RunningAHEAD - Topic: Net Time vs. Gun Time (page 2)

xor

posted: 9/23/2008 at 2:14 PM

Quote from Trent on 9/23/2008 at 2:11 PM:

Or the runner totally and completely misunderstood his/her abilities relative to the other people lined up in the front.

Not in the case in question. You're welcome.

JimR

posted: 9/23/2008 at 4:11 PM

Quote from backstretch on 9/23/2008 at 2:01 PM:

I came across an interesting stat. A race in Toronto with over 5,000 entrants, a competitor had a gun time the exact same as their chip time. The sad part was that out of more than 5,000 finishers that runner finished 3rd LAST.

Probably missed the mat at the start. The folks near the outsides of the start area sometimes don't get scanned if the mats don't run the whole way across. Last time I ran the SL 10k, someone up front accidently kicked a cable on the left side and knocked the mats out. Everyone from that point who crossed the left side had matching gun/chip times, while everyone who crossed the right side had proper times.

thomasruns

Insert witty title here

posted: 9/23/2008 at 8:49 PM

Quote from Viich on 9/23/2008 at 10:08 AM:

It's a difference of the organizers. Personally, I'm all with the gun time. If I'm running with someone the whole race, and I don't know that they started further back, I beat them by a second, but they finish ahead of me? Gun time is the way to go for placing, chip time tells you what you actually ran.

Not trying to be rude but that really makes zero sense to me. When the technology is available, why would you ever want to give someone something they didn't earn and punish the one who did earn it? Even worse if it was a matter of a cash prize, why would someone who truly ran the race slower deserve the prize just because they weaseled their way closer to the start line?

ThomasRuns Blog
Twitter

"The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do." - [Walter Bagehot]

MrFinn

Prince of Fatness

posted: 9/23/2008 at 9:34 PM

Quote from thomasruns on 9/23/2008 at 8:49 PM:

Not trying to be rude but that really makes zero sense to me. When the technology is available, why would you ever want to give someone something they didn't earn and punish the one who did earn it? Even worse if it was a matter of a cash prize, why would someone who truly ran the race slower deserve the prize just because they weaseled their way closer to the start line?

I hear what you're saying but I think that using chip time for prizes takes the racing element out of the whole thing. Anyone that has a chance for a cash prize would be at or near the front anyway. I just think that beating someone, on the course, while racing, is much more gratifying.

Not at it at all.

xor

posted: 9/23/2008 at 11:05 PM

Not to mention the whole idea that if top results went by chip time, the whole idea of 'breaking tape' would have to be shelved AND there wouldn't be final award placement until the course closed... usually 3-5 hours after the top marathoners have finished. The whole chip vs gun is a little wonky, but not THAT much. As noted before, those who are racing to win should line up in front. If you do this, you don't care about that chip... you care about putting the other people behind you. Saying that the guy who won "weaseled" his way to the front is just a wee bit over-the-top. If, however, you want to BQ or PR or EIEIO, then chip time is a great thing to have. And Boston allows it for qualifying so that's cool.

Berner

posted: 9/24/2008 at 12:40 AM
modified: 9/24/2008 at 12:48 AM

Quote from thomasruns on 9/23/2008 at 8:49 PM:

why would you ever want to give someone something they didn't earn and punish the one who did earn it?

Winning the race = completing the course in the shortest time. Winning the race = first to cross the finish line. Both are equally valid definitions, as far as I'm concerned. As long as the award rules are announced in advance (which they always are) then everyone is on a level playing field. I don't see that there's a problem either way -- other than the logistical problems srlopez describes, which is why I'm fine with the way most races do it.

How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.

JimR

posted: 9/24/2008 at 9:59 AM

Quote from xor on 9/23/2008 at 11:05 PM:

Saying that the guy who won "weaseled" his way to the front is just a wee bit over-the-top.

hee....yeah. If he started at the front and won the thing, I think that constitutes earning it. It's unlikely the top runners would start so far back they couldn't make up the time on a mid packer. On a related note, this was the result I recall from a few years back at one of the SL 10k races here. The guy who finished third (Joseph Nsengiyumva) had arrived late at the race and was trying to make his way to the front line, but the race started when he was still a couple of hundred runners back. So he had to push his way through the crowd for about 3k before he got back to the front runners. Hard to say if starting in the pack affected his result.

Doug B

posted: 9/24/2008 at 10:27 AM

I think top 1-2-3 overall men and women should be gun. Age groups should be chip. You don't really want Clydedales and 60+ people trying to jam to the start line just to get a big advantage over the others in their class who are hopelessly fighting through walkers at the start.

Craig S

Menace to Sobriety

posted: 9/24/2008 at 11:18 AM

Quote from backstretch on 9/23/2008 at 2:01 PM:

I came across an interesting stat. A race in Toronto with over 5,000 entrants, a competitor had a gun time the exact same as their chip time. The sad part was that out of more than 5,000 finishers that runner finished 3rd LAST.

Another possibility is a good runner with high expectations had something go horribly wrong during the race, cramps, GI issues, stress fracture, etc, but resolved to finish the race no matter what.

Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.

Berner

posted: 9/24/2008 at 11:20 AM

Quote from Doug B on 9/24/2008 at 10:27 AM:

I think top 1-2-3 overall men and women should be gun. Age groups should be chip. You don't really want Clydedales and 60+ people trying to jam to the start line just to get a big advantage over the others in their class who are hopelessly fighting through walkers at the start.

I agree -- this seems to be the best overall compromise. It preserves the potential for strategic running for the front-of-the-pack runners, while addressing the realities of congestion and fairness in a time when races have become so popular and fields are large.

How To Run a Marathon: Step 1 - start running. There is no Step 2.

Scout7

posted: 9/24/2008 at 11:38 AM

Run smaller races.

jpnairn

straw man

posted: 9/24/2008 at 6:31 PM

In big races, those who have qualified as "elites" will start in the front. There may or may not be corrals after that ranked according to whatever method the organizers choose. In smaller races, at least the first three places should be determined by gun time. You don't want the first place runner to finish 12th. I've gotten an age group award beating others who had finished minutes ahead of me, so I'm all for chip time on age groupers.

He who has the best time wins. Jerry

Net Time vs. Gun Time (Read 2053 times)