gun or chip time to win

124»

Comments

  • I don't mind overtaking slower runners at any stage of a race, it's what racing is about.  Just because someone doesn't start as fast as you, doesn't mean they are in the wrong pen.  They could just as easily run a negative split, upping the pace as the race progresses.  But that's a different debate.
  • I actually started last in the GNR and when I got to the finish line the 'race clock' (clue in the name and all that) stated 1:37:xx. That is the only time that is official as a race time no matter what.

    The fact that I covered the actual distance probably in sub 1:20 is neither here nor there. I have, however, felt justified in cheekily claiming an unofficial world record for number of runner overtaken during the process (33,500 ish)  until Sonia O'sullivan bettered it this year.

    As for having to dodge round slower runners you wont get much more practise at it than starting last at GNR!

  • Sorry C Dave - can't read in a straight line!

    BDB - don't mind overtaking/being overtaken and agree that such is usually not indicative of starting in wrong place. I'm a fairly slow starter, almost always doing negative splits. But despite starting in the appropriate place and doing negative splits nearly always find I spend the first mile dodging round slow runners. The worst time was at Wakefield 10k a couple of years ago when I got stuck behind what looked like a hen party - a group of fat pink-clad women doing about 12min/mile pace - who must have begun the race right on the start lineimage.

    Why the organisers let them should probably be the subject for a different thread.

  • Most. Pointless. Thread. Ever.image
  • So what time counts as my PB then?
  • I take chip time for PBs Kicked-It.  But if I were to place, which is highly unlikely, it would be gun time.
  • groovy, you can tell anyone you won if you like, but nobody likes to be lied to...
    You would be fully entitled to tell everyone you ran the fastest time of the day, but you simply did not win the race.

    biker-sugarplum-mouse wrote (see)
    kaysdee (Kelly) wrote (see)

    If the second place woman was running alongside the first past the post, maybe the winner would have been faster once she realised she had some competition. What was the difference, only 6 seconds? I'm not that fast and I don't look behind me in a race to check position, but if I knew there was someone on my shoulder, I would speed up. If woman 1 didn't know woman 2 was there, she could have just been coasting to the line, whereas the woman behind would have the other lady in her sights and be trying to catch up. It's not fair to base it on chip time as the person in front can't adjust her strategy or know to push if she's not passed.

    So, er, the short answer is gun time wins. image


    Rubish. In a race if you at female you rarely know if the runner in front of you is male or female, how many other women there are in front of you etc. It's just runers.

    If you don't look behind you then you don't know who is breathing down your neck or how close the runner behind you is or isn't - so if you are coasting then your problem. Women can rarely afford to coast in a race. If you do you tend to lose.

    I was first lady in a race recently - I didn't know I was first lady, I didn't really care, I wanted to finish the race in the best possible time. I knew I was some way ahead of the runner behind me but I didn't back off just because I knew they wouldn't catch me or that I knew I wouldn't catch the guy in front of me. I've run plenty of races where I haven't known who was in front of me. It really is hard to tell gender, I have ran races where two races of different lengths finish at the same point so often I don't know who is or is not in the same race. Again many of the faster runners tend to be male so there will always be a lot of runners in front - hard to spot which is female if any and I'll probably not have a 6 minute view of the finish.

    I've seen a few races now where they handle this issue quite elegantly.
    Have 3 stewards on bicycles with a little flag mounted about 2.5 meters up in the air, indicating the race positions 1, 2 and 3.
    About a km into the race, they are waiting for the sharp end to come in and then ride along the top 3 ladies.
    So the top 3 know their position and anybody else can spot how far ahead they are.

    Easy to implement, I don't get why more races don't do it

  • Imski obviously difference of opinion here. In my book fastest time = winner end of so I wouldn't be lying.

    I think this thread has,for me, run its course. I'm never going to convince anyone chip time is the fairest way to award prizes and unfortunalely,even though there have been some good points made against my arguement they are not enough to convince me gun time is fairer.

    We must agree to differ I'm afraid   

  • Groovy, I'm now convinced that you're simply having a laugh with this one.

    I'm all for winding the forum up a bit by playing devil's advocate but you've got to have  a logical thread to what you're saying to carry it off.........

  • The problem, groovy, lies solely within your failure to recognise that it's UKA or equivalent book that matters, not groovy's for reasons clearly argued all over this thread.

    There just isn't an element of opinion in determining the winner, unless in very unusual situations (gun vs chip time definately not being one of them).

  • The finishing order is the order across the line.

    People asked for Chip times so that they could get an accurate time of how long it took them to win a race due to the large numbers in some. You can't campaign for that and then wha the results by it. Chip timing was resisted for some time for exactly this reason.

     You have to place yourself in a reasonsable position for what you are likely to achieve. I run a Grand Prix series i nthe spring and I do tend to place myself slghtly nearer the front to avoid somebody beating me by a few seconds just because they were ahead.

    If we feel we can't get close enough to the front then are we arguing for races t ohave wider starts and smaller numbers? Say 300 max.

     In the 100M final at the Olympics the first across the line wins. They don;t have a mat after one metre and say don't worry if you get a slow start we'll only start timing once you are into your running and the fastest time wins. They also have a limit of 8 runners to accommodate.

     Lets be honest here though, most people aren't that worried about places if you are 501 or 503 doesn't make much difference, unless you are a front runner who might win a prixe. In that case you start at the front.

  • Gun time for me but  what about, for example, Bristol Half that has 2  distinct waves. At the finish there is a separate clock with the times for each wave. Unlikely, but someone could be "win" the second wave in a quicker time than that of the first wave. Could argue that if you get put into wave 2 you can never win the race and it is therefore only a time trial
  • How do Musky - long time no see.  In your example, those with a chance of placing would be in the first couple of rows of the first wave. 

    Last time I did the Great South, they had 3 waves, effectively making it 3 seperate races.  They didn't award prizes for the winners of each wave as the elites set off on the first wave.

  • That is an interesting example but it also relates back to the original scenario, in that someone who has managed to conspire to run the fastest time without crossing the line first has basically mugged themselves off!  As BDB states, if you think you have any chance of winning even an age category prize for the Bristol HM you will be in the first wave.  It is certainly physically possible for someone to be placed in the second wave but to run faster than prize winners in the first wave, but by placing themselves in the second wave they have literally put themselves out of the running to begin with.
Sign In or Register to comment.