Former Bad Ass
I have beef with this race and need vengeance. But since there is no fucking way for me to run a 3:45 right now (if not ever), I will probably try the lottery for 2015 and see whether I can get in.
I am not surprised they went this route. Even Berlin did.
Damaris
My guess is mainly for a chance to BQ on a fairly flat course. Its a world major as well and before now has been fairly easy to get in to plus for world majors it used to fairly inexpensive to get in to.
But a monster race like this is an awful choice if your goal is to run your best race. Too much energy is wasted weaving around people, slowing at aid stations, etc. Moreover, unlike in a smaller race, you don't get a chance to warm up. Instead, you waste more precious energy waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. At some races you can stand around for hours.
There are a lot of flat courses out there and most of them have under 2,000 finishers and that's what you want for a fast race.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
I agree with the PR being more of a sure thing in a smaller race. But Chicago, at least in my wave and corral, was not crowded enough to require me weaving, or even slowing down at water station. But it could happen, yes.
Brad, I calculated quickly (and I could be wrong), that the average top male elites run on average a 2:03 time, while the female elites run a 2:18, so there is a 15 minute difference. This equates to about 12.2%. On a 3:15 finish time, 12.2% is 24 minutes (I rounded up from 23.79). I stink at math, so again, I could be wrong. So I agree that 3:15 men and 3:40 women would be more fair.
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
But a monster race like this is an awful choice if your goal is to run your best race. Too much energy is wasted weaving around people, slowing at aid stations, etc. Moreover, unlike in a smaller race, you don't get a chance to warm up. Instead, you waste more precious energy waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting. At some races you can stand around for hours. There are a lot of flat courses out there and most of them have under 2,000 finishers and that's what you want for a fast race.
I agree with this. Indy Monumental is a great flat, PR course, BQ friendly fall marathon and it's early Nov so much better chance of cool weather.
I suppose if you are someone who likes a lot of crowd support and the big race party feel, Chicago is a good choice. Or for a faster runner it might be better. I pretty much ran the average finishing time when I did it and it was so so crowded. Maybe faster folks have a better experience.
Drink up moho's!!
BAA lists Chicago as 1 of its top feeder races.
BAA Feeder List
Marathonguide.com list Chicago as #3 for 2013 in producing the most BQ times. On this link there is also a list of race that are most likley to run a BQ time as well and no Chicago is not listed since it ranks by percentage and Chicago consistently produces 10% or less of its field for a BQ time but just by sheer volume of runners it still consistently produces more BQ times, sometimes more than the Boston race itself.
Marathonguide.com list
With the exception of 2007 when Chicago got black flagged, Chicago has been 1st, 2nd, or 3rd for producing BQ times since the 2003 data provided on the Marathonguide.com website. Almost consistently the top 3 were Boston, NYC, and Chicago for the last 10 years.
That's pretty much an irrelevant statistic. NYC is most emphatically not a fast course yet it produces a bunch of Boston runners. Why? Mostly, just because there are so many people running it. If even 10% of the people in a mega race run a BQ, that's still way more than the entire field of many marathons. Second, because people with enough disposable income to go to NYC or Chicago to run also have enough disposable income to go to Boston.
I agree with Amy that this will favor the young guys and gals. Even guys in their 40s have a hard time going sub-3:15 (not all of them, of course. But it's not really a common thing here). Amy, you are not far from sub-4:00. I guaranty you that once you break that barrier, 3:45 won't be impossible. It's all about patience and consistent work. For now, I recommend going with a tour partner if you want to stay a few days in the city. I missed the Chicago registration last year and I went with marathontours.com. I bought a hotel and registration package. Even though I paid a bit more for the race registration, I think I got a great price on the hotel room.
I agree with Amy that this will favor the young guys and gals. Even guys in their 40s have a hard time going sub-3:15 (not all of them, of course. But it's not really a common thing here).
Amy, you are not far from sub-4:00. I guaranty you that once you break that barrier, 3:45 won't be impossible. It's all about patience and consistent work. For now, I recommend going with a tour partner if you want to stay a few days in the city. I missed the Chicago registration last year and I went with marathontours.com. I bought a hotel and registration package. Even though I paid a bit more for the race registration, I think I got a great price on the hotel room.
I appreciate the vote of confidence, Julie. Thanks. I fear, though, that it may be out of reach because it would probably take me at least 3 or 4 years to get there and I'm only getting older. I'm not interested in entering via lottery.
I only live 2 hours from the city, so I am there quite often. I love Chicago!
For now I will focus on goals that I think can achieve such as a BQ. I had the pleasure of running Chicago twice, but maybe it's time to look at other, smaller marathons as was recommended above. Suggestions are welcome
I agree with the PR being more of a sure thing in a smaller race. But Chicago, at least in my wave and corral, was not crowded enough to require me weaving, or even slowing down at water station. But it could happen, yes. Brad, I calculated quickly (and I could be wrong), that the average top male elites run on average a 2:03 time, while the female elites run a 2:18, so there is a 15 minute difference. This equates to about 12.2%. On a 3:15 finish time, 12.2% is 24 minutes (I rounded up from 23.79). I stink at math, so again, I could be wrong. So I agree that 3:15 men and 3:40 women would be more fair.
I found Chicago not crowded at all. Try Berlin and you'll see why I say that. I never even had to weave around for people in my corral.
If % of finishers that qualify would be a better statistic, the Erie, PA marathon makes a reasonable claim that their 32% is bested only by Boston itself. Throw out a net downhill race where nearly everyone running is capable of a BQ , and Erie wins. Double loop of an almost unbelievably flat course with no weird tangents to run and no "big race" crowding issues. I highly recommend it.
I don't know in which direction you are 2 hours from Chicago, but you may not be too far from Grand Rapids. They put on a nice race; I don't personally have the data points to make that statement credible, but it gets a lot of good feedback. About 1600 finishers, so not too crowded, but enough people that you don't have so much of the long lonely desolate stretches. Culvers frozen custard at the finish line FTW. (Although sadly I felt too sick to eat any.)
Dave
And that is the relevant statistic. The course sounds about like the Marshall University Marathon; double loop and very flat. Until I did some searching, I didn't know that marathonguide.com had a chart of the percentage of Boston qualifiers. They list the top 30 races.
Boston Qualifiers
I don't know in which direction you are 2 hours from Chicago, but you may not be too far from Grand Rapids. They put on a nice race; I don't personally have the data points to make that statement credible, but it gets a lot of good feedback.
+1
It is a well organized event buoyed by the fact that you can park five minutes from the start line. I passed on the custard and chose the New Holland craft beer instead!
For spring, Carmel Marathon is great. I ran it last year. Easy course, well organized, perfect cool weather as it's in April. The WI Marathon the first weekend of may looks like a great choice too. I haven't run it (yet) but it sounds perfect. For fall, Indy Monumental in Nov is super flat, nice sized, well organized and you are almost guaranteed cool weather. Lakefront Marathon in Milwaukee is also a good choice for fall but you have a chance of warm weather (although they seem to luck out every year).
Ah, a world record time is achieved by your average male elite. I wonder what the top elite male can do. Try checking the times again.
Nah... I'm too lazy to check again. If I remember, I think I took the first 5 top finish times for both men and women and rounded up the difference between genders. That's all.