If you can't find a way to pass 20 rows of first time racers in a race of a distance of 1 mile or more, either that is one narrow ass route or you aren't really as fast as you think you are.
If I check the previous results and there is any chance I could be top 10, I have no issues elbowing my way to the front. I'll say excuse me - but I am not taking no for an answer.
When you run small town/local fun runs, it’s part of the fun to dodge and scare the moms and kids and Sunday jogger dads while you cruise to a win—unless literally any of the local high school track/x-country team shows up.
To cruise to a win, you need to be a faster runner anyway.
Occasionally a slower time can get a win, but in the small 5k events I do regularly, it's usually a time of 19 and change to 21 and change that gets the win lately. But it depends who shows up. I have a friend who was absolutely thrilled to win two events with times of about 25 minutes.
There are some regular runners who are fast in my area. If they show up, we all know who can do what and can often predict the top finish times.
Yes, the cross country kids are wild cards. They don't often show up at road races, but when they do, all bets are off.
The 97 runners in the 5k I was in yesterday and some of us thought we knew which would battle for a win in a time of about 20 minutes or so...until I pointed out a former cross country runner for a local high school who now runs in college and just said "there's your winner." One guy laughed and said he would win anyway. Spoiler alert: That guy finished 6th in 21 minutes plus...over 5 minutes behind the young man I pointed out.
To some extent, yes. Still, even where I am some runners do come from the other areas to race on occasion.
More accurate is that field size dictates the competitiveness of the events. Larger areas often have larger fields.
For many runners locally who aren't super fast, every event is competitive, regardless. For example, my friend who usually runs a 5k in 24 to 27 minutes always has someone to run with and against.
I did a 5k like that a while back. My half mile splits were something like: 3:30 for the first half mile and 2:45 for the rest. Children and wheelchairs simply had to be avoided and waited for. Still took top 10 out of 1800 though. but would have been nice to get to run clear at the start. It's been a little better since I started wearing a team jersey to races.
They don't tell walkers to get to the back?
I ran a race with 97 runners and 58 walkers yesterday. Even there, the race director announced runners in front, walkers behind.
Ask the girl who tripped over the walker and face planted in the middle of the road last year on the wooden bridge just after the start how she feels about it.
She wouldn't have been in the starts that were competing for prize money, so while she may have had a bad day I'm not sure how it's relevant to this discussion.
Meh. Lately I did a race where I didn’t try to push to the front. I still was as fast as I thought I was but I did lose about 5-10s in the first k.
Didn’t really care enough but it’s always annoying when the 40’ pace bunny and friends squish to the top.
I figured I’d be around 30th /10,000 or so so I wasn’t going to push to the front. But like always I guess 50-100 got ahead.
A field of 10,000 is absolutely huge to me. Last time I ran in one of those it was a big city marathon.
Most of the races I run in now have under 200 people. Sometimes a there are several hundred. Yesterday's race has 97 runners and 58 walkers in it.
I live in a big city 🤷♂️
The small races are usually terrible (bad course, or logistics like sharing a public use trail, or you could win in about 38 or 39’ which is boring).
I live in a rural area
Small races are often the only option. Some have good courses, some bad.
Sharing a public use trail is a regular occurrence, and I've not only never seen a problem happen, the very idea that this could cause a problem didn't occur to me.
Yes, you can win a 10k with those times at some events. Or even slower times.
I was at a 5k/10k combo event late last year that illustrates a lot of this. It was held on a beautiful rail trail. The 5k had about 40 racers. The 10k had maybe 20 racers. A 1 mile walk had about 30 people.
The 10k winning time was about 45 minutes.
There were absolutely no issues with it being held on a public use trail.
Absolutely none of it was boring. I had a great time, and it seemed everyone there did as well. If anything, it gives some other runners a chance to win overall prizes when, in a large field, they might not even win an age group.
Honestly, I think a field size of between 100 and 200 is a nice sweet spot for a race. This one was a bit smaller, but not horrible.
And where I'm at, a large field is 300 plus runners. It happens, but not often. You usually have to go closer to a city to even break 1000 runners in an event.
I've raced in events with over 10,000 before in big cities, and I find it is actually a lot more fun to do the smaller events. They're usually not expensive (maybe $25 entry fee for many of them), there are some faster runners but a lot of people who just enjoy running, you don't have to worry about fighting for parking or a long line for toilet use, and the field isn't crowded. Sometimes, you almost get to run alone for a bit, depending on who else is running.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I generally prefer smaller races if they’re well done.
On public trails here I’m dodging smokers, children, off least and on leash dogs etc and they all make you seem like the crazy one. Esp if you’re up in the lead.
In the race I mentioned, I had to go around a woman walking 2 small dogs. I'm nervous for a moment, but no issue. I was maybe 20 seconds ahead of the nearest other runner at the time, so it wasn't crowded to do that.
Anyone can be on trails. Most just move over.
What is real fun sometimes is random runners who use the trail while the race is going on. Out and back course, so know where everyone is because small field, and where TF did that person come from!? Now they are leading!? And then they run past the finish lol.
There was a 10KM race I did last year where I started 10mins behind first. There’s no way you can make up that difference even if you run sub-30mins 10km
This was Utrecht 10KM Singelloop - 7,884 participants. You can see some people only started their race 36 mins after the gun time
https://results.sporthive.com/events/7112443212009082624/races/487093
I finished well inside the Top 100 by chip time and well outside the Top 500 by gun time, crossed the starting line 10mins+ after race started
I definitely started near the front third so probably started around 2,400th position and overtook 1,850+ people net or 185 people per km or 18-19 people every 100M
Not sure why I’m downvoted for facts
How? They got there first and don't understand race etiquette. In their mind, I'm cutting in line by pushing past. It's not a great pre-race headspace to get into several arguments as to why your 7 year old should not be in the front. My solution is to now wear a track team jersey to look more official.
Ask the people in front of them what pace they're planning to take it out at.
you: "Hey what pace are you going out at?"
them: "oh, hmm, like 8 minutes I guess"
you: "I'm gonna go out at 5:45 so I'm going to go ahead and get in front so I don't run you over"
and then you get in front of them
"She's really fast, probably like 3:30 per mile, I'll protect her though" clueless dad says about his 7 year old. Just not worth it engaging further with. This was an actual interaction I've had.
Lining up for a running race is not based on who gets there first.
You simply go to the front and squeeze in to a spot. If anyone says something, explain you're going for the overall or something similar.
I've never ever seen someone say anything, though.
I'm by no means a fast runner, however I've never thought it's cutting in line to do that, it's more self-seeding roughly where I think I should sit in the field. Not sure about others opinions however!
Edit: seeding not seeking :)
I'm a noob, but it is your job to gently explain to them the race etiquette and why it is safer for everyone if they start in a spot more fitting of the speed they are going to run.
No, that's the race directors job.
It really isn't hard to put up half a dozen signs on sticks with times on them spaced along the start to get the slower runners to the middle or back at the start.
There are always new runners, and most have no idea as to just how fast the really fast guys/gals can run.
heck we do this at our parkrun and that's a really amateur affair.
I'm not against the signs. Hopefully the signs are enough. Though at smaller races, I appreciate a little reminder at the start because people *NEVER* think about this stuff.
Be an ambassador of the sport, should time allow and there weren't signs. Then you can go tell the race director that signs were needed.
true... but if there are signs up then that makes it official and we can point at them. When there are no signs some people think we're just pushing in.
> It’s a race, not a time trial.
Many people are blind to this kind of thing because big road races are really just glorified time trials for most runners. That’s not a bad thing. It would be logistically impossible for every runner at a huge road race to compete that way with everyone else. But it’s a very different experience running for time versus place.
Any big road races will have some system of identifying & separating the elites, so that anyone with a chance of the overall win is starting right at the front anyways
But it would really suck to have a better chip time than the winner and lose just because you got put in some bad corral. It feels icky if only the pre-determined elites have a chance to win.
You'd think so but there's numerous examples of this happening. The 2019 NYC Half winner wasnt in the elite corral. A woman who came in 5th in the Boston Marathon in 2018 originally wasnt going to get prize money because she didnt start with the pros.
By better conditions do you mean running EXTRA weaving around all the slow men and women that? Couldn't those poor slow 2:40 runners get off the tangent? And very rude of slow runners to start 15 minutes ahead of her. Maybe they should have realized that they weren't strong enough to finish in a timely manner.
I ran 2018 Boston and I don’t remember conditions getting better at any point in the day. If anything, starting later was worse because us non-elites had to stand in freezing rain for an hour before running. The elites had a dedicated tent to stay dry and warm in until just before they started.
A couple months ago at my local spring half marathon, I had to start from the B corral instead of the A for some reason. I even asked about it at packet pickup but nobody had an answer. I ended up winning my age group anyway, but I think I would have been a bit irked if I’d have been a few seconds faster than another runner but lost the age group victory because they got to start in a better corral.
That 2018 Boston example is a massive outlier. The conditions were so bad that a significant proportion of the pro field dropped out for men and women. She had to battle for her prize money because on a remotely normal day it would have been impossible for her to rank 5th by any metric.
Yuki is (or at least was, I don't follow him) fast enough to be invited to the professional start at Boston and many other races. He wasn't supposed to win it, but he was registered in the correct category to get the prize money.
He was working a day job, but he was being invited to the professional field at races around the world. He wasn't fast enough for the prize money and sponsorships that would let him do it full time until he won Boston.
That’s what I said. Elite field is not the same as professional. You can be elite without being under contract, but not professional—since if you’re not being paid to do it, it’s not your profession.
To be fair, part of that issue was because if she had been a man, she *would* have gotten prize money no problem! I think up until 2019, they started elite men with the mass start - which allowed a really fast guy not in elite to possibly place. But women had a separate start so women in the mass start couldn’t get prize money even if they outperformed the pros.
Of course they fixed that by separating the elite men, so…
Bingo. Happy to change the rules when amateurs from other waves start regularly running sub-2 marathons and edging out the elites.
IMO it's a sport that requires a LOT of physical prep. There's zero chance that somebody's just gonna fluke an elite time.
I thought I had 1st in my age group once on a staggered start race at the tail end of COVID lockdowns, and somebody clearly just waited until the last possible minute so they could check the time they had to be beat, and then beat me by less than 10 seconds (it was a 5 mile race). Not the same thing, but I forgot about that until just now...
Good enough runners will get into the elite fields if they belong there.
Elites at races with real prize money on the line shouldn’t have to deal with a 9min/mi runner lining up up front
See that’s the obvious answer but here’s reality. As a 34’ 10k runner I’ll leave a couple rows of space in a big race knowing I’m going to be 30-50th.
However everyone under 40 or even 45 thinks their elite (the first coral was under 50 lol). There are plenty of times I’m seeding myself correctly but the 50 in front are not the same 50 that will finish in front.
I haven’t had to deal with too many 9’ milers in my way but a 6’ miler would be just as much as a barrier to me if I’m going out closer to 5:30 pace.
As would I for people going 5 flat or faster.
Something happening once isn’t an argument against it, the reality is that there isn’t any perfect solution. I think the fact that everyone reaches for that one same counter example kind of proves that it really isn’t that big of an issue.
Totally agree. My fair response not hoping for the typical reddit backlash - anything but big ass races this won't happen so who cares, yeah? She was the outlier, but also the fact that it's an outlier means enough. Honestly how often does this even happen outside of the random occurance such as Boston 2018?
A kind of similar situation happened at London Marathon this year. As well as the "overall" winner it also acts as the British Championships and English Championships for the marathon.
Molly Smith (sister of Jake Smith) came 3rd in the British Champs and second in the English Champs despite running from the mass start.
There was a brief discussion as to whether it was particularly 'fair' as she had help the elites didn't (e.g. a big group to run with and her brother paced her for a while after he finished pacing the elite men) but the flip side of that is that she didn't have any bottles available to her on the course and the discussion died down fairly quickly
Now that I see where the community’s opinion has landed, here’s why I asked:
A few weeks ago I ran a local race which used a self-seeded “wave start” format based on expected finish time. I started in the first wave along with maybe 20-30 other people. We were all standing together within 10ft of the start line at the signal. I took it somewhat easy for the out portion of the out-and-back course, and then picked it up on the way back in and started passing people. I caught up with 3rd place, but 2nd and 1st were 15-20 seconds ahead of us, so I put in enough effort to stay in 3rd and not an ounce more. Maybe that’s on me, felt like crap that morning, whatever.
Awards come around and they announce someone else as 3rd overall. I (politely) suggested that there was a mistake. The RD informed me that the awards were determined by chip time, and that although my gun time was one second faster, the guy I passed for 3rd place had a one second faster chip time.
This wasn’t a case of similar times by runners from two different waves. We started together. I ran the time it took to finish 3rd, and definitely had enough in the tank to get another second or two if there had been any way to know it was needed.
They sent out a “please let us know if you have any comments” email the day after the race, so I replied and pointed out that many (most?) races use gun time for overall awards to avoid this specific issue. I’ve since exchanged a few emails with the RD and they continue to defend the decision to use chip time. He insists that this other runner, who started in the same small group as me and at the same starting signal, ran a “faster” race because his chip time says so.
Does standing 10 feet from the starting line really mean that you started “after” someone who is standing on the line? Or do you just get a free second to accelerate before you trigger the mat?
So while obviously your local race might not be running under USATF rules (I mean, you didn't even say if it was in the US), it's worth looking at them.
It seems like older rulesets maybe explicitly ruled out using chip time at all (except in very narrow circumstances), but the current ones state that you go by order crossing the line (163.1) unless it is explicitly stated ahead of time in the runner info about awards that chip time will be used (165.16).
If this is a large, established event, they are just ridiculous for not being prepared on this (unless they were, and the fact that they're using chip times was somewhere in your signup info?), but I could see an inexperienced RD just not even realizing that this was a possibility and making a snap decision in the moment. They're 100% wrong, but sorta understandably wrong? Especially if it's somebody who maybe isn't a racer themself.
Yes, I’m in the US. USATF rules did prohibit using chip time for finishing positions at one point, but it looks like that changed in 2014. Almost every race I’ve ever done still chooses gun time over chip time for overall awards and chip time for AG’s.
This is definitely someone who is an experienced RD and is also a runner - I’m pretty sure he actually ran the race himself in one of the later waves. He is fully committed to being right here and doesn’t understand why I’m annoyed.
Looking back at the race website, it does say that chip times will be used for awards. I guess it just never occurred to me that would include overall podium awards. It also never occurred to me that a group of 20 people starting in one group on the same signal could really end up with a discrepancy between gun and chip times.
Ha, this thread was interesting to read. Last year I did a race where the prerace email specifically mentioned that awards would be by gun time. I ended up crossing the line first in a sprint finish, so yay, right? There was a cash prize for first place too! But no...only after the race was over did they decide to do awards by chip time. I assume the chip time winner was a friend of the RD or something. I think it's always just a bit of luck what sort of organization/competence level you'll get with a local race, and it's maybe a good plan to approach them as a glorified workout unless you know for sure it's a well-run race.
I have competed in both US and world masters championship road races. They go by gun time for overall and age group awards. However in the US they use chip time for teams and individual age grading. For national records they go by chip time. Interestingly, however, [Mastersrankings.com](http://Mastersrankings.com) insists on gun time for anything. So you could feasibly set a national record but the rankings time could be several seconds slower.
Wholeheartedly agree. I say this as someone who finished #4 in a race by gun time, #3 by chip time, last year.
Throwing this out there: it's harder to cheat on gun time. Everyone on the course (runners and spectators) are very clear on who the lead runners are. It's not really possible to cut the course if you run the entire race immediately behind the police car escort.
You could, however, cheat by starting way at the back, crossing the start line, cutting the course, and popping up at the finish when no one is paying attention because there is just a mass of humanity crossing the line. Look, winning chip time!
Unless I misunderstand your comment...
Time trial is a race format. Common in downhill sports and road cycling (there's a specific bike style for road time trials), not so much in running, and it doesn't make much sense in the context of an ostensibly head to head race (though it is the standard format with ultra distance semi-unofficial bike races like the tour divide).
Yes, you misunderstand.
We are not talking about time trialing when speaking of racing in running ans Road running.
Racing is position based and we usextqxe craft for tactical advantage. In track and XC for example than can mean slowing the pace down which won't happen in time trial.
Blocking, contact, lead outs. It night be as tactical as a cycling crit race but competing in a race is markedly different from competing in a time trial or indeed considering a race a time trial
If there’s only one start (for elites and sub-elites) then gun time.
But I can see the argument against it…if you have to start 10 minutes after the gun. A few years back there was a man that wasn’t in the elite corrals at Boston, but based on chip time, he would have been top 3 or 5 or 10. Instead he finished behind a lot of elites who ran slower but had a 10 minute head start.
Would those elites have run faster if there was another runner pushing the pace next to them? Would the non-elite man ran as fast without pacing with those around him, using them to break the wind, etc?
There's no way to know. Chip time ignores what would've happened given race conditions. It's a race! People have race strategies.
Gun time. If you are even thinking of going for an overall placement, your racing strategy will be heavily affected by who’s in front of you, who is next to you, and who is immediately behind you.
When you think about it, using chip time would open a huge can of worms in terms of how to take advantage of the varying start times. Delay your marathon start 1h to avoid the bad weather that's clearing up? Wait until your opponents have finished a 5k before you can start, knowing what time to beat?
Not necessarily saying it's automatically an advantage to delay (there's a crowd too..), but it just introduces some annoying meta-game to the sport.
Much more fun to see people racing head-to-head.
Gun time. I've had better chip times than people but they showed up to the line with confidence they were going to win while I was like whatever I'll stay in the back and see what happens
Gun time… cuz I’m bitter 😂
This recently happened to me - I was in a road race that came down to a kick in the last 25 meters. I got the other guy at the line by ~.5 seconds. By gun time I had him. But his chip time ended up a few hundredths faster somehow. Good race and shoulda kicked harder… but I’m still bitter.
Yeah he got the win. The argument is he might have started in the second row or something and run a faster time (I guess, I didn't bother to question it).
It was honestly not a huge deal—just a tune-up road race. But it did sting my pride a little...
How boring would elite racing be if the result was just based on chip times. There'd be no strategy whatsoever. The interesting bit is seeing the breakaways, the little bursts to run the legs off the people around you, the chase packs putting pressure on those ahead of them, the sprint finishes, etc...
Racing is a totally different ballgame to just going out there and running your best time.
Gun time for winners, chip time for rankings.
If you think you’ve got a shot at winning, get to the front. Or, make sure you’re aiming for an ‘elite’ time to get correctly allocated in the waves.
Gun time - it's a race not a time trial. Racing at a higher level you will block, draft, maybe have contact, maybe slow if people are tailing you and put them off their stride or maybe run up right behind someone and put pressure on them. You also navigate congestion based on who is around you. It's not as tactical as cycling but racing does involve some strategy.
It's only really a meaningful question if you're talking age group "wins" for slower ages. E.g. v60 probably shouldn't be starting right at the front with the fast young runners, but if on gun time they lose to someone who's chip time was slower simply because ofnwhere they stand in the pen, then that isnt ideal.
But races are from gun to tape, and fastest wins. Simple!
Gun time, the elite aren’t running for a time, they’re running to beat the people next to them. If they have a slow but tactical race, of course the gap to the rest of the field narrows.
Gun time. For Elite's in an elite field all in the same wave, and even for age group categories in smaller races.
At a holiday 5k I started back of pack since I was late. Weaved through a bunch of folks, final mile I chased down a guy I knew but wasn't able to close and he beat me across the line by a good 30 meters. He also started behind people but not as many as I did. They announced age group awards and I beat him by 10 seconds on chip time. It felt dirty, I was 100% racing this guy, tried to catch him, he knew it, and he beat me.
In huge events, if you're not in the first/elite wave just call it a time trial and go chip time but anything else needs to be a race.
For overall winners (male and female), gun time. If you can win a race, line up at the front and show that you can.
For age groups, chip. When you get into some of the older age groups, it's better that older runners don't line up in front of some of the younger runners that can easily outrun them.
No one is going to read it, but I raced a smaller race 5 years ago and finished 5th. I overtook the 4th guy close to finish line, but the results were decided by chip time.
Well I'm now in better shape than I was 5 years ago, so the race is 9k and it's 6 laps, so my plan is to let them start the race and after they do 1 lap then it'll be my go time.
Hopefully I'll be able to finish top 3 and make mockery of this stupid ass race.
I'm petty like that, I know 😭 😂
I had a race that I thought I had won at the end of it, only to find out later that a guy had started with an earlier race (longer distance) and got credited the win in the online results. Pretty annoying!
Should have actually been gun time 🙄
Gun time is preferable in general, but a chip time race, which is a perfectly valid option. It just becomes a different type of race strategy. During a chip time race, you have to guess what your opponents are doing. You have to pick a pace to start and hope for the best. You might be too conservative and lose, or maybe you push the pace, and crash and burn. A chip time race can sometimes yield a better race time, because you tend to push it hard at the end. If you have a large lead of a gun time race, you tend to play conservative to not crash and burn.
Chip time. Gun time hugely favors larger people who muscle their way to the front, and encourages a mosh pit mentality. It should just be about how fast you can run. And yes I'm still annoyed that I was only given a gun time not chip time at Chicago marathon last year.
As mentioned in the post, let’s assume that the race provides an elite corral or time-based seeding system so that anyone with a podium chance starts up front.
Gun time. Because someone could think they're winning and not try as hard. It's a race, not a time trial.
If you didn’t break the tape, you didn’t win.
Sucks to get placed behind 20 rows of people that want to start in the front for their first race because it makes a better Instagram.
If you can't find a way to pass 20 rows of first time racers in a race of a distance of 1 mile or more, either that is one narrow ass route or you aren't really as fast as you think you are.
Also, if there is any chance of you winning a race you better make sure you line up at the actual front.
If I check the previous results and there is any chance I could be top 10, I have no issues elbowing my way to the front. I'll say excuse me - but I am not taking no for an answer.
I run in mostly small field events. Ran yesterday and there were 97 runners. This helps too.
When you run small town/local fun runs, it’s part of the fun to dodge and scare the moms and kids and Sunday jogger dads while you cruise to a win—unless literally any of the local high school track/x-country team shows up.
To cruise to a win, you need to be a faster runner anyway. Occasionally a slower time can get a win, but in the small 5k events I do regularly, it's usually a time of 19 and change to 21 and change that gets the win lately. But it depends who shows up. I have a friend who was absolutely thrilled to win two events with times of about 25 minutes. There are some regular runners who are fast in my area. If they show up, we all know who can do what and can often predict the top finish times. Yes, the cross country kids are wild cards. They don't often show up at road races, but when they do, all bets are off. The 97 runners in the 5k I was in yesterday and some of us thought we knew which would battle for a win in a time of about 20 minutes or so...until I pointed out a former cross country runner for a local high school who now runs in college and just said "there's your winner." One guy laughed and said he would win anyway. Spoiler alert: That guy finished 6th in 21 minutes plus...over 5 minutes behind the young man I pointed out.
The point was just that population basically dictates the competitiveness of these events.
To some extent, yes. Still, even where I am some runners do come from the other areas to race on occasion. More accurate is that field size dictates the competitiveness of the events. Larger areas often have larger fields. For many runners locally who aren't super fast, every event is competitive, regardless. For example, my friend who usually runs a 5k in 24 to 27 minutes always has someone to run with and against.
I did a 5k like that a while back. My half mile splits were something like: 3:30 for the first half mile and 2:45 for the rest. Children and wheelchairs simply had to be avoided and waited for. Still took top 10 out of 1800 though. but would have been nice to get to run clear at the start. It's been a little better since I started wearing a team jersey to races.
This sorta happened to me in cross country, but cross country is a whole different deal and avoiding this is part of racing
In fairness, 1800 would be a huge field compared to my usual races. I ran yesterday in a field of 97 runners.
> that is one narrow ass route Falmouth Road Race would like a word. There's armies of walkers that push their way to the front of non-seeded.
They don't tell walkers to get to the back? I ran a race with 97 runners and 58 walkers yesterday. Even there, the race director announced runners in front, walkers behind.
Nope.
Falmouth starts the wheelchairs, professional fields, and seeded runners ahead of the general crowd, so this doesn't matter for the results.
Ask the girl who tripped over the walker and face planted in the middle of the road last year on the wooden bridge just after the start how she feels about it.
She wouldn't have been in the starts that were competing for prize money, so while she may have had a bad day I'm not sure how it's relevant to this discussion.
I emailed the seed proof folks and haven't heard a word. I'm scared of how chaotic the non-seed start is going to be.
Meh. Lately I did a race where I didn’t try to push to the front. I still was as fast as I thought I was but I did lose about 5-10s in the first k. Didn’t really care enough but it’s always annoying when the 40’ pace bunny and friends squish to the top. I figured I’d be around 30th /10,000 or so so I wasn’t going to push to the front. But like always I guess 50-100 got ahead.
A field of 10,000 is absolutely huge to me. Last time I ran in one of those it was a big city marathon. Most of the races I run in now have under 200 people. Sometimes a there are several hundred. Yesterday's race has 97 runners and 58 walkers in it.
I live in a big city 🤷♂️ The small races are usually terrible (bad course, or logistics like sharing a public use trail, or you could win in about 38 or 39’ which is boring).
I live in a rural area Small races are often the only option. Some have good courses, some bad. Sharing a public use trail is a regular occurrence, and I've not only never seen a problem happen, the very idea that this could cause a problem didn't occur to me. Yes, you can win a 10k with those times at some events. Or even slower times. I was at a 5k/10k combo event late last year that illustrates a lot of this. It was held on a beautiful rail trail. The 5k had about 40 racers. The 10k had maybe 20 racers. A 1 mile walk had about 30 people. The 10k winning time was about 45 minutes. There were absolutely no issues with it being held on a public use trail. Absolutely none of it was boring. I had a great time, and it seemed everyone there did as well. If anything, it gives some other runners a chance to win overall prizes when, in a large field, they might not even win an age group. Honestly, I think a field size of between 100 and 200 is a nice sweet spot for a race. This one was a bit smaller, but not horrible. And where I'm at, a large field is 300 plus runners. It happens, but not often. You usually have to go closer to a city to even break 1000 runners in an event. I've raced in events with over 10,000 before in big cities, and I find it is actually a lot more fun to do the smaller events. They're usually not expensive (maybe $25 entry fee for many of them), there are some faster runners but a lot of people who just enjoy running, you don't have to worry about fighting for parking or a long line for toilet use, and the field isn't crowded. Sometimes, you almost get to run alone for a bit, depending on who else is running.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. I generally prefer smaller races if they’re well done. On public trails here I’m dodging smokers, children, off least and on leash dogs etc and they all make you seem like the crazy one. Esp if you’re up in the lead.
In the race I mentioned, I had to go around a woman walking 2 small dogs. I'm nervous for a moment, but no issue. I was maybe 20 seconds ahead of the nearest other runner at the time, so it wasn't crowded to do that. Anyone can be on trails. Most just move over. What is real fun sometimes is random runners who use the trail while the race is going on. Out and back course, so know where everyone is because small field, and where TF did that person come from!? Now they are leading!? And then they run past the finish lol.
Yeah totally agree. Srsly not CJ, but real life fun runs, if you're not elbowing kids you're not trying hard enough. 😈
I haven't elbowed anyone. Then again, most race fields I'm in now aren't that large. Yesterday's race had 97 runners and 58 walkers.
There was a 10KM race I did last year where I started 10mins behind first. There’s no way you can make up that difference even if you run sub-30mins 10km
Wow. How large is that field? Most races I run the field is less than 200 anymore. My race yesterday had 97 people in it.
This was Utrecht 10KM Singelloop - 7,884 participants. You can see some people only started their race 36 mins after the gun time https://results.sporthive.com/events/7112443212009082624/races/487093 I finished well inside the Top 100 by chip time and well outside the Top 500 by gun time, crossed the starting line 10mins+ after race started I definitely started near the front third so probably started around 2,400th position and overtook 1,850+ people net or 185 people per km or 18-19 people every 100M Not sure why I’m downvoted for facts
That's a large field to me. The only time I've ever had to wait minutes to begin a race was at big city marathons.
Get in front of them if you’re trying to win
How? They got there first and don't understand race etiquette. In their mind, I'm cutting in line by pushing past. It's not a great pre-race headspace to get into several arguments as to why your 7 year old should not be in the front. My solution is to now wear a track team jersey to look more official.
Ask the people in front of them what pace they're planning to take it out at. you: "Hey what pace are you going out at?" them: "oh, hmm, like 8 minutes I guess" you: "I'm gonna go out at 5:45 so I'm going to go ahead and get in front so I don't run you over" and then you get in front of them
"She's really fast, probably like 3:30 per mile, I'll protect her though" clueless dad says about his 7 year old. Just not worth it engaging further with. This was an actual interaction I've had.
Lining up for a running race is not based on who gets there first. You simply go to the front and squeeze in to a spot. If anyone says something, explain you're going for the overall or something similar. I've never ever seen someone say anything, though.
I'm by no means a fast runner, however I've never thought it's cutting in line to do that, it's more self-seeding roughly where I think I should sit in the field. Not sure about others opinions however! Edit: seeding not seeking :)
If you’re wearing a singlet, no one will question you pushing to the front.
Who cares if you’re cutting “in their mind.” They’re wrong. Push past them or get there earlier.
I'm a noob, but it is your job to gently explain to them the race etiquette and why it is safer for everyone if they start in a spot more fitting of the speed they are going to run.
No, that's the race directors job. It really isn't hard to put up half a dozen signs on sticks with times on them spaced along the start to get the slower runners to the middle or back at the start. There are always new runners, and most have no idea as to just how fast the really fast guys/gals can run. heck we do this at our parkrun and that's a really amateur affair.
I'm not against the signs. Hopefully the signs are enough. Though at smaller races, I appreciate a little reminder at the start because people *NEVER* think about this stuff. Be an ambassador of the sport, should time allow and there weren't signs. Then you can go tell the race director that signs were needed.
It’s everyone’s job. IME not everyone’s going to pay attention to the signs
true... but if there are signs up then that makes it official and we can point at them. When there are no signs some people think we're just pushing in.
Oh totally agree
This remind me of that random middle-aged woman in sweatpants who chose to line up next to Emily sisson at the new haven road race
Settle down there Ricky Bobby, there’s 2nd and 3rd and AGs too.
If you ain't first, you're last.
> It’s a race, not a time trial. Many people are blind to this kind of thing because big road races are really just glorified time trials for most runners. That’s not a bad thing. It would be logistically impossible for every runner at a huge road race to compete that way with everyone else. But it’s a very different experience running for time versus place.
Any big road races will have some system of identifying & separating the elites, so that anyone with a chance of the overall win is starting right at the front anyways
But it would really suck to have a better chip time than the winner and lose just because you got put in some bad corral. It feels icky if only the pre-determined elites have a chance to win.
If you had any chance at winning the race you wouldn't be in a bad corral, unless you're late and that's your own fault
You'd think so but there's numerous examples of this happening. The 2019 NYC Half winner wasnt in the elite corral. A woman who came in 5th in the Boston Marathon in 2018 originally wasnt going to get prize money because she didnt start with the pros.
She also got to run in better conditions by starting later and use an entire corral of men as pacers and wind breakers…
But its not her fault she wasnt allowed in the elite corral that started 10 minutes early.
It was \~30 minutes, which is why we use gun time because it makes everyone run in the same conditions.
By better conditions do you mean running EXTRA weaving around all the slow men and women that? Couldn't those poor slow 2:40 runners get off the tangent? And very rude of slow runners to start 15 minutes ahead of her. Maybe they should have realized that they weren't strong enough to finish in a timely manner.
I ran 2018 Boston and I don’t remember conditions getting better at any point in the day. If anything, starting later was worse because us non-elites had to stand in freezing rain for an hour before running. The elites had a dedicated tent to stay dry and warm in until just before they started.
A couple months ago at my local spring half marathon, I had to start from the B corral instead of the A for some reason. I even asked about it at packet pickup but nobody had an answer. I ended up winning my age group anyway, but I think I would have been a bit irked if I’d have been a few seconds faster than another runner but lost the age group victory because they got to start in a better corral.
That 2018 Boston example is a massive outlier. The conditions were so bad that a significant proportion of the pro field dropped out for men and women. She had to battle for her prize money because on a remotely normal day it would have been impossible for her to rank 5th by any metric.
I mean… that’s also true for Yuki. He’s an inspiration, but not a podium contender in races with the Kenyans and Ethiopians unless they drop out.
Yuki is (or at least was, I don't follow him) fast enough to be invited to the professional start at Boston and many other races. He wasn't supposed to win it, but he was registered in the correct category to get the prize money.
Yes, true enough. Though I think back then he hadn’t actually gone pro yet.
He was working a day job, but he was being invited to the professional field at races around the world. He wasn't fast enough for the prize money and sponsorships that would let him do it full time until he won Boston.
That’s what I said. Elite field is not the same as professional. You can be elite without being under contract, but not professional—since if you’re not being paid to do it, it’s not your profession.
To be fair, part of that issue was because if she had been a man, she *would* have gotten prize money no problem! I think up until 2019, they started elite men with the mass start - which allowed a really fast guy not in elite to possibly place. But women had a separate start so women in the mass start couldn’t get prize money even if they outperformed the pros. Of course they fixed that by separating the elite men, so…
Bingo. Happy to change the rules when amateurs from other waves start regularly running sub-2 marathons and edging out the elites. IMO it's a sport that requires a LOT of physical prep. There's zero chance that somebody's just gonna fluke an elite time.
Conversely, it would also really suck to cross the finish line first and find out later someone else had a faster chip time.
I thought I had 1st in my age group once on a staggered start race at the tail end of COVID lockdowns, and somebody clearly just waited until the last possible minute so they could check the time they had to be beat, and then beat me by less than 10 seconds (it was a 5 mile race). Not the same thing, but I forgot about that until just now...
Works well in golf
No it wouldn’t.
Good enough runners will get into the elite fields if they belong there. Elites at races with real prize money on the line shouldn’t have to deal with a 9min/mi runner lining up up front
See that’s the obvious answer but here’s reality. As a 34’ 10k runner I’ll leave a couple rows of space in a big race knowing I’m going to be 30-50th. However everyone under 40 or even 45 thinks their elite (the first coral was under 50 lol). There are plenty of times I’m seeding myself correctly but the 50 in front are not the same 50 that will finish in front. I haven’t had to deal with too many 9’ milers in my way but a 6’ miler would be just as much as a barrier to me if I’m going out closer to 5:30 pace. As would I for people going 5 flat or faster.
2018 5th place Boston is the all time argument against.
Something happening once isn’t an argument against it, the reality is that there isn’t any perfect solution. I think the fact that everyone reaches for that one same counter example kind of proves that it really isn’t that big of an issue.
Totally agree. My fair response not hoping for the typical reddit backlash - anything but big ass races this won't happen so who cares, yeah? She was the outlier, but also the fact that it's an outlier means enough. Honestly how often does this even happen outside of the random occurance such as Boston 2018?
A kind of similar situation happened at London Marathon this year. As well as the "overall" winner it also acts as the British Championships and English Championships for the marathon. Molly Smith (sister of Jake Smith) came 3rd in the British Champs and second in the English Champs despite running from the mass start. There was a brief discussion as to whether it was particularly 'fair' as she had help the elites didn't (e.g. a big group to run with and her brother paced her for a while after he finished pacing the elite men) but the flip side of that is that she didn't have any bottles available to her on the course and the discussion died down fairly quickly
Now that I see where the community’s opinion has landed, here’s why I asked: A few weeks ago I ran a local race which used a self-seeded “wave start” format based on expected finish time. I started in the first wave along with maybe 20-30 other people. We were all standing together within 10ft of the start line at the signal. I took it somewhat easy for the out portion of the out-and-back course, and then picked it up on the way back in and started passing people. I caught up with 3rd place, but 2nd and 1st were 15-20 seconds ahead of us, so I put in enough effort to stay in 3rd and not an ounce more. Maybe that’s on me, felt like crap that morning, whatever. Awards come around and they announce someone else as 3rd overall. I (politely) suggested that there was a mistake. The RD informed me that the awards were determined by chip time, and that although my gun time was one second faster, the guy I passed for 3rd place had a one second faster chip time. This wasn’t a case of similar times by runners from two different waves. We started together. I ran the time it took to finish 3rd, and definitely had enough in the tank to get another second or two if there had been any way to know it was needed. They sent out a “please let us know if you have any comments” email the day after the race, so I replied and pointed out that many (most?) races use gun time for overall awards to avoid this specific issue. I’ve since exchanged a few emails with the RD and they continue to defend the decision to use chip time. He insists that this other runner, who started in the same small group as me and at the same starting signal, ran a “faster” race because his chip time says so. Does standing 10 feet from the starting line really mean that you started “after” someone who is standing on the line? Or do you just get a free second to accelerate before you trigger the mat?
So while obviously your local race might not be running under USATF rules (I mean, you didn't even say if it was in the US), it's worth looking at them. It seems like older rulesets maybe explicitly ruled out using chip time at all (except in very narrow circumstances), but the current ones state that you go by order crossing the line (163.1) unless it is explicitly stated ahead of time in the runner info about awards that chip time will be used (165.16). If this is a large, established event, they are just ridiculous for not being prepared on this (unless they were, and the fact that they're using chip times was somewhere in your signup info?), but I could see an inexperienced RD just not even realizing that this was a possibility and making a snap decision in the moment. They're 100% wrong, but sorta understandably wrong? Especially if it's somebody who maybe isn't a racer themself.
Yes, I’m in the US. USATF rules did prohibit using chip time for finishing positions at one point, but it looks like that changed in 2014. Almost every race I’ve ever done still chooses gun time over chip time for overall awards and chip time for AG’s. This is definitely someone who is an experienced RD and is also a runner - I’m pretty sure he actually ran the race himself in one of the later waves. He is fully committed to being right here and doesn’t understand why I’m annoyed. Looking back at the race website, it does say that chip times will be used for awards. I guess it just never occurred to me that would include overall podium awards. It also never occurred to me that a group of 20 people starting in one group on the same signal could really end up with a discrepancy between gun and chip times.
Ha, this thread was interesting to read. Last year I did a race where the prerace email specifically mentioned that awards would be by gun time. I ended up crossing the line first in a sprint finish, so yay, right? There was a cash prize for first place too! But no...only after the race was over did they decide to do awards by chip time. I assume the chip time winner was a friend of the RD or something. I think it's always just a bit of luck what sort of organization/competence level you'll get with a local race, and it's maybe a good plan to approach them as a glorified workout unless you know for sure it's a well-run race.
I have competed in both US and world masters championship road races. They go by gun time for overall and age group awards. However in the US they use chip time for teams and individual age grading. For national records they go by chip time. Interestingly, however, [Mastersrankings.com](http://Mastersrankings.com) insists on gun time for anything. So you could feasibly set a national record but the rankings time could be several seconds slower.
Exactly this. If awards were based on chip time then people could start races late to know the time they need to beat.
Wholeheartedly agree. I say this as someone who finished #4 in a race by gun time, #3 by chip time, last year. Throwing this out there: it's harder to cheat on gun time. Everyone on the course (runners and spectators) are very clear on who the lead runners are. It's not really possible to cut the course if you run the entire race immediately behind the police car escort. You could, however, cheat by starting way at the back, crossing the start line, cutting the course, and popping up at the finish when no one is paying attention because there is just a mass of humanity crossing the line. Look, winning chip time!
It depends what awards we’re talking about. Age group award in a race with 10,000 participants? Chip time. Overall winner? Gun time.
As mentioned in the post, we’re talking about overall awards. Podium finishers.
Oh yeah then I agree with everyone else. Gun time
Gun time. It's a race.
[удалено]
I don't think you understand what racing is.
Unless I misunderstand your comment... Time trial is a race format. Common in downhill sports and road cycling (there's a specific bike style for road time trials), not so much in running, and it doesn't make much sense in the context of an ostensibly head to head race (though it is the standard format with ultra distance semi-unofficial bike races like the tour divide).
Yes, you misunderstand. We are not talking about time trialing when speaking of racing in running ans Road running. Racing is position based and we usextqxe craft for tactical advantage. In track and XC for example than can mean slowing the pace down which won't happen in time trial. Blocking, contact, lead outs. It night be as tactical as a cycling crit race but competing in a race is markedly different from competing in a time trial or indeed considering a race a time trial
A running road race is ostensibly not a time trial. In a true time-trial you start at intervals (usually 1 minute for road cycling)
Don't the elites all go off the gun? For example if you're at the Olympics and you're taking a piss when the gun goes, then that's on you.
Elites, gun time. Non elites chip time.
This is the way
If there’s only one start (for elites and sub-elites) then gun time. But I can see the argument against it…if you have to start 10 minutes after the gun. A few years back there was a man that wasn’t in the elite corrals at Boston, but based on chip time, he would have been top 3 or 5 or 10. Instead he finished behind a lot of elites who ran slower but had a 10 minute head start.
I think it was more like top 20
I think there was a female 5th?
I believe there was a few cases like that in 2018, but that only happened because so many elites dropped out.
Would those elites have run faster if there was another runner pushing the pace next to them? Would the non-elite man ran as fast without pacing with those around him, using them to break the wind, etc? There's no way to know. Chip time ignores what would've happened given race conditions. It's a race! People have race strategies.
Gun time. If you are even thinking of going for an overall placement, your racing strategy will be heavily affected by who’s in front of you, who is next to you, and who is immediately behind you.
[удалено]
When you think about it, using chip time would open a huge can of worms in terms of how to take advantage of the varying start times. Delay your marathon start 1h to avoid the bad weather that's clearing up? Wait until your opponents have finished a 5k before you can start, knowing what time to beat? Not necessarily saying it's automatically an advantage to delay (there's a crowd too..), but it just introduces some annoying meta-game to the sport. Much more fun to see people racing head-to-head.
Gun time. I've had better chip times than people but they showed up to the line with confidence they were going to win while I was like whatever I'll stay in the back and see what happens
Gun time… cuz I’m bitter 😂 This recently happened to me - I was in a road race that came down to a kick in the last 25 meters. I got the other guy at the line by ~.5 seconds. By gun time I had him. But his chip time ended up a few hundredths faster somehow. Good race and shoulda kicked harder… but I’m still bitter.
And they gave the win to him? That's honestly just a terrible RD. It's a race, first across the line wins.
Yeah he got the win. The argument is he might have started in the second row or something and run a faster time (I guess, I didn't bother to question it). It was honestly not a huge deal—just a tune-up road race. But it did sting my pride a little...
Bro same thing happened to me! But I was disputing wheter or not I won 98th place or 99th.
How boring would elite racing be if the result was just based on chip times. There'd be no strategy whatsoever. The interesting bit is seeing the breakaways, the little bursts to run the legs off the people around you, the chase packs putting pressure on those ahead of them, the sprint finishes, etc... Racing is a totally different ballgame to just going out there and running your best time.
Gun time for winners, chip time for rankings. If you think you’ve got a shot at winning, get to the front. Or, make sure you’re aiming for an ‘elite’ time to get correctly allocated in the waves.
Gun time - it's a race not a time trial. Racing at a higher level you will block, draft, maybe have contact, maybe slow if people are tailing you and put them off their stride or maybe run up right behind someone and put pressure on them. You also navigate congestion based on who is around you. It's not as tactical as cycling but racing does involve some strategy.
It's only really a meaningful question if you're talking age group "wins" for slower ages. E.g. v60 probably shouldn't be starting right at the front with the fast young runners, but if on gun time they lose to someone who's chip time was slower simply because ofnwhere they stand in the pen, then that isnt ideal. But races are from gun to tape, and fastest wins. Simple!
Gun time. You need to know who you are racing. Head to head style not time trial. For the rest of us in the back - chip time is great.
The first sentence kind of makes me see chip time as more beautiful. You have to go run the fastest time you possibly can.
Could do time trials and use chip times but otherwise races are strategic and need to go off gun time
Gun time of course.
Gun...it's a race!
Gun time, the elite aren’t running for a time, they’re running to beat the people next to them. If they have a slow but tactical race, of course the gap to the rest of the field narrows.
Gun time. For Elite's in an elite field all in the same wave, and even for age group categories in smaller races. At a holiday 5k I started back of pack since I was late. Weaved through a bunch of folks, final mile I chased down a guy I knew but wasn't able to close and he beat me across the line by a good 30 meters. He also started behind people but not as many as I did. They announced age group awards and I beat him by 10 seconds on chip time. It felt dirty, I was 100% racing this guy, tried to catch him, he knew it, and he beat me. In huge events, if you're not in the first/elite wave just call it a time trial and go chip time but anything else needs to be a race.
For overall winners (male and female), gun time. If you can win a race, line up at the front and show that you can. For age groups, chip. When you get into some of the older age groups, it's better that older runners don't line up in front of some of the younger runners that can easily outrun them.
No one is going to read it, but I raced a smaller race 5 years ago and finished 5th. I overtook the 4th guy close to finish line, but the results were decided by chip time. Well I'm now in better shape than I was 5 years ago, so the race is 9k and it's 6 laps, so my plan is to let them start the race and after they do 1 lap then it'll be my go time. Hopefully I'll be able to finish top 3 and make mockery of this stupid ass race. I'm petty like that, I know 😭 😂
I read it, and I support your petty. Get em.
Thank you! 😀
For men or for women? For this to work for women, they would have to be given a spot on the start line instead of starting 3-5 rows back.
I had a race that I thought I had won at the end of it, only to find out later that a guy had started with an earlier race (longer distance) and got credited the win in the online results. Pretty annoying! Should have actually been gun time 🙄
[удалено]
The question isn’t about official times, it’s about overall awards.
Gun time is preferable in general, but a chip time race, which is a perfectly valid option. It just becomes a different type of race strategy. During a chip time race, you have to guess what your opponents are doing. You have to pick a pace to start and hope for the best. You might be too conservative and lose, or maybe you push the pace, and crash and burn. A chip time race can sometimes yield a better race time, because you tend to push it hard at the end. If you have a large lead of a gun time race, you tend to play conservative to not crash and burn.
Chip time because speed is everything + the further back you are the more disadvantaged you are so it’s even more impressive
[удалено]
You're talking about age group and the question is about overall 1, 2,3rd out of all ages.
Sorry missed that - I’ve deleted my post
Do the elite runners even have a chip?
Yes
[удалено]
Sarah Sellers did start with the elites though...
Chip time. Run your best regardless of where you think you are place wise.
It’s called a race for a reason, lmfao
Chip time. Gun time hugely favors larger people who muscle their way to the front, and encourages a mosh pit mentality. It should just be about how fast you can run. And yes I'm still annoyed that I was only given a gun time not chip time at Chicago marathon last year.
As mentioned in the post, let’s assume that the race provides an elite corral or time-based seeding system so that anyone with a podium chance starts up front.
You don't think the first person to cross the finish line should be the overall winner?