RE: When did you first realize Runners World is terrible?

Shortly after founder, Bob Anderson had to sell it in the mid 80's. It went downhill after that.

But there was Running Times so I wasn't too bummed.

Why is the LR forum so obsessed with Runners World?

Balian wrote:

Shortly after founder, Bob Anderson had to sell it in the mid 80's. It went downhill after that.

But there was Running Times so I wasn't too bummed.

Interesting ... when I was a kid (and not a runner at all) for some reason I'd gotten the idea it was a decent magazine. Then when I got older (and a terrible runner) and I started getting the free issues via registering for one race or another, I was disappointed to see how silly a magazine it was. So it's good to know it actually used to be good.

I've heard of Running Times, but I'd heard they and RW have the same publisher so I didn't give it much thought. I'll have to check them out some time.

About 30 years ago.

Balian wrote:

Shortly after founder, Bob Anderson had to sell it in the mid 80's. It went downhill after that.

But there was Running Times so I wasn't too bummed.

RW & RT are from the same publisher.

I enjoyed reading this months breakdown of portapotties. Everything from what's in the blue stuff, to capacity, average deposit, average time per use, recommended ratio of participants/stalls, reasons behind the Spartan design, costs and some players in the industry. Fascinating stuff to read while crapping.

When it recently took on the look of a smartphone ap. In my humble opinion, Running Times is now just as bad.

Ego and arrogance.

going downhill wrote:

When it recently took on the look of a smartphone ap. In my humble opinion, Running Times is now just as bad.

Whaaa...??? You think that RT is the same POS as RW? C'mon. Not even close.

The runners in Once a Runner were already making fun of it way back then.

I didn't see it before the latest running boom - when running became a bucket list item or got the Oprah endorsement or whatever. So my first exposure was the website and well after the heyday, where it was instantly clear that it catered to charity joggers and others backpatting themselves over their couch-to-5K finisher medals.

Marathon and Beyond.

Prior to 1978, Runners World did real shoe reviews. They'd take shoes, subject them to mechanical tests to determine shock absorption, cut the shoe down the middle and show what it was made of inside, and do running reviews by real, i.e., fast, runners as well as what was then mid-pack... us 7-8 minute per mile training runners.

Around 1978, they caved to running shoe manufacturers. Real shoe reviews stopped and they starting "the Best New Shoe of 19XX," and similar nonsense.

Ever since they started putting SCRAWNY RUNNERS on the front cover.

Over wait, they always did that.

When they put extremely photogenic people on the cover who were identified as a "model/actress who recently completed a half-marathon" or something similar. At least they aren't hiding about being a "lifestyle" magazine anymore.

I picked up a copy when I was in high school. The issue I was reading contained a running etiquette section were readers' questions were answered by an "expert." This "expert" explained that it is totally rude to outkick another athlete in a race.

First and last time I ever read Runner's World.

fisky wrote:

Prior to 1978, Runners World did real shoe reviews. They'd take shoes, subject them to mechanical tests to determine shock absorption, cut the shoe down the middle and show what it was made of inside, and do running reviews by real, i.e., fast, runners as well as what was then mid-pack... us 7-8 minute per mile training runners.

Around 1978, they caved to running shoe manufacturers. Real shoe reviews stopped and they starting "the Best New Shoe of 19XX," and similar nonsense.

Yes. That is all true. But monthly editorial content didn't immediately turn to crap in '78. My subscription lapsed shortly after this 1995 issue arrived in my mailbox --

When I was looking for a first marathon training plan and they recommended "building up to 30 miles per week". I was already running 60+ for 5k's.

There's no need for a magazine in this day and age with all the great running forums, websites, Facebook, and Reddit. I had a subscription way back for one year that I got for free, but didn't renew because there was nothing in it that was new or more interesting than I was reading from people online.

And yet there is always an excellent article every month or two that makes the cost well worth it.

I get runners world, running times, trail runner, and marathon and beyond.