still annoyed wrote:
Being 'able' to run 3 miles very slowly is not an achievement unless you are 112 or have one leg.
This is such a relief! And here I thought I was slow and about to be had.
still annoyed wrote:
Being 'able' to run 3 miles very slowly is not an achievement unless you are 112 or have one leg.
This is such a relief! And here I thought I was slow and about to be had.
newRD wrote:
I for one totally agree with the OP. It is actually a misnomer to call them slow runners, fore they are hardly running at all. A better name would be running posers. They buy all the stuff, come to the events, and look as if they are participating. But, they don't really try, and in the back of there minds they smirk at those who do. Then, they go back to work and act as though they are fit - or are trying to be.
They are hypocrites of the worst order. They get the best of both words of pretending they are runners in instances where it would give them stature, and then they are nonrunners when it is to their advantage to be more "normal". Indeed they are selfish manipulative people, and their conduct should not be commended. Those of you who think they have taken the first steps off the couch have just been hoodwinked.
Finally, they have ruined the sport by both lowering the standards, and by enticing weaker RDs to cater to the dollars that these posers collectively bring to events. Neighbors of the posers can't be impressed with the "sport" of running when these morbidly obese whales put on their little shorts to go posing for a half mile around the block. I'v also seen where races actually gave the best prize to the last person to finish. Deplorable! The OP is spot on, slow runners are an inestimable drain on the sport.
Yo Mama wrote:
Your mama's a slow runner.
Well, of course she is. She´s 72 years old.
I wish people would stop pretending they're me. I'm fed up of you morons now anyway. I thought this was a website for good runners, not charity fodder.
that was stupid joke.
old man river wrote:
I know lots of guys over 80 and a few over 90 that still like to run road races.
http://www.pacificsportevents.com/Races/Hibiscus%20Half%20Marathon/Overall-08.htmYou want us to take their money and sweep them off the course when they don't meet your threshhold of 3 hours?
What experience do you have as a Race Director?
Are people running 3-hour half-marathons really a part of the race or not?
BTW, it's "threshold."
Harry Kooter wrote:
I really don't understand the issues that some people have with slow runners. Are you so good that you can't find races that are at your level? If your answer is yes, your last name must be Bekele. If not, then the "dumbing down" of our sport isn't effecting you. If you ever lose, obviously the low level of competition that you speak of is still high enough for your purposes.
If you don't want to race slower people, run faster races. The great thing about running is that there are easily accessible races for every ability level from weekend warrior to professional.
As for the idea that people don't respect our sport because they see slow people who consider themselves to be runners, I don't think that this is true at all. These people exist in every sport. People who play in the local YMCA basketball league or who play pickup games at the park a couple times a week consider themselves to be basketball players, but no one looks at the 40 year old guy air balling from the free throw line and says, "wow, basketball is a joke. Those guys playing in the NBA must not be real athletes because Joe the accountant sucks." In the same way, people wouldn't just assume a correlation between the performance of some housewife at a local 5K and the legitimacy of elite runners.
Even if people did think less of my sport because slow people are allowed to run, I've been out of middle school long enough that I don't care what random people think about the activities that I participate in. Hopefully you'll get to the same point some day.
Good post.
Just wondering, do you have any hobbies in which you are the equivalent of a slow runner, which you hate so much? Most people do. Most people have hobbies, interests, or activities that they participate in casually and have no desire to reach their full potential. Many people go to college, but have no goal of graduating number one in their class. Many people play pickup basketball, but have no desire to spend hours a day becoming the best player they can be. Many people play a musical instrument and are happy to just be able to play a few of their favorite songs without learning all about music theory and spending tons of time practicing.
I bet that you fall into one or more of these categories. You feel differently about running than you do about other activities because running is the thing that you take seriously, but I imagine that you don't have the same expectations when it comes to other activities. So why do all runners have to take the sport seriously while all college students don't have to have a 3.7 GPA? Is mediocrity only acceptable in areas that you don't care about?
yes and no wrote:
The OP should perhaps distinguish between a marathon and shorter distances. I think that anyone who completes a marathon in under, say, 4:30 has indeed accomplished something. However, completing a 5k in 50 minutes is nonsense, my granny can do that.
If the OP is referring to marathons, then he is on to something to some extent, his vitriol aside. The average American has absolutely no idea of what a decent, solid, or amazingly good marathon time (let alone that they have no idea what the distance is, and that they confuse HM and 10K with FM). People get impressed these days by those that COMPLETE marathons, they are not impressed by the distinction between 2:35, 2:45, 2:59, 3:15, 3:30, 4:00, 5:00, 5:30. A heavy woman in my office has been bragging around that she is "training" for Chicago. Boy, are people impressed with her. If you had her in lineup, she would be the last one you would guess would be a "runner".
My wife and I have a mutual friend who "ran" a marathon and finshed in over 7 hours. She got offended when we said that she walked the marathon and responded by saying she ran "some" of it. These are the types I have a problem with. She didn't bother to properly train, finished in over 7 hours and insists that she "ran" the marathon.
Look I think a 7 hour marathon is ridiculous, but I wouldn't attack someone that walks a marathon provided that they are honest with themselves and everyone else about what they actaully did. To take offense because she was told the truth about what she really accomplished is silly.
I am in agreement with this post. I don't have ANY problem with people who go out and run/walk a 5k, 10k, half or full marathon. My issue is those that go out, finish in 7+ hours and brag about it like it was crossing the Sahara. It is 26.2 miles - staying on your feet for 26.2 miles and 7 hours is more impressive than "running" a marathon in 7hours. The appropriate term is "completed" a marathon.
I have done some calculations before and breaking 5 hours requires the AVERAGE human to jog (7 MPH) a mile and then walk (3.5 MPH) a half mile all the way through the marathon. I understand that this sounds ridiculously easy to us and I may be downplaying the difficulty of it, but anybody willing to stay on their feet for 7 hours straight should be willing to get their body in shape to jog and walk the AVERAGE HUMAN speed.
Again, I am all for letting these people in the fun runs and such, but I just have an issue with the people who knowinglu exaggerate their accomplishment.
I really don't care how long it takes someone to finish a race. I really don't care what they say about it after either.
The only thing that pisses me off is if they lack respect for the people in the race. Namely the "I paid my money I can line up where I want" attitude and get in the way at the start.
I did a 5k yesterday and this woman, who was a casual jogger at best, lined up 3 rows from the start with her kid who looked like she was 8 years old! Not only was it ignorant, the kid could have got hurt or had someone trip on her.
What is the attraction for these people to line up in the front and get passed by the whole race in the first mile?
It sounds like you need to find a better race as you're sooo much better than everyone else that paid their money. Or, how about you just get there earlier, or maybe you could just go around. Nah, bitching about it like a little girl is much better.
Just put it on the long list of excuses you have on why you didn't run faster and barely missed winning an age group award.
1. How the hell do you mix up the V and the T on the keyboard. As pointed out they are nowhere near each other on the key board.
2. Who cares? If you run a 5k in 15 min great. Cool down and go home and let everyone else enjoy what is for them a challenge to finish the race.
3. I agree with the poster who said America is Fat. Personally everyone should be made to exercise by their employer, it would save tons of money in medical costs.
4. I'm not elitest but I don't like looking at fat chicks. I like them in shape. so if a hottie runs a 30 min 5k more power to her. I'll be waiting at the finish with my cool down done.
Hey c*********, is there a need for you to get all into name calling? The reason that people like to line up near the front is because you get a better view and a better time. Is that so different than the reason you line up near the front? People like you make a big deal about supposed safety when it is really just as likely that you would fall on your face. Newsflash - sporting events have injury risks for everyone. Usually, race organizers are concerned about safety, and some races do have corrales for these reasons. If they don't, then it is a fun run, and your time, albeit an age group winning time - congratulations! - was likely marginally different than the little girl's.
For not explicitly saying that you're better than everyone and are more deserving of royal treatment, you sure do a good job of acting like it. How about you go run unattached at the local college's cross country races? There will not likely be a little girl there. If you are not good enough to do that, then it is a little ridiculous for you to have an issue with the other fun runners in a fun run race isn't it?
c********* rhymes with sockcucker
Get off your high horse wrote:
Hey c*********, is there a need for you to get all into name calling? The reason that people like to line up near the front is because you get a better view and a better time. Is that so different than the reason you line up near the front? People like you make a big deal about supposed safety when it is really just as likely that you would fall on your face. Newsflash - sporting events have injury risks for everyone. Usually, race organizers are concerned about safety, and some races do have corrales for these reasons. If they don't, then it is a fun run, and your time, albeit an age group winning time - congratulations! - was likely marginally different than the little girl's.
For not explicitly saying that you're better than everyone and are more deserving of royal treatment, you sure do a good job of acting like it. How about you go run unattached at the local college's cross country races? There will not likely be a little girl there. If you are not good enough to do that, then it is a little ridiculous for you to have an issue with the other fun runners in a fun run race isn't it?
You really don't believe the load of garbage you just spewed, do you? That there is no injury risk of slower runners lining up in the front that have no business being there? You must not race much or must be one of the people lining up in the front that don't belong there.
Yes, there are better runners, even at fun runs, and yes, they deserve to start near the front, unimpeded by slower runners with little kids, dogs, baby strollers, etc. For that matter the 8 minute milers deserve to not have to be impeded by these sorts of runners.
I suppose the 5K that I ran in on Sunday that had prize money and two runners under 14:45 was simply a "fun run" because there were no starting corrals. I guess that we should have let little kids, strollers, dogs, walkers, and whoever else wanted a spot up in the front, shouldn't we?
You sir are the one who is what you are calling older guy.
All of the races I have run with big numbers have an elite startign line. I have done major marathons and all have special starts for elite runners. Even races like wharf to wharf have an elite start (though much less "elite" usually for those in the top 100.) As a top 20 finsher I have never had a problem.
If your race doesn't have elite starts (I have run those too) I have never had a problem. Most people (except a few)line up where they should. You hang out in front of the start until the final call and push the front line back. Maybe you get pushed to the 2nd row but who cares, it sorts it out in the first 50 meters anyways.
Now I have had a SJ Sharky come from the sidewalk and jump in the front of the runners at a local PA race. Now that was a dumb move as I recall one of the Transport guys slapping him in the head as they nearly ran into him.
I also think German Fernandez is an arrogant bastard.
I have it when people wear headphones.
Now discuss...
still annoyed wrote:
I also think German Fernandez is an arrogant bastard.
You line up with him and he'll be calling for your f***ing mediocre ass to get off the f***ing start line you little f***ing bitch. Post some PRs you little shit, I bet you suck donkey balls.