should there be a universal time limit for marathons?

No.

Let each race director and city determine how long they want to keep the course open. Its all about money. The shorter time limit, the less people who can enter, less money for the race and city.

As well as size, certain conditions/climates will drastically affect the overall average finish time.  If the RD wants the crew to stay out there until midnight, power to them.  If they close the course after 8 hours, that's reasonable too.

bts

A 2:55 cut off time for a marathon?  That's way under the Boston qualifying times for most age groups.  Seems a bit severe.  What race is that?

Mark

He didn't say marathon. He said race. Big difference and unless he says its a marathon, I'm not assuming so.

ok, we were typing at the same time. Nevermind!

I don't really understand the point of all this, but if this is your question then its an easy answer:

A cut off is a cut off. Plain and simple. Now, if you're close to the finish they might not make you get into a support vehicle to get to the finish area, but if you're not close then they will pick you up. There are reasons for a cut off, and others already listed them.

I don't see a reason for a universal time limit for marathons. I think IM's are a bit of a anomaly among races as far as the time limit goes.

Most of the time limits that are in place are based on how long roads can be kept closed in the city hosting the race. If you've got a city that is willing to keep those roads closed longer, I see no reason why you shouldn't have a longer time limit. If an RD wants it to be a "fast" race, they can certainly set shorter limits and qualifying times if they want. Personally, I like the idea of longer time limits as it brings more people into the sport.

I don't mind time limits, I just want to know what they are before I register!

well considering most people can walk 3mph, how about 9 hours? 

Good question. Back in the day the Boston Qualifying time was 2:50. Also, back then our Olympic Standard was 2:17 - which means if you didn't run under 2:50, male or female, you couldn't run Boston and if you couldn't run under 2:17 (for Males) you couldn't go to Olympic Trials. In 1984 with these standards in place, we had 300+ men qualify for the Olympic Marathon. Today the standard is a weak 2:22, and we had about 20+ athletes qualify for the Olympics. Why is is that we lowered the standard and less people qualified? There are many theories to why this is.

To answer your question, let me ask this question. At what point is it no longer considered, 'running a marathon'? Is it 5 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours?

My personal opinion is that IF there were a stricter cut-off, fitness levels would go up, and we'd be a healthier country. That's a totally different soapbox and I am not about to get on it in this forum. I think if IM raised the standard to 14:00 you'd have faster times as well, and that has been talked about too.

I think anyone completing a marathon or an Ironman has accomplished quite a bit, as you don't know their background or where they started from. I do think raising the bar will help us get out from the obseity dilemna we are in now however.

I seem to recall that one of the euro-IM's had a different cutoff than the 17.  I'm sure the "universal 17" is just because the same "company" (yes, I realize IMNA are run by a different group than euro-IM's...I am merely referring to M-dot really) run them all.

Marathons are run by so many different groups that they can do whatever they want.  I know IM's have different courses too, but marathon courses can REALLY vary.  The Leadville Marathon STARTS at 10,000 feet and climbs up...steeply!  My sister runs 2 hours slower on that than her average marathon.  That can't have the same cutoff as say, Chicago, ya know?

Very interesting ideas Mike. I like those ideas and think people would work harder to meet those cut off times. Some couch potatoes would be put off by them, but then you can argue how motivated were they in the first place. Very interesting thoughts, but you're right, this isn't the area for it to be discussed.

"five hours is reasonable if they want it to be a marathon for faster runners"

I don't think five hours and faster runners should be in the same sentence. ;-) Well, only if you are 80 and over according to the Boston Marathon:

This actually seems more like a ST thread.  Last time I checked this was BT where we were supposedly more worried about getting people off the couch and active rather than qualifying or cutoff times. 

Mark

What I am saying is the standard is the standard. So, if it's 5:00 hour cut off, people WILL work harder to get to that 5 hour cut off. Do you think IM would have a different popularity and races would fill up less quickly if the standard were 16:00? How about 15:00 or 14:00? Of course not. Its all a matter of perception. We SET the bar higher and people will reach it. Mankind isn't any different with flight, going to the moon, Mars, Jupiter etc. We keep raising the bar right?

We have had 2 guys that we coach go from 400+ to 250, and finish an IM in around 15:00 - and we have two more we are working with right now. These guys don't see the 17:00 hour time limit as a barrier, they see 12:00. So, if you are motivated to change your life, you will do it. Setting the bar higher is where we start. If I said to you, while you were in high school, "If you get straight B's for 4 years, you will get into Harvard, and upon graduation, you will be compensated $1,000,000 a year", do you think you would strive to do it? Probably. If I said, that you had to get straight A's, would you do it? More than likely. So, what I am saying is that the satisfaction of being fit, being an Ironman, changing your life is the REWARD - and if someone wants it - NOTHING will stop them from getting it, be it 17:00, 16:00, 14:00 etc. The cream will rise to the top so to speak.