RoJo, are you going to let this slide?

Anybody want to know what I think about the Galloway plan? (smile)

The only decent question is what Portland Runner asked.. "How do we take our sport back?" Or, how do we guide these thousands of new runners into really being into the sport of running (actually interested in the sports development) instead of completing an event?

What's wrong with turning off the official clock, most if not all ultras do (I have not run any myself). I watched them take down the clock and finish chute at the Leadville Trail 100 in 2001, at exactly 30 hours. Doesn't matter if somebody is in the final stretch in sight of the finish. It's simply a known fact and provides everyone a goal of finishing officially. Ditto most others, along with the Pikes Peak marathon, and various other mountain races. I don't have a problem with somebody running a marathon over 5 hours, better to encourage all participation, but that doesn't mean races have to officially stay open. Give them a goal to shoot for.

As far as giving medals for the back of the pack, that's simply ludicrous, it denigrates all those who've truly trained hard only to end up just out of the money/medals. Imagine training 100-140mpw, finishing 2:15, and not getting anything (as could happen in Chicago on Sunday), then watching a 5:15 runner get some award. Ludicrous. Racing is just that, racing, and the awards should go to the swift. Once again, there is no reason to exclude the slower crowd, and in fact everyone can agree we'd rather see everybody out there trying than watching WWF re-runs, but that doesn't mean they should get awards. Awards go to those who have truly made the sacrifices to chase excellence.

Gallowalking - isn't worth the time it takes to argue over. Do whatever works, if running on my hands netted me a 2:03 WR you know what I'd be doing. To each their own, I doubt any serious racers consider his ideas so what does it matter anyway? If it helps a first-timer or whoever make it thru then so be it, and arguments about clogging up the event by g-walking are patently ridiculous. That's racing, get over it.

"The guys on this board and others such as the guy in the initial post who seem to belittle those for running slow times in comparison to them seem to be setting themselves up."

Not belittling, I am all for encouraging slowewr runners to be the best they can be. But it is a matter of low aspirations. I know lots of folks who hiked 25 miles a day on the AT. Are they marathoners?

"Why do some guys ridicule guys running 5 hours when they run 2.30? you'd be pretty pissed off if kk or tergat came here saying "you pussies should give it up, if you can't run 2.09, you're not really running" surely it's the same?"

Did anyone say they should give it up? The point is, it isn't that tought to finish a marthon in 5 hours. Anyone can do it with minimal time commitment. I would encourage them not to give up and see how good they could be. We invent this notion that completing a marathon is so hard (In the Civil War, infantry troops marched 25 miles a day with a full pack and shitty rations, just regular old country boys - were they all marathoners?). And believe me, If KK looked at my training and told me I am not working that hard compared to him, he would be telling the truth and the puny shit I do is nothing compared to the focus guys like him have. I am just playing around and would never presume to be worthy of his notice.

I think the point that everyone is missing here is that marathons are basically independent businesses and they are in the business of making money. Four to five hour runners bring in the bulk of their money. Sponsors bring in a huge chunk of change, but where do the sponsors go? They go to races with 20, 25, 30 thousand registered runners with huge expos. Do you think you're going to find 30,000 runners anywhere in the world who can all run under 3 hours? No. These races aren't put on to accomodate the elite or wanna-be-elite runners; these races are business enterprises and they are all about making money. Why don't you try suggesting to Carey Pinkowski that he should give $60 back to every registered runner who breaks 3 hours? Oh, I'm sure he'll take that suggestion and make huge changes to the LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon. My gosh, why didn't he think of that one himself? Or, yes, let's petition RRCA or USATF and ask them to tell all these marathons that they need to follow rules about who they'll let pay them money to run - now that's a fine idea!

Really, so somebody runs 5 hours for a marathon, or they walk part of it, or somebody makes money off of people who want more than anything just to complete the beast. BFD!!! How does this hurt my training? How does this hurt my racing? It doesn't. Sure it annoys me a little when someone puts me in the same category with their weight-loss-walking-fat-Aunt-Sally and I want to jump up and down and say, "I qualified for Olympic Trials, damn it, that's not the same...." But, that's just my pride, it's not the dumbing down of our sport.

"While I'm proud of my times, I don't expect anybody to view my performances in the same light as Geb's and Tergat's."

I don't get it. Where are the gallowakers making such claims, which seems to be what you're saying by inference.

I think gallowakers really bug people because they're uncovering the truth which is that running 26 miles is nowhere near as hard as the non-running public thinks it is. It's true that running a marathon at your own upper-limits is really rough, but running far is what we were built to do as a species. Before hunting tools, we used to literally chase down large prey over ultra-distances (24+ hr runs). Many mammals are faster than us in spints but few have our stamina.

HOWEVER, midpack marathoners have traditionally gotten a level a respect not afforded, superior club-level sprinters. This is because since we stopped roaming and began farming we've become increasingly sedentary century and century. As a people, we forgot how easy it is to run that far. Gallowalkers and others are eroding the awe we have for distance. This is neither good, nor bad. Humans are good at distance as a species. Within the species some of us are better than others.

Most people run for themselves. Why not just leave people be. That said I think there are valid complaints if Gallowalkers are stopping right in front of you and I personally think it would be annoying to stop and start over 26 miles. But the level of vehemence, from the anti-gallo crowd betrays that you're marathoning for some external approval.

Do it for yourself.

It's not an issue of speed.

I don't think the vast majority of elites would have a problem with any runner (however slow) if they would just run the whole damn way. Just don't walk. I respect anyone who runs 26.2 miles, but in my book you haven't "done" a marathon if you walk a mile of it, period. People should aspire to RUN the whole distance, not cop out and walk because they are taught that is the only way they can finish.

That is what Galloway is selling, a watered-down version of a great challenge -- running 26.2 miles. Kind of like doing an ironman, but stopping to sit on a raft during the swim, walking on the run, and cycling with training wheels. Have you really done an ironman?

I think running a 5 hour marathon is acceptable, if you

drink a 6-12 pack along the way. The only time you should be

walking is when the beer is warm and you're having trouble

keeping it down.

DougM,

How fat is your wife?

One of the best posts on this subject that gets recycled every 3mos. or so.

From McVeigh

IMO when a guy says walking's OK, and it's an Olympic guy saying so, it more or less destigmatizes mediocrity and undercuts the achievement of the top guys ("they could have walked") which in turn makes them a little less special, a little less glamorous, and thus de-glosses some of the star power that is absolutely necessary in the sports-marketing area. In every sport, and in every public-dependent business, the money funnel's spout is getting narrower ... for instance, try makign a successful chick movie wothout Julia Roberts these days. Or a baseball ad without Barry Bonds.

Bottom line, you gotta love the headcount JG brings to running, but the demographic/economic shift that it may be causing (as described above) works favorably mainly for the guy selling the books.

As I tell anyone, adn this encompasses runners from Galloway's target market to who asks me about biking, swimming, walking, lifting weights -- the best trainign for running is RUNNING. Everything else should be bolted on as an extra if you so choose, but only to the extent that it does NOT interfere with the running.

I like the outreach aspects - -getting mroe people involved is a good thing, IMO, buuuuut.... I'm of the opinion that bringing walking explicitly into a trainign and racing program dumps a lot of lubricant on the figurative slippery slope. The people JG is addressing have a lot more toughness than we usually give them credit for.

For isntance....I recommended JG's book to a friend who was an occasional fitness jogger since college who was entered in her 1st marathon and fearing it -- just wanted to give her a broad background on "training" running in general. Upon looking thru it, she said she wondered about walkign every other mile on a long training run. When I said I thought she'd get a lot more benefit out of running an entire 10-mile or halfmarathon race than by doing a 20miler with 6 mi of walking, she agreed --"counterintuitive," she said. This was what I was hoping she'd say and when she did, only then did I KNOW she'd finish the race. Which she did. Without walking.

She has since done 3 NYC marathons but is immensely proud of the fact that she didn't "have to walk" (her words) in 2 of them. She wants to keep running NYC every year. She probably will never break 5 hrs but I respect her immesnely for it b/c she still prefers running the whole way. (And she's atteneded every one of my postmarathon parties sicne I've known her).

these are just my thioguhts. back to work

"my point was that you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to run with you cos they're slow"

Did I ever say that? I just said that we should keep everyone's performances in the proper perspective. Mine included. The beauty of running - you are given an ordinal number that allows you to know where you fit in the pecking order. You can accurately asess where you fit in. I wouldn't reckon I deserved a special medal because I spend more time on the course than faster folks. It is fortunate that lots of folks will pay money to go on a hike through the city with the advantage of closed steets, but that is what they are doing. Sure, walking 26 miles is much harder than doing nothing. Doing it faster is harder than doing it slower (and takes more preparation time). Isn't the point to celebrate exceptional individuals? The greats are exceptional, we are slugs.

I firmly put myself in the category of folks who don't deserve any recognition.

As one of the folks mentioned by name in Hal's RWOL article, I fired off a reply to RW. If they don't print it within the next few days I'll upload it here.

In short, I think Hal missed the mark. He's arguing against a point that no one was trying to make.

Anderson wrote:

The guys on this board and others such as the guy in the initial post who seem to belittle those for running slow times in comparison to them seem to be setting themselves up.

Why do some guys ridicule guys running 5 hours when they run 2.30? you'd be pretty pissed off if kk or tergat came here saying "you pussies should give it up, if you can't run 2.09, you're not really running" surely it's the same?

anderson

I diasagree, a 2:30 compared to 2:09 is not at all the same as a 5 Hour Marathon, compared to running a marathon in under 3 hours.

A person who runs 2:30 has to be very dedicated and put in lots of hard work and and miles of training (some could run a 2:30 on 30 miles a week, while others would need to run 100 miles a week). Those who are not elite, and run the marathon in 2:20-3 Hours are out their training hard and putting in the miles. I've run a couple of marathons in under 2:40, but don't consider myself a marathoner, so I know that a sub 3 hour is not that tough. I feel that most people (at least 50%), if they were half as dedicated as most of us on this board and ran consistantly for 10 years, and built up to 70-80 miles a week (very doable, even with a full time job), could run a 3 hour marathon (3:30 for women).

But most people don't want to wait that long. They want to start from scratch and complete a marathon in a few months. And sure, starting with no base, running 2 or 3 days a week, and training for only a few months, it's going to take most people 5 hours or more to complete a marathon.

The difference between someone who runs a marathon, and someone who completes a marathon is that the person running between 2:05 and 3:XX is running at, or close to their maximum potential, while the 5:XX hour marathoner is in most cases no where near their potential.

Discalaimer - Now all I was doing is pointing out the difference between a marathon runner and a 5 hour plus marathon completer. I'm not saying that those who take over 5 hours shouldn't be allowed to enter a marathon (but if a marathon wants to have a 5 hour cut-off they should be allowed to). And I'm definitely not ridiculing the 5 hour marathoner. It's better that they're doing that than sitting on a couch!

Just don't say that a 5 hour marathoner is even remotely the same as a 2:30 marathoner!!

One of the things I like about running is the absence of subjectivity in competition. It?s all about getting from point A to B as fast as possible. If the only way an individual can finish a marathon is with walking breaks then they are doing what they have to do to get from point A to B.

Let?s apply anti-Gallowalker logic to some other situations:

-- My 2:52 marathon PR is a lesser performance than Joe Blow?s 3:00 because he ran the entire way and I had to walk at each water station the last six miles.

-- Bill Rodgers marathon AR is tainted because he made stops to tie his shoe and drink water.

-- Yes I had sex with your girlfriend but she?s ugly so it doesn?t count.

In reply to Slow Runner way above...

It is not profitable to keep Marathons open any longer than necessary...

Dallas White Rock changed from 8-hr limit to 6-hr limit this year for just that reason.

Check out this link:

http://www.whiterock-marathon.com/sixhourlimit.htm

Let me see if I understand this. In his RRCA editorial, Robert Johnson praises RRCA for recognizing ?the two key aspects behind why people run: 1) They like to compete and/or 2) It's good for them.? He then laments that ?the health benefits of running tend to be promoted exclusively and at the expense of promotion of the competitive aspect of the sport,? and states that the ?the two are not mutually exclusive.? He also states ?running is unique in that it's the only sport where everyone can compete with the sport's biggest stars. This fact needs to be actively promoted, not downplayed. Lining up with world-class athletes should be used to inspire, not demoralize the masses.? Okay, so if the two key aspects (competition and health) are not mutually exclusive, and we need to promote how running is a sport where everyone can compete in an event with the biggest stars, why would anyone belittle the 5-hour marathoners? Why would anyone want fewer people involved in running?

Some posters here want to ?take back our sport.? How did it become OUR sport but not the sport of a 5-hour marathoner? It seems to me that we have a sport partly because there are lots of marathoners who finish in 4, 5, and 6 hours. I have never been bothered by the number of slower runners behind me, only by the number of faster runners ahead of me. For me, the competitive side was always more important. But that?s because I started out running as a competitor. I have nothing against the masses who started running as a way to get healthier. It doesn?t bother me if someone walks during a race, and I have never heard of an elite runner complaining about the people behind him or her who walked some of the distance. Without these less-competitive folks, you and I would not have nearly as many chances to compete. Let them alone. Concentrate on your own competitive efforts. And if someone really wants to see ?elite only? events, they should go out and fund, organize and direct such events.

It's not that slower runners are slow, or that Gallowalkers impede the progress of faster runners, or that the prize purse is lower since Van Halen got hired to play at Mile 20, or that the course is open for 10 hours. My beef is one of access for faster men and women. Those who see this endeavor as SPORT not as a self-help seminar or feel good festival.

Now we're NOT talking about the elites. I just hate to see goal oriented athletes looking for Boston or Trials qualifiers who can't enter the Flat City Marathon or Tailwind Marathon because it filled up six months ago with 2000 "Training for Tykes", 1500 "Onward With Oprah", and 500 "Do It for Someone Else" runners / walkers. These charity athletes are doing good things and paying the bills, on that we all agree. I am advocating a window of opportunity for RACERS to enter marquee events that provide them the best chance of meeting their goals. We all know how capricious running and life can be. For the athlete that works a real job with travel involved or has family commitments, you can't always plan your marathon 9-12 months in advance. So why not have events or spots open for these runners? Look at my original post. Is 3:30 / 4:30 some ungodly time challenge? Is 90 days unreasonably close to race day?

We need balance and many of us feel the pendulum swinging too far in one direction. There's plenty of gray area to work with.

Yocum,

Let me first start out by saying that I appreciate your sensible treatment towards slower runners. I agree with you wholeheartedly that it is no more our sport than theirs, and it is unfortunate that they get ?bashed? for attempting to do something that is a whole lot better than sitting on the couch. In my opinion, it is not from them that we need to take the sport back. Rather, it is from their misguided coach who is singlehandedly changing the landscape of competitive running by feeding on people?s hopes for a quick fix and near-instant gratification.

While I agree with you that I am never going to complain about how some Gallowalker messed up my race (not going to happen), I think that to not consider the negative implications that poor coaching has not only for the new runners, but also for the sport itself is somewhat self-centered. The idea, see, is not to kick the ?less-competitive? folks out at all (are you kidding me, they are competitive! Even given your background, can you imagine taking just two years off and then decide to run a 26.2m race in 4-5mos? Do you think it would be prudent?), rather it is to provide them with actual coaching that shows what running really has to offer that will change a lifestyle rather than 18 weekend mornings.

I can?t believe how much great coaches like Wetmore, Lananna, etc. get railed on (on a board for the ?highest levels of our sport?), yet the Galloway plan (which has been proven to have out and out lies! Fraud!) gets defenders.

Reread McVeigh's response (as it is the best one on here) and provide a counter.

>>Rather, it is from their misguided coach who is singlehandedly changing the landscape of competitive running by feeding on people?s hopes for a quick fix and near-instant gratification.<<

With a nonsensical statement like that you have a future as a politician.

Thank you for the political compliment. It is required where I work.

As for not being able to understand, I am sorry that I was talking over your head.