Great WSJ Article Praising NYC For Ditching Pacemakers - A Runner and His…Entourage?

Wittenburg is all about hype, no substance.

I like fast races. Slow races are Borinnggggg.

Let me start by saying that Mary W. is a hero for our sport. She really gets it and I think that the NYRR is going to do more for our sport in the next 5 years then USATF has ever done in their entire existence.

Now, how do we promote our sport? Right now, we are going after records. I read somewhere an opinion saying that a race wasn't interesting unless a record was broken. (I think it was runnersworld).

Here is an example of how that is wrong. Consider these three questions:

How much press and attention did the Berlin Marathon get?

How much press and attention did the woman in chicago having a baby after the race get?

How much press and attention did the guy in Europe get for cheating??

We need more stories and drama, not record chasing attempts.

Why do we need to "promote" our sport? IMO running is just fine the way it is.

WTF does a woman having a baby do for our sport anyway? If you want to turn running into a freakshow, then highlighting stupid ass stories like that is the way to go.

How much press and attention did the Berlin Marathon get? Tons and tons and tons and tons - for the right reasons. A runner went out and ran a fantastic race and smashed the World Record - what more could a REAL fan want.

Anybody who thought Berlin was dull isn't needed as a fan - if you weren't impressed by Makau's tactic for getting rid of the greatest distance runner of all time, just because it happened at 16 miles instead of 26, then you aren't a real fan. Leave the freakshows to the "fans" who ask "how long was that Marathon?".

I understand Mary's thinking.

What if baseball was about how many runs you could rack up in a single game? No one cares about the score in the end, they just care that one team scored more than another. I wish running were more like that.

The problem is that I do not think that we can ever go back.

When you think about it, though, times are about as arbitrary as runs or points. I mean, racing conditions can greatly affect the outcome, especially on the roads. You would never say, "well, the Yankees scored 8 against the Red Sox and the Orioles only scored 3 against the Blue Jays, so I am going with the Yankees." Time really should be secondary to place, but I guess it never will.

If people want time to be secondary to place they need to have a racing circuit that is more like XC. From my experience in HS and (less so) in college it was rare to have a course that was measured out to an exact 5k or 8k. Instead, the race could be long or short.

If a race deliberately wants time to be irrelevant it is very easy. Like how the original marathon distance was set, they could just move the start and finish to different places and not worry about doing a one block long out and back to make sure the distance is exact. Throw enough money at the race (or series of races) and see what happens. It could be fairly interesting if you could get a consistent turn out and kept the distances between say 5-20k and see how people do.

There will obviously be the slow race where it is 5-10 people all sprinting to the line but I'm sure there would also be the race where somebody just tries to hammer it from the start like Radcliffe or Wanjiru did.

For the rest of us, we're guilty of this, too. Most everyone runs Chicago, Berlin, London or any other of the flat Marathons at least once to maximize their potential.

After all, you'll be asked: "What's your PR?" and not "What's your PR and how many minutes can I subtract because the course was harder than Berlin?"

Or, take this one step further, and run it like a XC race with teams so it's not just who's fastest but who has the best team too. If you put the money on the results of the team competition it would be a lot more interesting, at least to me, as then team depth and tactics come more into play. And develop trade teams rather than national teams - otherwise it becomes a foregone conclusion once again.

Mary Wittenberg excels at tooting her own horn. Nutella 1 has it right.

Wejo and Rojo - how many races have you two acted as pacemakers?

Most of that article is just nonsense. Letsrun has put more emphasis and ink on/about record times than anyone or any magazine. I have no complaint with that.

I am never favor of using pacemakers, ever. We're talking about racing here.

Night Runner wrote:

Mary Wittenberg excels at tooting her own horn. Nutella 1 has it right.

Wejo and Rojo - how many races have you two acted as pacemakers?

Most of that article is just nonsense. Letsrun has put more emphasis and ink on/about record times than anyone or any magazine. I have no complaint with that.

Yes, we've both paced world records. Please understand, I don't think there is anything wrong with pacers.

I just think it shouldn't be required every race. Or even if you have them, that the finishing time is the always the focus.

I think one of the problems with most world record races is all of the money is spent on the Haile G and rabbits and the race is therefore uncompetitive. There certainly are boring slow races as well.

Competitive races make compelling dramas. Fast times with no drama aren't.

But wouldn't it be cool every now and then to have no rabbits at all at say London? Or even rabbits in New york?

In my mind, one of the big stories about this year's NY race will be very much the time race as the CR will likely be smashed.

Querfeldein wrote:

What makes a race exciting isn't the presence of absence of rabbits.

Has anyone seen the Berlin 2003 Marathon, where Paul Tergat set a world record, beating rabbit Sammy Korir to the line, by one second? Chicago 2010? Rotterdam 2009? 2010? Or even London, 2011?

By comparison to any of these great races, the 2011 World Championship Marathon, the year's most high profile non-rabbited race so far, was a boring affair.

There are boring time-trials, like the Dubai Marathon. But just because a race is fast and includes pacemakers, it isn't boring. Mary Wittenberg, with her knowledge, should know better.

It's the depth of the elite field that makes a marathon exciting. Simple.

Agreed. Berlin 2011 could've been a great race. But Haile wasn't in perfect shape for it. But Makau and Geb could've had a 26th mile showdown like Tergat and Korir. Granted, it would've helped if Berlin had a stronger field, but Geb and Makau could've been a great showdown even with pacers.

The Oly 2008 marathon was a runaway and it had no pacers.

I am a serious runner and have enjoyed watching track and field and marathons for more than thirty-five years. It bothers me to watch a paced-race. I only want to watch those who are competing to win. There is no drama in watching pacers who will eventually drop out. To me, the real race doesn't start until the last pacer is gone. Let those competing to win battle it out. That's exciting.

I can't argue with anything you have said Rojo. Thanks for the reply.

Agree that Wittenberg's comment is self serving. I'd rather see the fastest, most fit person win. The only way to ensure that is with pacemakers.

Looking at it from how it affects the popularity of running as a spectator sport, the problem with always emphasizing records is that they can't be broken indefinitely or at least frequently broken indefinitely.

Is the women's marathon "boring" and something the public shouldn't care about because no one is close to breaking the women's WR? For that matter, are most women's races at any distance boring because no one is currently close to breaking a WR because of all of the doping in the past? Personally, I don't think so.

Total Knob wrote:

Why do we need to "promote" our sport? IMO running is just fine the way it is.

...

How much press and attention did the Berlin Marathon get? Tons and tons and tons and tons - for the right reasons. A runner went out and ran a fantastic race and smashed the World Record - what more could a REAL fan want.

Anybody who thought Berlin was dull isn't needed as a fan ...

The money to organize these races comes from advertising to people who have only a passing interest in competitive running, not from the 200 rabid followers of letsrun.

I stayed up till early morning to watch Berlin, and I thought it was a total snoozefest. "Real fans" may turn up your noses at racing, but racing, not time trials, is what keeps our sport in the public eye and PAYS THE BILLS. Yes, pregnant women helps.

More non-races like Berlin, and running won't be "the way it is" for much longer.

rojo wrote:

But wouldn't it be cool every now and then to have no rabbits at all at say London? Or even rabbits in New york?.

This. Definitely would make it interesting. Mix it up. Unpredictable races are the best.