How can you have the best time and not win??? (Page 3)

Ok, here you lost me.  How is someone running the same course towards the back cheating again?  Are you implying maybe they will pull a bike out of the bushes or something, and no one will see them cause they are in the back?

Or are you just saying the people in the front don't have enough self motivation to run their own race fast enough without pacing off someone who is putting up a faster time?  (I really hope it's not this).  I have about || sympathy for people who need to use others as pace to put up their own fast time.  Everyone should run their own race, as fast as they can, on the same course, the best time wins.  If you slack off around the finish line because you *think* you are winning...too bad, lose the race, and don't do it next time.

edit: Yes, I realize this is a different strategy of racing, one that everyone would have to prepare for.  I do think, it provides a MUCH fairer results, than having the mass of people at the starting line pile up over a hundred yards deep, and saying first one to the finish wins.  Congrats, you ran 6.2 miles, and he ran 6.2 miles + 200 yards because he had a superb PR and crossed the finish 2 seconds behind you, you win, how gratifying that must be!

A lot of arm chair quarterbacking going on now .......

Having been in the front of road races, I can tell you it a LOT about strategy.  The 5k I won two years ago (granted, only 500 people or so) there were 3 of us duking it out for the win and it was a lot of cat and mouse in the second half until I made my move and dropped them.  I could have easily run 15 - 30 seconds faster in the race, but didn't need to.  If I had to worry about someone who started at the back of the pack and ran a "faster" race it would have been an entirely different situation.

Again, triathlons are TIME TRIALS ....... it is totally you against the clock.  NOT you against other people one on one like in a running race (except for people in your wave).  The guy or girl you're "racing" against next to you could have started 10 minutes before or after you.

I'm much happier knowing exactly where I stand in a running race when I finish (and as stated, those that are fast enough to be in the competition for overall know where they stand in most races well before even starting and WILL start at the front) then I am waiting around biting my nails to see if someone older/younger that started after me bumped me down a few slots.

Ok, I understand your example about how someone could cheat.  Not sure how often that would happen.  Personally, I'd rather take that risk of someone cheating, rather than having people run slightly different distance races.  That is just my personal preference.

As to what I quoted from you above...that is the big part I have a problem with.  Sometimes it is physically impossible to get into a good position to start.  Or what if someone who is normally in the top 1/3 (but in the back of that 1/3), graciously starts in that position, and has the race of their life and sets a PR to take best time?  This is all just my opinion, but that person should win.

As I've alluded to above, I really could care less that the leader would have to sprint at the end all the time.  It's a race, run hard for all of it!!

Overall though...it's just my opinion (and some others), nothing to get worked up about, it probably will never change.  The only way to properly do a race to make us both happy is how things are done in the Olympics...heats, with a final heat.  Of course, that would take entirely took much time for your avg joe weekend racer.  *shrug*

She "crushed" the field in this race by running her own race from the masses.  (And I bet she started up near the front as well).  There is no doubt she ran the best time.

But imagine if she was only a half to a minute or so faster than the "winner" who got the dough?  It would muddle the issue even more.

Or if they had started the "elites" only 5 or 10 minutes in front of the pack and she caught up?

It would have made for a whole different ballgame.

For what it's worth, I completely understand and accept the gun time.  You arguments make sense to me.  I just think there is a better way.  Both sides have pros and cons.  The biggest con of chip timing is:  athletes will always have to push hard at the finish.  The biggest con of gun timing is:  People aren't even running the same distance race.  I have personally just decided that chip timing cons are better than gun timing cons.  To me, everyone running the same race is more important than feeling sorry for top finishers having to use a little more energy than they'd like to at the finish.  Different opinions is what makes the world go 'round.

Well for us Boppers chip time is our lives.  I ran Chicago marathon 10 minutes faster than my friend who finished 5 minutes before me.  I still get ranked ahead of her which I think is fair.  I will race against the people next to me but ulimately we race against the clock. 

My question is what is the big deal about having the elites start at the front of the pack and start at the same time as everyone else?  They should be able to drop us without a problem.  If they do not then well they get more competition.   If they are elites they should be able to beat atleast most of us.  I know my friend who starts in the A corral at Chicago passes a couple every year.

That is what they usually do.  As I mentioned before, it is only in very rare instances that they start the ladies or male elites ahead of the group by time.  The only other one I've participated in was Boston that did that, and as I mentioned, that is so the first place male and female finish around the same time of day (for the television coverage basically).

I honestly have no clue as to why this race started the "top" ladies early ..... in an all lady field ....... makes no sense, but I think we already determined that part.

Fine, if you want a marathon to be a race against the clock and not gun time, then you treat IT like a time trial.

I don't know how much cycling you've participated in/watched, but in a TT you start anywhere from 1 to 3 minutes after the next person so it is TRULY an individual effort.  You want to start 20,000 people one at a time for even like 10 seconds apart to make that happen????

Okay, how about triathlons ....... let's just start everyone by age group wave starts 5 to 10 minutes apart.  But wait ...... there has to be an elite wave with qualifying times.  And oh wait, the only people who can get the overall win and the cashflow can come from that elite wave.  Oops ...... seem to have run into the same problem again .........

Well ....... we can do a mass start like in an IM and the first person who crosses ....... whoops, never mind .............

Slugger, you need to realize that the starting of the elites 20 minutes before the rest of the field is NOT the normal situation.  Very few races do this.  In fact, most races start everyone at the same time.  I have never done a race where there was a staggered start of elites vs. everyone else, and I've done my fair share of races.

If the issue then is that the size of the field is then prohibiting people from a chance to compete against top runners, my advice is to avoid the mega-races.

I've done a few fairly sizeable races, and they usually seed people by either documented race times, or expected race time; I prefer documented race times, because it's not based on others' whims.  Most large races that actually attract top runners will have documented requirements for elite status, and those who qualify will be seeded at the front.

You claim that chip timing is inherently more fair than finishing position, but I have not seen a convincing argument from anyone proving that fact, either.  In a standard race, this Nike marathon not being one, finish place is fair.  It's also the easiest way to determine team scores (yes, some races have cross-country style point systems for team categories).  Chip time would not allow teams to race against each other.