Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
That's really interesting! I don't know quite what to make of it. I believe there is a lot of data behind the notion that an overall course drop as in Boston does provide a measurable advantage (Bob B, Ken Y, others please comment?).
I haven't run Boston in a long time, but I did feel that the downhill was helpful and the hills not as awful as feared. Maybe someone needs to do a study that goes beyond the top ten (?).
I haven't run Boston in a long time, but I did feel that the downhill was helpful and the hills not as awful as feared. Maybe someone needs to do a study that goes beyond the top ten (?).
Anything allowing a committee to decide is likely to become political.
I like the existing, simple rules for record legality. Our running club's age graded competition had a race with over 400' of drop in 5 miles. The start was so steep that you had to brake a good bit and heaven help if you tripped going flat out. It was so fast that missing that one race put you at a significant disadvantage. We passed a rule that courses in the competition had to be record eligible. That stopped others from doing the same thing or worse to boost participation.
I like the existing, simple rules for record legality. Our running club's age graded competition had a race with over 400' of drop in 5 miles. The start was so steep that you had to brake a good bit and heaven help if you tripped going flat out. It was so fast that missing that one race put you at a significant disadvantage. We passed a rule that courses in the competition had to be record eligible. That stopped others from doing the same thing or worse to boost participation.