At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
- mrkelley23
- Posts: 6579
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
- Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
I didn't know there was an electoral college for marathons....
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!
- Bob78164
- Bored Moderator
- Posts: 22147
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
- Location: By the phone
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --BobEstonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
I can see both sides of the argument having merit. Based on the article (and some of the comments - I quit reading after the 3 oldest pages), the basic reason for the separation is for the protection of the elite runners (from the mass) and to control drug testing. One of the comments was that "elite" times should range from 2h15m to 2h30m, not over 3 hours. If that's true, then these runners weren't too elite, anyway. I think they should keep the separation, but tell them not to loaf, as the winners will be awarded based on time, not class. Any non-elite runner placing extraordinarily high could be drug tested on the spot. The arguments that the "elite" runners didn't have a chance to pace someone outrunning them could just as well go the other way. Had she been running against the elites, she may have kicked their asses even more than she did.Bob78164 wrote:Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --BobEstonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco
- mrkelley23
- Posts: 6579
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:48 pm
- Location: Somewhere between Bureaucracy and Despair
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Estonut wrote:WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!
Never underestimate the power of the smartass comment from me.
Besides, this wasn't about THIS election.
I was actually referring to a not-so-long ago election.
You know, Hayes-Tilden?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman
- silvercamaro
- Dog's Best Friend
- Posts: 9608
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
This would be a better argument if the declared winner had run faster than 3:06. If a group of so-called "elite" women runners cannot beat 3 hours, they are not worthy of that designation. Since the young woman with the 2:55 time did not gain the benefit of running with other runners that could pace her and push her (which is the point of having a group of "elites",) she did all the work for her own race unaided. Thus, her performance was far above that of the earlier runners -- far more than the time difference -- and she should be rewarded accordingly with first place, in my opinion.Bob78164 wrote:Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --BobEstonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco
To put the times of those "elite" runners in perspective, a 3:06 would rank no higher than 653rd place among women marathon runners for 2007-2008 in U.S. races, according to this site: http://www.letsrun.com/2008/womensmarathonlist.php
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.
- MarleysGh0st
- Posts: 27966
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:55 am
- Location: Elsewhere
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Estonut is right--this was no place for a political comment.Estonut wrote:WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!
This article was really crying out for a Phone Game-Audition analogy!
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
That's what I was trying to get at, Uday. Not as eloquently as you did, of course. Not being a runner, I don't know how much the terrain has to do with marathon times, but, as a cyclist, I know that every uphill I have to climb leads to a downhill I can haul ass down.silvercamaro wrote:This would be a better argument if the declared winner had run faster than 3:06. If a group of so-called "elite" women runners cannot beat 3 hours, they are not worthy of that designation. Since the young woman with the 2:55 time did not gain the benefit of running with other runners that could pace her and push her (which is the point of having a group of "elites",) she did all the work for her own race unaided. Thus, her performance was far above that of the earlier runners -- far more than the time difference -- and she should be rewarded accordingly with first place, in my opinion.Bob78164 wrote:Now that I've read the article, I'm not sure that I agree with the race organizers but there's something to their position. Their point is the the "elite" leader didn't know that she had other times to compete against so she may only have run fast enough to stay ahead of the other "elite" runners. --BobEstonut wrote:Nike Women's Marathon in San Francisco
To put the times of those "elite" runners in perspective, a 3:06 would rank no higher than 653rd place among women marathon runners for 2007-2008 in U.S. races, according to this site: http://www.letsrun.com/2008/womensmarathonlist.php
- mellytu74
- Posts: 9688
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Oh, my.
What an interesting story.
What an interesting story.
- silvercamaro
- Dog's Best Friend
- Posts: 9608
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:45 am
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
We said the same thing, but I just took longer to say it. To be fair, the terrain makes a huge difference in marathons, because running uphill uses one set of muscles, and running downhill uses another set. Downhill may be easier, but it's not coasting.Estonut wrote:
That's what I was trying to get at, Uday. Not as eloquently as you did, of course. Not being a runner, I don't know how much the terrain has to do with marathon times, but, as a cyclist, I know that every uphill I have to climb leads to a downhill I can haul ass down.
There's one other point I didn't mention, but the article mentioned one official who said the faster runner should have "declared herself" as elite. Perhaps that's the standard practice in San Francisco, but I had never before heard of a race where an entrant could "declare" himself or herself to be within a particular group. My experience (or, more accurately, the experience of my sons) is that the race organizers invited specific runners to run among the front group. Otherwise, everybody would try to be near the front to avoid a slow start in a big crowd.
Now generating the White Hot Glare of Righteousness on behalf of BBs everywhere.
- mellytu74
- Posts: 9688
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:02 pm
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Exactly.silvercamaro wrote: There's one other point I didn't mention, but the article mentioned one official who said the faster runner should have "declared herself" as elite. Perhaps that's the standard practice in San Francisco, but I had never before heard of a race where an entrant could "declare" himself or herself to be within a particular group. My experience (or, more accurately, the experience of my sons) is that the race organizers invited specific runners to run among the front group. Otherwise, everybody would try to be near the front to avoid a slow start in a big crowd.
I covered track and field for 15 years and never heard about a runner "declaring."
- littlebeast13
- Dumbass
- Posts: 31585
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: Between the Sterilite and the Farberware
- Contact:
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Sheesh, it was a smack on the electoral college! There are plenty of political comments to grumble over on this Bored, but that isn't one of them.....Estonut wrote:WTF does every single post generate some comment about the election? I might have expected that from unnamed others on this one, but not you, MrK!
lb13
- Moratorium Cat
- Merry Man
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:34 pm
- Location: In the lounge
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
I swearz I had the fastest time in the race to the Lounge.
lalalalalalala....
Not lissinin'.
Not lissinin'.
- silverscreenselect
- Posts: 24611
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
One of the reasons for having an "elite" group is to prevent these runners from getting caught in traffic with, in some cases, thousands of weekend runners, which makes it much more difficult for them to get to the front. Unless the woman who won was at the very front of her group of runners, she would probably have had to battle her way through much more traffic than any of the elites (there usually are 50-100 elites in major races).
And yes, the terrain and weather conditions can make a big difference in marathon times, which is why there are no world, national or Olympic marathon records. Each race stands on its own.
And yes, the terrain and weather conditions can make a big difference in marathon times, which is why there are no world, national or Olympic marathon records. Each race stands on its own.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
- Estonut
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 10495
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
- Location: Garden Grove, CA
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
Update
In short:
Nike gives her same prizes as previously-declared "winner" and gets rid of the "elite" class for this race.
In short:
Nike gives her same prizes as previously-declared "winner" and gets rid of the "elite" class for this race.
- TheCalvinator24
- Posts: 4886
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:50 am
- Location: Wyoming
- Contact:
Re: At Women's Marathon, Fastest Time Didn't Win
I haven't been able to find any Official Rules, but from the FAQ for the event:
Based on this, I think Nike could have had a heck of a lawsuit on their hands if they had not capitulated and done the right thing.WHAT PRIZES WILL BE AWARDED, AND IN WHAT CATEGORIES?
Commemorative memorabilia designed by Tiffany & Co. will be given to the top (3) overall women and men in the Marathon and Half Marathon. Age group awards will be provided and will be given to the top 3 females and top 3 males in each age division. Age group awards will be mailed after the event.
It is our choices that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities. —Albus Dumbledore