-2:50 or probably even sub-3:00 anymore, so why should it be expected that I can hit the same standard as a 20-30 year old?

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.

3:15/3:45 is beyond most runners. It's not all that slow. It's comparible to a 19-20 min 5k. That will eliminate more than 90% of the general population of runners.

Whose fault is that? Choose a more competitive race than one a 2:48 can win.

Precious Roy wrote:

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.

All it says is guarantee entry. Slower runners (15,000ish) still get in. They just want to make sure the faster runners can get in. Sounds fair to me.

You can also get in sans lottery if you've run Chicago 5x in the past 10 years.