Denver Colfax marathon long?

not organized by runners wrote:

What are city, county, state, and national boundaries if not arbitrary, especially in this day and age?

That's my point. And club affiliations are even more arbitrary and easily manipulated.

You may be the first person I've ever heard to suggest that the decline in U.S. club competition is the reason for the decline in U.S. distance running. Even in the glory days of the GBTC and the Florida Track Club, it wasn't competition between clubs that produced great running. And U.S. distance running didn't decline when Bill Rodgers, Frank Shorter, and others replaced their GBTC and Florida Track Club singlets and t-shirts with outfits decorated with corporate logos.

At least since the influx of sponsorship money into the sport, competition between clubs hasn't produced great running, and hasn't been a significant part of the U.S. racing scene.

I 100% knew that the course was long when I heard that the Hansons didn't break the course record. With the adjustment, they easily did.

Really? To what end?

How can you enjoy rooting for US runners in the Olympics or World Champs since, really, they're just an arbitrary collection of athletes who just happen to live within the same arbitrary set of boundaries as each other and you? If you can accept one conceit of arbitrariness then why not another?

Except that that isn't what I've suggested.

So? It's well-documented that Nike (primarily, along with other corporate cherry-pickers) ran a lot of those clubs/training groups into the ground.

You haven't been paying close enough attention, then. The Hansons guys didn't start out with OT qualifiers, they cut their teeth at club xc and similar competitions. Same for Pete Gilmore (former Farm Teamer) and others. The club competitions serve, in part, as motivation to help keep together a club team that might include guys whose greatest accomplishment might be just qualifying for the OT and nothing more. It's a development process, just because they aren't threatening AR's in the club championships doesn't mean that it isn't part of a means towards a better end.

Club running - this is how we change American distance running. "REAL national chapmionships?" our national champions can hardly compete at the world level. In the grand scheme of things, our "real national champs" might as well be a club level event when compared to the rest of the world. You will change distance running in America at the "Grass Roots Level." The talent will rise to the top. Competition is the American way, yet we don't seem to get that in the US distance running world. If you want to change running, start a club and compete. These are good club events. They could be great if everyone participated with a club. Hansons was nothing special when it started and now it is the best marathon group in the country with significant funding to boot. Less than 1% are going to make it in this sport, yet we all love it and continue to dream. Stop dreaming, cause it most likely will not happen. Rather, why not see how good you can be at the club level. Camradarie and competion is why most of us started running. So join a club and race. Create rivals and try to kick the other clubs Arss!

not organized by runners wrote:

Except that that isn't what I've suggested.

Actually, it is.

Where is all of this club competition that you're talking about, and that the Hansons team and others were allegedly taking part in as they moved up the ranks in U.S. distance running? I've been involved in this sport for quite a while, and I haven't seen any significant club competition at the national level in more than thirty years.

A long time ago, I was a member of a pretty good running club, in which about 20 of us were sub-2:20 marathoners. And we did compete in some races, including the BAA Marathon, in which there was some form of team competition. But competition between clubs was never really a significant part of the race schedule or our competitive goals.

I have been to Japan for 10 major running events. Yes,there is widespread intrest in running.

No, I know what I've written and what I've suggested, I've done so carefully and you have misrepresented it. I have only stated that it is a contributing factor, not the factor as you apparently misinterpreted.

Then you haven't been paying close enough attention. Granted, USATF/TAC did little to foster clubs and club competition in that time, but in the past five or so years there has been more of a push to correct that. Even just 20 years ago US XC nationals (later known as fall nationals and now known as club nationals) had a huge club-affiliation component to it, and World XC trials had it but to a lesser degree. You can look much of this up on the USATF site, Hansons (including Sell, Verran, Menefee, Young, and WRRT and Team USA MN and so forth have regularly contested the club distance racing team titles since 2000 and runners like Jorge Torres, Daniel Lincoln, Adam Goucher, Fernando Cabada, Fasil Bizuneh, Matt Tegenkamp, and Alan Webb have thought enough of the competition to run in them, though sans club affiliation. I'm not as smart as you but I can find this info readily enough.

That was then, I think things have changed a little bit since that time. What club was that, if I may ask, and what has become of it?

I do not believe you. Your club did not have 20 sub 2:20 maratoners. You are probably one of the 70's runners that still believe that the U.S. Was better then than today. THE US HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER FROM THE 5K THRU THE MARATHON THAN WE ARE TODAY!

not organized by runners wrote:

I'm not as smart as you but I can find this info readily enough.

At last, we have found something we can agree upon. ;-)

It's remarkable how a flippant remark about an inconsequential event like the national marathon relay club championship (or whatever they called it) can produce this kind of acrimony.

I would prefer not to name the club. It continues to exist, but does not attract the same level of competitive runners that it did in the old days. In response to the guy who questioned my veracity, I assure you that the club did have 20 sub-2:20 marathoners. In fact, before I posted that statement, I checked the club's web site to confirm my recollection. (The club's sub-2:20 marathoners are all listed there.)

Acrimony? It's just a discussion, no need to take it so gravely.

Kinda weird that you don't want to associate with the club or your past at this point, though, almost seems evasive. Oh well.

not organized by runners wrote:

Kinda weird that you don't want to associate with the club or your past at this point, though, almost seems evasive. Oh well.

Nothing so sinister as that. I just want to preserve some sliver of anonymity on this site, for reasons that have nothing to do with running. (I once received an email from someone who apparently had been fired from his job after other posters reported some ugly comments that he had made on letsrun.com. Although I had nothing at all to do with the brouhaha, he went to the trouble of figuring out who I was and writing to me about his situation. It was pretty creepy.)

As for the club of which I spoke, I haven't been a member in a long time, simply because I haven't lived in that area in many years. Again, nothing weird or sinister. No bad feelings. I just moved on.

Or it could just be that you are full of s**t.

Didn't say it was sinister, just that it looks pretty strange to use yourself and your past as an example but then throw on the brakes when asked for a little more information. Seems kind of irrational to fear that someone will figure you out from among 20+ other clubmates with sub-2:20 performances. This parenthetic backstory seems equally as bizarre. You clearly have your reasons, whether they're what's written here or not, but it seems you leave little choice to to dismiss the claims as those of a crank.

not organized by runners wrote:

You clearly have your reasons, whether they're what's written here or not, but it seems you leave little choice to to dismiss the claims as those of a crank.

What claims are you talking about?

The stuff people are calling you out on in the past handful of threads, the club performance list.

Handful of posts, I mean.

How about this: Give me your email, and I'll send you the club information.

Even though you know I'll post it here, anyway? You made the claim publicly, I can't believe you weren't smart enough to foresee that people would ask for some proof.

runrono (at) yahoo (dot) com

Assuming you're info. is from the 70's, how can you argue that the Club strength didn't help the overall scene? Pro football is strong, in part due to strong college football and strong high school football. Running needs a similar feeder system.

USATF has made great strides in providing incentive for the Club system. The shoe contracts work out great for the 1% who display great promise from age 18-22. The rest of us, especially those mvoing up in distance, can find great benefits from a supportive Club.

Peter Gilmore is a terrific example.

Getting back to Colfax, c'mon, any local 5k should have two givens. Safe and Accurate. It seems like these organizers have screwed up a few times. That's terrible. Why should my Club spend a significant part of our annual budget send a male and female team to this charade?