Disgraceful article in Runners World

I didn't read the article, but it must have been a good one, since people are still talking about it 14 YEARS LATER! Seriously people, LOOK AT THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL POST! 2004!

Noticed wrote:

The article, journalistically, reported on the phenomenon and weighed all sides of the situation.

Once again, folks....none of what all these walkers do will ever keep you from running the 2:03 marathon you all seem to feel capable of if ...if only....

Having suffered as a volunteer on a HM, with people taking selfies while we stand around for 5 hours, I beg to protest this stupid phenomenon.

RW Basher wrote:

This month's RW had an article about...marathon walkers. It appears that mere walking breaks is no longer enough. Now they're pandering to people who have no intention of running a step. They quoted race directors who are tripping over themselves to pander to these idiots because that's where the money is. This is a sad, sad commentary on not only American running, but American society. We've become a society of underachievers. Of course RW thinks this is great news. Runners World sucks eggs!

a couple observations...

1st, JESUS H CHRIST have i been wasting time on this site for a long time now. 14 years ago this crap was posted...and i wasn't new to letsrun even then.

2nd...what kind of inferiority complex would you have to have to start a thread about crap like this? i mean who effing cares if if people walk, jog or do cartwheels for 26.2?

They should do ultras...all humans, I mean.

14 years later and things are pretty much the same. More dug in, if anything.

But consider:

the number of people running (well, "running") marathons is far higher than it was 20 years ago. the difference isn't at the top, it's at the bottom. it's those walkers. or walk/run.

consider how many more marathons there are now than before, and how many more things they offer in the way of services. heck, security alone is a monster factor. that wasn't always true, especially before Boston. races take more to stage, so more of them need more money.

without the "walkers" and their $, a lot of these races wouldn't exist. there would still be marathons, but fewer.

also, consider that the walkers are just a completely different type of person from the non-hobbyjogger runner here. they're never going to run a marathon, let alone run it fast. for them, the marathon is a different event. they're happy to pay to do it, and considering their situation in life, they find it very rewarding. for most of them, money is not a problem. a number of posts in this thread talk about entry fees, as if they matter. if you're willing to pay $2k or more to fly you and your spouse and maybe a kid somewhere, stay in a hotel for nights, do some nice eating and sightseeing, a $100 or $150 or $200 entry fee is pretty much meaningless. it's not even one hotel night's cost.

I never criticize others for being slower since I don't know what their story is. I do know that some are recovering from cancer, car accidents, and war injuries.

People being involved in the sport at any level is good for the sport. It means that they will encourage their children to be active. They will ensure that their school districts install a track around that new football field. There will be cross country and track and field teams at the high school.

Shoe manufacturers will have enough money to devote to research and development of the next great shoe technology. Elite runners will be sponsored and be able to train to excel in the sport.

Go ahead and complain that people who aren't up to your level of success are interested in participating in the event because if there was no interest then there would be no race for you to run. If they restricted all marathons to the top five or six entrants then you wouldn't be in the race because no one cares about the last place runner in a 2:03 marathon race.

In the races where it actually counts (marathon majors, Olympic Qualifiers, etc.) there are no early start walkers. If you were that caliber of an athlete then you would understand where the money for your sport comes from. The sponsors at Boston, NYC, Chicago, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. aren't there just to impress you. They are sponsoring the race to get the attention of everyone. The more people that are in the race directly increases the amount of sponsorship money which is used to improve the quality of the race and to increase the amount of prize money available for the elites.

OR wrote:

Walking marathons means that they keep the courses open for a few hours longer for the ass-draggers.... We pay $100 for an entry instead of $60 because the course is going to be kept open for 8-10 hours.

Are you sure it costs that much more? When I started reading your post I thought you were going to argue that they keep costs down, as the cost is spread among more people.

RW Basher wrote:

This month's RW had an article about...marathon walkers. It appears that mere walking breaks is no longer enough. Now they're pandering to people who have no intention of running a step. They quoted race directors who are tripping over themselves to pander to these idiots because that's where the money is. This is a sad, sad commentary on not only American running, but American society. We've become a society of underachievers. Of course RW thinks this is great news. Runners World sucks eggs!

This post is stupid.

I met an 80 year old guy walking from SF to Palo Alto in marathon walking training. He could no longer run, so he changed to...walking. It helps him stay fit, helps with his mindset, gets him outside every day.

Good for him, and good for anyone taking any initiative to exercise regularly.

P Obrone wrote:

OR wrote:

Walking marathons means that they keep the courses open for a few hours longer for the ass-draggers.... We pay $100 for an entry instead of $60 because the course is going to be kept open for 8-10 hours.

Are you sure it costs that much more? When I started reading your post I thought you were going to argue that they keep costs down, as the cost is spread among more people.

I doubt the incremental cost is 67%.

What marathon keeps the course open for even 8 hours? (Officially)

incensed wrote:

I am very offended by something RunnersWorld wrote 14 years ago about something that has no effect on me!

I have never understood this either. Someone walking a marathon does not impact my marathon in any way. Heck it might make more marathons occur because of more demand.

If the course is open longer it has more of an effect on volunteers and race organizers.

Easy Cowboyy wrote:

RW Basher wrote:

This month's RW had an article about...marathon walkers. It appears that mere walking breaks is no longer enough. Now they're pandering to people who have no intention of running a step. They quoted race directors who are tripping over themselves to pander to these idiots because that's where the money is. This is a sad, sad commentary on not only American running, but American society. We've become a society of underachievers. Of course RW thinks this is great news. Runners World sucks eggs!

This post is stupid.

I met an 80 year old guy walking from SF to Palo Alto in marathon walking training. He could no longer run, so he changed to...walking. It helps him stay fit, helps with his mindset, gets him outside every day.

Good for him, and good for anyone taking any initiative to exercise regularly.

That post is 14 years old. I highly doubt the author is still around to read your insightful reply.

What compelled you to reply to a 14 year old thread anyway?

i hope i last long enough to see a 20 year old thread bumped

14 years must be some kind of record

I like a good, dryly sarcastic post.

hipster doofus wrote:

RW Basher wrote:

This month's RW had an article about...marathon walkers. It appears that mere walking breaks is no longer enough. Now they're pandering to people who have no intention of running a step. They quoted race directors who are tripping over themselves to pander to these idiots because that's where the money is. This is a sad, sad commentary on not only American running, but American society. We've become a society of underachievers. Of course RW thinks this is great news. Runners World sucks eggs!

RW Basher, you are wrong that the article is a sad commentary. It is not celebrating underachievers. Underachievers stay on the couch. People finishing marathons are overachievers...no matter how long it takes them.

Jeez, what happened to you ? You were cooling off after a good hour of fapping and decided to scoop around old posts and reply to them until you were ready to get at it again?

Fewer marathons would probably not be a bad thing. The Boston Marathon has been around for 121 years. If the influx of walkers started around 20 years ago, if they were eliminated, the race would survive just fine.

Except that fields at large marathons like New York and Boston are FIXED in size. So for every walker accepted (and the organizers have no way of knowing who they are in advance) one runner gets subtracted. What's next? Allowing cyclists? We already have wheelchair athletes who are actually closer to cyclists than runners or walkers.

Pete wrote:

mc wrote:...you'll hear tales of runners having to dodge walkers walking four abreast.

I do not have any objections to people who rather walk, but there are many instances where they line up inappropriately in the front or are unwilling to yield to runners.

Um.... how did the "runners" get themselves stuck behind the "walkers" in the first place?

Quite a few races are several laps(ex: Stockholm Marathon, Helsinki Marathon). It's not unusual to catch up to people who're on the 1st lap.

As for Big Sur, it features shorter distances that are filled predominantly by walkers. All of them share the finish line. I had no problem with walkers there though - they actually made up for the lack of cheering crowds.

Irk wrote:

Pete wrote:

Um.... how did the "runners" get themselves stuck behind the "walkers" in the first place?

Quite a few races are several laps(ex: Stockholm Marathon, Helsinki Marathon). It's not unusual to catch up to people who're on the 1st lap.

As for Big Sur, it features shorter distances that are filled predominantly by walkers. All of them share the finish line. I had no problem with walkers there though - they actually made up for the lack of cheering crowds.

I'm amused to see my younger (and unbanned) self quoted a handful of times in this ancient thread dredged up so long after dying a well-deserved quiet death.

I don't compete anymore, and I'll never walk, jog or run another marathon (never liked the distance to begin with), but I still love running, and I still couldn't give a hoot who decides to participate in the fun runs we all enjoy. Keeping in mind for context that there are only a small few on here (i.e., professional runners) who actually "compete" in these races in any true sense of the word, and this issue doesn't affect them, as a rule.