Why don't the fastest times win?

February 24, 2009 1:15 PM

Why don't competitors in marathons start the race all in one pack? Why are there different start times for elite runners? Why don't they decide the winner just on time alone?

So, I was reading about the Nike Women's marathon and the Chicago marathon last year where the people who ran the fastest times didn't technically win because they weren't in the elite pack (I think they were given some sort of consolation prize/designation). The argument being that they were running essentially a different race since they didn't start with the leaders who couldn't judge how far ahead/behind they were and adjust their strategies accordingly. I get this. But why have two different start times anyway?

posted by bluefly to sports, hobbies, & recreation (17 comments total)

Because fast runners don't want to have to jostle through all the slow runners. Have you ever seen what a big race's starting line looks like? Lots of people, a narrow starting gate. Getting stuck in a slow crowd can be a big problem for a fast runner unless they want to start pushing people out of their way.
posted by GuyZero at 1:22 PM on February 24

I believe you may have it backwards. Marathons are typically won on time alone, and not on "place" alone. It's possible to beat someone across the finish line, only to find that they have run a faster time than you have. The reason for this is because the crowds at the start of a marathon can knock minutes (certainly seconds) off your time if you are not at the very front.

Recently there has been a move to have elite women start a bit ahead of the men. This is so that elite women do not get caught among groups of non-elite (but still very good) male runners for the bulk of the race. So they start early and basically have a bit of a clear course, just as the elite men do (by virtue of how fast they are). In all women's marathons, this would be obviated, and there presumably not be a need for an early start.

Do you have a cite?
posted by OmieWise at 1:23 PM on February 24

Just to be clear, marathons are timed by chips on shoes and mats, which record time of start (time you cross the line) and time of finish (time you cross the line) regardless of when that is in relation to the gun or other runners.
posted by OmieWise at 1:24 PM on February 24

Because it's not a time trial, where it's just you against the clock. Once you really get into racing, you'll realize that tactics and psychology contribute greatly to your peformance.

As for different start times, it's difficult to keep track the strength of amateur runners. Elite runners have known and predictable results, and are easily categorized.
posted by randomstriker at 1:24 PM on February 24

I believe this is the race the OP is speaking of:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/21/BAUC13L3GQ.DTL
posted by ShootTheMoon at 1:27 PM on February 24

Elite runners have known and predictable results, and are easily categorized.

This was part of the reason given for the problem with the San Francisco Nike Women's marathon where the amateur got a better time than the elite winner. The explanation, as I recall it, was that the elite racers competed against each other, not against the clock.
posted by GuyZero at 1:27 PM on February 24

Omiewise, marathons are timed with chips, but marathons that offer prizes determine their places based on gun time, not on chip time.

This is done for exactly the reasons stated above. No matter how many times you tell someone, "start from the back if you're slower" inordinately, there's always a walker or two that wants to start in the front. Why they do this is beyond me, they basically become a hazard.

Most marathons have "gates" based on expected finish time. They'll have an A corral, a B corral, a C corral, and so forth. This helps alleviate this problem. "Elites" get their own gate. They're running their own separate race- against each other. Usually, you can only win prize money if you race with the elites. Racing strategy, psychology, etc., all become a factor.
posted by unexpected at 1:48 PM on February 24

They want the assumed top finishers all to start at the same time so they can present an actual "race" to the TV audience.

For everyone else, it's individual timing.
posted by Zambrano at 1:49 PM on February 24

OmieWise, here's an article about both marathons. The fourth place finisher in time for the Chicago marathon was out of the money because he wasn't in the elite pack.

I guess I can see the jostling argument. I've only ever watched marathons on TV, and they don't really show what's going on in the middle of the pack, so I didn't realize it was so tough to get through.

As for different start times, it's difficult to keep track the strength of amateur runners. Elite runners have known and predictable results, and are easily categorized.

Why is this important? As I said in my question, I understand why people in the amateur pack (or "gate") can't win the marathon because their start time is different, and they aren't racing against the leaders. But, why does predictability matter?
posted by bluefly at 2:13 PM on February 24

Three time marathon runner here, and I'm old enough to remember no chips. Smaller races don't always use mats and chips, just FYI.

This statement, however, is insane:

The reason for not allowing someone from a second starting group to claim prize money based on time is simple: It is impossible to race against someone who could be a mile behind, which makes it unfair to determine results by time.

I call bullshit. Let's design two identical marathon courses. There is no wind, and it's perfectly flat. OK? One course goes North, one goes South. They are identical. Gun goes off, elite runner A goes North, elite runner B goes South. They can't see each other. They have no radios, TV, or split times. First guy back across the line wins. On time.

The takeaway is that if you think you might be elite, you should probably speak up. The grad student 2'55" who never heard of elite runners and who didn't know they started at a different time? Shame on her.
posted by fixedgear at 2:27 PM on February 24

Let's map out the possibilities here:

1. Have everyone start at the same time, measure the winner by chip time
2. Have everyone start at the same time, measure the winner by gun time
3. Have staggered starts, measure the winner by chip time
4. Have staggered starts, measure the winner by gun time

#1 is bad because firstly, it's not a race if you do it this way. At elite speeds, drafting is a real thing, and you're creating a sort of circular dependency among those who want to win the thing - it's in their best interests to start at the very last while still having someone nearly the same speed in front of them to break the wind resistance. Elite competitors also couldn't know if the person they were ahead of was actually beating them by the clock or not. As someone above said, it's a race, not a time trial.

#2 is bad because people who are dumb will get in the front of the pack and proceed to run 9 minute miles and block everyone behind them. This turns it in to more of a contest of "which elite runner can bust through the crowd of idiots most effectively", which isn't a good race format

#3 is bad for the same reason #1 is bad (not a race, encourages people to not start running when the gun goes off)

#4 is what we have. Whether or not someone who ran a 2:55 marathon is 'elite' is up for debate (the women's winner in the 2008 Seattle Marathon finished over 3 hours; I imagine the San Francisco course is not any easier), but the fact remains that if you start 20 minutes after someone else, you're really not running the same race. Weather conditions might change significantly, or the lead runner in the pack might take it sort of easy because they're winning.

Ultimately if you want a race and not a time trial, #4 is the only option. It's understandable if you don't acknowledge that a race and a time trial are distinct things, but that's a different question. Marathons are races, period.
posted by 0xFCAF at 2:36 PM on February 24

bluefly, to answer your question:

Most people that run marathons are running them for the first time. Elite times are well known, so they can be grouped together.

Everyone else is basically a clusterfuck. You have the experienced marathoners who know how they expect to finish, but at some races 50% of the pack has no time to go by- they've never raced in a marathon before! Basically, you get corralled based on the time you'd "expect" to finish, which is often overly optimistic (a marathon is hell).

When I did my marathon, I had run a couple races, but had never run a marathon before. I finished almost an hour longer than my expected time (to be fair to myself, kept my expected time through 18 miles before 'blowing up').

Running at the start is painful. There are always walkers. This is another phenomenon I don't understand. Why are there still walkers in the front? This could be a separate question of it's own. Marathon start gates aren't very wide - think 30 - 40 yards, and then you have to pass 15,000 people through them.

Yikes.

All this marathon talk makes me want to run again!
posted by unexpected at 2:48 PM on February 24

Well I guess there is another factor. Elite runners, especially famous ones, are a spectator / sponsor draw. Like it or not, race organizers are expected to protect the elite runners from the risks of running with the unwashed masses.
posted by randomstriker at 2:51 PM on February 24

I've only ever watched marathons on TV, and they don't really show what's going on in the middle of the pack,

Take a look at this photo and it's easy to understand why people who are competitive at the highest international levels would get started on their own.

In the London marathon it's not unusual to see racers in heavy mascot costumes giving TV interviews as they run.

Why don't they decide the winner just on time alone?

In a sense there are two separate races going on. The first race has perhaps two dozen competitors, all the competitors start at the same time, the competitors are monitored throughout the course, doping testing is (or can be) performed, and timing conforms to certain standards laid down by the sport's governing body, etc etc.

The second race isn't run to the same standards, because with several tens of thousands of entrants for a big race, it just isn't practical. If you took a bunch of performance-enhancing drugs, or convinced a friend to start last, then sprint to catch up with you and swap chips with you, or you just skipped out of the course, caught a taxi to the end, and jumped back over the barriers, you could probably get away with it.

Of course, in modern marathons with computerised timing, everyone gets a fairly accurate time - or at least, the margin of error is far less than 12 minutes - and there's no evidence the woman in the nike marathon case did anything dishonest. It sounds more like they just didn't know about the runner's time until after the medals had been given out, and they couldn't very well take the medals back.
posted by Mike1024 at 3:15 PM on February 24

Forgive me from if I'm out of my depth here, but as far as races I've been in, this was pretty simple. Elite was a category, not an arbitrary standard. You had to register as an elite to place as an elite. If an amateur was faster, but not registered elite, they wouldn't be able to win the prizes set aside for the elite category. Could that be what's going on?
posted by Miko at 3:21 PM on February 24

If an amateur was faster, but not registered elite, they wouldn't be able to win the prizes set aside for the elite category. Could that be what's going on?

Yes, that's exactly what's going on. I just wanted to know why there were separate categories. Thanks for that photo Mike1024! That really put it into perspective for me. Also, thanks 0xFCAF for your clear explanation. I had previously understood about #3 and #4, just not the difference between #1 and #2; thanks for that.

And thanks to everyone else for your running stories and your perspectives on the differences between time trials and races. I have only recently gotten into running but only for exercise around my neighborhood. I've never run a real race. But all this talk of strategy has made me want to look into it! I appreciate the inspiration.
posted by bluefly at 3:42 PM on February 24

"Why does predictability matter?"

I did a triathlon. Swimmers were split into two groups for a pool swim. It's slightly hard to pass someone in front of you; there's just not much room. Someone claimed they'd be able to do the swim in four minutes. It took them eight, and jammed up all the people behind them. They let people pass, but it snarled everyone. Or, actually, *half* of everyone, because the people had been split into two groups.

That said, an elite athlete can predictably say "this will take me four minutes". An amateur athlete needs to prove that first.
posted by talldean at 3:55 PM on February 24 [1 favorite has favorites]