Wow. This is exactly what we're always talking about on LetsRun. Hobbyjoggerism is taking over.
Wow. This is exactly what we're always talking about on LetsRun. Hobbyjoggerism is taking over.
I'll read the article, but first high schools and college levels are better/deeper than they've ever been. It's the post college scene that has really dropped off. Fad theme and hobbyjogging are in. It's sort of twisted, but to a lot of these a 2 hr half marathon is more impressive than a 1:10 or so, because the slowbe is out there longer and has had less training. Almost a sort of reverse snobbism where they (mid-pack runners, and a growing number of race directors) celebrate the masses and downplay athletic achievement the faster-more dedicated and talented runners.
We are combining two threads into one as we try to limit multiple threads on the same topic. Another poster started a thread on this same topic: "Wall St Journal article on the slowing down of America - quotes Reavis and Rojo." His thread has been merged with this one (and we merged part of his title as well). His post appears below:
financial guy on lunch breakwrote:
Great article on the back cover of the Wall Street Journal today about how road races are slowing down.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579085084130007974.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicksIt's entitled "The Slowest Generation" and is about how 20-year olds today can't even beat 50 plus guys like the author and how many road races don't even bother with timing anymore.
Quotes Toni Reavis blog and Rojo.
"If you're going to get just as much praise for doing a four-hour marathon as a three-hour, why bother killing yourself training?" asked Robert Johnson, a founder of LetsRun.com, adding that, "It's hard to do well in a marathon if your idea of a long session is watching season four of 'The Wire.'"
Well-done Rojo. (How's that for a pun).
LetsRun.com wrote:
We are combining two threads into one as we try to limit multiple threads on the same topic. Another poster started a thread on this same topic: "Wall St Journal article on the slowing down of America - quotes Reavis and Rojo." His thread has been merged with this one (and we merged part of his title as well). His post appears below:
Well whatever. Time for a coup here!
brojos got no mojos wrote:
It's sort of twisted, but to a lot of these a 2 hr half marathon is more impressive than a 1:10 or so, because the slowbe is out there longer and has had less training. Almost a sort of reverse snobbism where they (mid-pack runners, and a growing number of race directors) celebrate the masses and downplay athletic achievement the faster-more dedicated and talented runners.
It really is twisted. Imagine people tried to apply the same logic to any other sport. It would be like saying my 40 minute pick up basketball game with some buddies in the park is just as impressive as a DI NCAA game because I'm not genetically gifted at basketball and I have to balance my basketball with work and those kids don't.
Also, someone at the WSJ is spending some time on letsrun. Between these two articles.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323550604578412913149043072.htmlTexas Toast wrote:
It really is twisted. Imagine people tried to apply the same logic to any other sport. It would be like saying my 40 minute pick up basketball game with some buddies in the park is just as impressive as a DI NCAA game because I'm not genetically gifted at basketball and I have to balance my basketball with work and those kids don't.
No, the difference between a 1:10 half marathon and a 2:00 half marathon is like the difference between a pickup game at the Y and a pickup game at the park.
Neither is competitive on the world or national stage.
No, there are just more runners now participating in races. If you look at the times it takes to place in the top of age groups by time and no percentages you will see this. Take last years Chicago race 868 runners broke 3 hours, in 2000 (weather was close) only 464. Percentage wise it was very close with 2012 having a higher number of the field breaking 3.
a little perspective wrote:
Texas Toast wrote:It really is twisted. Imagine people tried to apply the same logic to any other sport. It would be like saying my 40 minute pick up basketball game with some buddies in the park is just as impressive as a DI NCAA game because I'm not genetically gifted at basketball and I have to balance my basketball with work and those kids don't.
No, the difference between a 1:10 half marathon and a 2:00 half marathon is like the difference between a pickup game at the Y and a pickup game at the park.
Neither is competitive on the world or national stage.
The difference between a 1:10 half marathon and a 2:00 half marathon is like the difference between a pickup game at the Y (where the athletes are second tier D1 players and shoot 40-50% from the field, and a good number of players are throwing down dunks) and a pickup game at the park (where dribbling is optional, it is played on a half court, shooting is something like 10-15%).
I thought the focus on percentages was a bit disingenuous. Finishing in a higher percentile, despite a slower time, probably means that today's events are more inclusive of fitness runners, who in an earlier generation ***would not have been exercising at all***. Most of us (I know, not all) think that's a good thing.
And what was all that nonsense about communism? When you can't make your argument without labeling, I have to think it's not a very good argument.
It also should be said that maybe running just isn't as promising a career, relative to other options, as it used to be. Life is more expensive. Healthcare is more expensive. Kenyans are everywhere. Doping is everywhere. The risk/reward equation is better in other industries. In other words, it's not that Americans don't try as hard - we're just applying our talents elsewhere than running.
What if we (as serious runners) had road races that more clearly rewarded competing for a semi-serious time.
For instance - in a 5k, there could be finish line video up to 25 minutes, official results up to 30 minutes, and the course would be open 35-40 minutes. That way, someone could think, "If I do a little bit of training, I could see my name in the results!" Maybe the race shirt could be free under 19/21 (men/women) minutes, and you would pay otherwise. Even have the full race entry fee waived for finishes under 17/19 (men/women) minutes.
Just some first thoughts, maybe other ideas could work out better (and I know you would have to overcome financial hurdles at first - people would shy away if they felt intimidated. But maybe "qualifying" for such a race could become a point of pride, like Boston qualifying is for many people).
jamin wrote:
Wow. This is exactly what we're always talking about on LetsRun. Hobbyjoggerism is taking over.
And it's exactly the same article that has been written a few times a year since 1998.
What a stupid article. Today's kids are more educated than ever. They see right through fads. And they know that long distance running or triathlon is not healthy.
Instead they focus on a more holistic approach to (functional) fitness. Once they're out of high school, they join a gym or a crossfit box and focus on getting big and shredded. Yep, I know, buzzwords but that's what they want and that's what the young women demand. They want BUFF/RIPPED and not lean/frail.
one commentor in the article made what seems to be a fair point....
"Just for the record, the author didn't finish in the top 15% compared to everyone his age, he finished in the top 15% of his AGE GROUP...which in triathlon lingo means he was in the top 15% of all MALES 50-54. He actually finished top 11% of ALL PEOPLE (male and female) aged 50-54, which is roughly where he finished in the overall standings. This doesn't do anything to exhibit the idea that the older outperformed the rest of the field. All it demonstrates is that the 50-54 males were faster than the 50-54 females.
The real story is here, that others have alluded to, is that there are MANY more female athletes competing in all sports nowadays (which I personally think is fantastic) and as a result men look 'relatively' faster in overal standings nowadays as compared to 20 years ago. These guys should get over it and celebrate the fact that there are many more participants overall, and celebrate even more that many MORE of these new participants are females, rather than saying it 'waters down' these sports"
a little perspective wrote:
No, the difference between a 1:10 half marathon and a 2:00 half marathon is like the difference between a pickup game at the Y and a pickup game at the park.
Yeah my mistake. I posted that without carefully reading the whole article. I wasn't trying directly reference their numbers or to say a 1:10ish half was world class or worthy of sponsorship. I'm making the assumption that the same "hobby-jogger" population would dismiss a good DI runner as easily as they dismiss someone who would do some training and go 1:10 as opposed to just showing up and paying $100 bucks for a t-shirt and a 13.1 bumper sticker. Maybe I'm wrong on that point, but I think they would and they do.
It's not my intention or my place to say who should be doing what with their money. I don't think anybody should be sponsoring guys who run 1:10. I thought this one Toni Reavis blog post spoke to this point pretty well.
http://tonireavis.com/2013/09/17/kenny-moore-the-sensations-of-running/At one point we had a running boom that produced large scale participation and interest in the sport. The masses were trying to improve their times, train well, and race hard without necessarily going after sponsorships or prize money. Now we have large scale participation that dismisses or even resents the actual sport and that seems strange.
Oh, here we go. People think that we're getting slower because...there's more people running!? And a majority of those runners don't care about being a 15:00 5ker. Below is the top 12 list of times from last year DI 10,000.
27:27
27:31
27:34
28:06
28:12
28:12
28:13
28:16
28:35
28:39
28:46
28:49
...and this is just college. I don't think there's ever been a time like there has been recently where we see so many fast times by so many runners. I mean, what did pre run in his day (supposedly, the golden era for distance running in the US) for a 10? 27:41 - and that was an AR!
runthecountry wrote:
The difference between a 1:10 half marathon and a 2:00 half marathon is like the difference between a pickup game at the Y (where the athletes are second tier D1 players and shoot 40-50% from the field, and a good number of players are throwing down dunks) and a pickup game at the park (where dribbling is optional, it is played on a half court, shooting is something like 10-15%).
And yet both pickup games are played at the end of a workday, for fun.
Youngcoach wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579085084130007974.html?mod=WSJ_hp_EditorsPicks
With out even reading the article, I know it is incorrect just from the caption. When I first started running road races in the early 80s, half the runners would be in the 17s for a 5K, but the race would only have about 200 people and most of them would be current or former competitive runners. That same race nowadays will have 800 particpants, with half of them being social groups, soccer moms and folks trying to lose weight, but you still have the same number of runners in the 17s. Americans are running faster at every level, practically every disatnce record in track, XC and road races have been set in the last 10 years.
What I will agree with is that Americans overall are getting fatter and slower, but there are more people running than ever and we are running faster.
I spoke to the reporter Helliker about the article first on the phone. I wasn't sure if the article was about "The slowing down of the masses" or why "50-54 guys are so good" or both. He said he'd send me an email and the email basically asked is it now 'lame' to focus on time.I then sent him a long emailed response and then a follow up email or two to let him know about Toni's piece, etc. I've condensed the relevant part of my emails to him below for your reference.I figured he was looking for a good 'catchy quote' and was right. I was thinking he might use the Wire or one of the following two:"It certainly shouldn't be (lame to pay attention to time). I thought all sports fans recognized one of the great inventions of the last 20 years was the introduction of overtime to college football. Sports was meant to have winners and losers."or something from "crazy,elite bunch":"However, I think we may have been over thinking it a bit too much. Most of the 50 + plus stuff is likely self-selection. People that are say still racing a half-marathon or marathon at age 55 are probably coming from the crazy, elite bunch. Those that wanted to do it for doing it sake likely checked the "marathon" from their "to-do" bucket list when they were in their 20s and 30s. Those that continue to do it are probably those that are good at it and get positive reinforcement to their ego time after time by finishing high."Self-selection is big in my mind as to why 50-54 is so good.Anyways, it's an interesting picece. My full email is below as it reflects my true position on the matter and it's all pretty complicated. The PS was really a separate email and then there was a third linking to Reavis.
Rojo wrote:
Kevin,
It certainly shouldn't be (lame to pay attention to time). I thought all sports fans recognized one of the great inventions of the last 20 years was the introduction of overtime to college football. Sports was meant to have winners and losers.
The rise in participation numbers over the last 20-30 years has unfortunately resulted in a shift in how endurance events are viewed. What once was viewed as a sporting event is no viewed by many as a fitness activity . They needn't be mutually exclusive. Why can't they be a fitness activity for the mases and an elite sport for the hard-core?
There are a lot more golfers now than there were 20 years ago and that hasn't stopped anyone from appreciating the brilliance of Tiger Woods. For some reason though in running, probably because your average 4:30 marathoner is on the same course as the pros at the same time, many seem to think acknowledging the brilliance of the New York City marathon winner's time is going to take away from the sense of accomplishment from the 70 year old that finishes in 5 and a half hours. It shouldn't. They both are worthy of praise but for totally different reasons.
I think people might be hesitant to praise someone for being faster as they are afraid the slower people will feel slighted. There was a fascinating thread on our messageboardlast week:
What's more impressive to coworkers at the water cooler - a 4 hour marathon or a 15:30 5k?
The thread is asking what would your co-workers be more impressed by? Running a really fast 5k or finishing a marathon? A 15:30 5k is equivalent to just under 2:35 in the marathon or a 4 hour marathon? Most people seemed to think simply the act of finishing the marathon would impress more people and I agree. So if that's true, why bother to train fast? Running fast requires a lot of work and a lot of training.
That thread got me thinking about incentives. The more I think about it, I think everyone is acting pretty logically here. I actually think there would be little difference in reaction to a 3 hour versus 4 hour marathon at the office. If you are going to get just as much praise for doing a 3 hour marathon versus 4 hours, why bother to kill yourself in training to break 3? It's actually a very rational reaction. And it makes sense for everyone really.
More people are running. So let's say there are three people in the office doing the marathon. Well as a co-worker, you want to praise everyone in the office. And how does someone in the office separate what is better, the 45 year old woman running 4:30, the 25 year old woman running 4:00 or the 35 year old male running 3:30? You don't. You praise them all. So your ingrained to think, "time doesn't matter," when in reality for some it does
As for your questions last night about why a 50+ person might be better overall than his age group. Yes, some of that likely very much stems from the fact that they come from a different era - when running was viewed as a competitive sport. Frank Shorter's Olympic victory helped kicked off the first running boom which was clearly inspired by competition. Those running nowadays are coming from the generation where everyone is given bib #1 in a kids race to make them all feel like a winner.
However, I think we may have been over thinking it a bit too much. Most of the 50 + plus stuff is likely self-selection. People that are say still racing a half-marathon or marathon at age 55 are probably coming from the crazy, elite bunch. Those that wanted to do it for doing it sake likely checked the "marathon" from their "to-do" bucket list when they were in their 20s and 30s. Those that continue to do it are probably those that are good at it and get positive reinforcement to their ego time after time by finishing high.
But are the people in their 20s slower than the people now in their 50s were 30 years ago? I imagine they likely are - even in absolute numbers as shown by this post
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3626242&page=1#3627490which shows you how slow marathoners have gotten over the years (if you need to contact that person who posted that, I have his contact info. He's a former American record holder in the men's steeplechase - George Malley)
Why would that be?
As explained above, II think the incentive to train hard isn't there. Running a marathon used to mean doing it fast. Now it just means finishing it.
Also, I do think it's tied into the fact we are a more sedentary society. Childhood obesity is up, tv/internet usage is way up, etc. It's hard to do well in a marathon if your idea of long session is watching Season 4 of the wire on amazon.
Robert Johnson
PS. I would say one of the driving forces for us starting the website in 2000 is because we wanted to celebrate elite performance. There seemingly was little difference in RunnersWorld between winning a marathon and finishing a marathon.
As we say in our "About" LetsRun.com is the home of Olympic track and field fans. On LetsRun.com, the Olympics aren’t an activity that rolls around every four years. They are the pinnacle that athletes reach after a lifetime of hard work and dedication.
I think the running boom is amazing but an offshoot of it is it's hard intellectually to celebrate the truly elite without seemingly denigrating the masses. If you say "Wow that guy who ran 2:03 is amazing are saying the guy who weighed 250 pounds, got off the couch and trained and ran 4:03 is less amazing?"
I dont' think so. They are just inherently different but the advantage the NFL, MLB, NBA have is most people aren't playing those sports in their free time.
Texas Toast wrote:
At one point we had a running boom that produced large scale participation and interest in the sport. The masses were trying to improve their times, train well, and race hard without necessarily going after sponsorships or prize money. Now we have large scale participation that dismisses or even resents the actual sport and that seems strange.
The masses were never doing all of the things you said. The front end of the field was always chasing times (even back before the "Shorter running boom") but the masses have always been about fitness/finishing. It just so happens there are more masses today (read as more participation) than in the 70s, so it seems as though their influence is magnified.
As for your last sentence, I have never once been at a race where I have felt as though my performance was "resented" by the field or the race directors. Sure I've been at races with crappy prizes, but I cannot think of one single race that hasn't at least recognized the winner.
The problem with all of this talk about "the sport" is that "the sport" is many different sports to many different people. Once you accept this and recognize that you should seek enjoyment from running in ways you see fit (whether its following pro running, racing at a competitive level, or running for fitness) without worrying about how other people enjoy the sport, you'll be a lot happier.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?