There is a reason that races like Boston had more faster runners back in the past. There was no option, now there are plenty of marathons to choose from.
There is a reason that races like Boston had more faster runners back in the past. There was no option, now there are plenty of marathons to choose from.
So many idiotic claims in this article that my head hurts just trying to determine where to begin in ripping it apart.
Anyone in their 50s who is still doing triathlons is probably pretty serious about it, thus the relatively faster times. The hobby joggers/manatees filling up the field are mostly in their 30s and 40s, and have graduated to walking by the time they hit their 50s. As for the Competitor (Participator?) Group, we all know by now they are just about the bottom line.
I can't stand these lazy authors that just take a few anecdotes and statistics and completely misinterpret them.
A lot of venom coming out of the comments section of that article. Most of it arguing that the increased participation (coming from the walruses) is good for the sport. It's not. People are fatter than ever as 'participation' soars so obviously something isn't working. If I wanted to go for an easy marathon distance run, I'd strap on my shoes and head out my front door. I don't need to spend $175, and deal with the masses to do it. Now, if I want to RACE, then I sign up for a RACE, so I have to opportunity to compete against others.
And why does it matter to me if there are slower cows behind me? Because time does matter and yet it is entirely true that people are just as impressed with a 4 hour marathon as they are with a 245. I get that neither time will put me on the World's podium, but there is something to be said for hard work and determination and this has been lost in the American psyche. A 4 hour marathon is not the same as a 245 (assuming equal age, sex, etc.) and it should never be treated as such.
Not a hippo wrote:
A lot of venom coming out of the comments section of that article. Most of it arguing that the increased participation (coming from the walruses) is good for the sport. It's not. People are fatter than ever as 'participation' soars so obviously something isn't working. If I wanted to go for an easy marathon distance run, I'd strap on my shoes and head out my front door. I don't need to spend $175, and deal with the masses to do it. Now, if I want to RACE, then I sign up for a RACE, so I have to opportunity to compete against others.
And why does it matter to me if there are slower cows behind me? Because time does matter and yet it is entirely true that people are just as impressed with a 4 hour marathon as they are with a 245. I get that neither time will put me on the World's podium, but there is something to be said for hard work and determination and this has been lost in the American psyche. A 4 hour marathon is not the same as a 245 (assuming equal age, sex, etc.) and it should never be treated as such.
An honest question: why do you care so much if someone runs slower than you? It sounds like you're pissed off that people don't recognize that your 2:45 is a better time than a 4:00. Why do you care what other people think?
If I want to race, I go find a race. If I want to run easy, I run easy. Not once has someone else's goals influenced how I enjoy my running. The day you start looking for external validation for your amateur athletic pursuits, that's the day you develop an irrational hatred of people with different goals than you.
a little perspective wrote:
Texas Toast wrote:At one point we had a running boom that produced large scale participation and interest in the sport. The masses were trying to improve their times, train well, and race hard without necessarily going after sponsorships or prize money. Now we have large scale participation that dismisses or even resents the actual sport and that seems strange.
The masses were never doing all of the things you said. The front end of the field was always chasing times (even back before the "Shorter running boom") but the masses have always been about fitness/finishing. It just so happens there are more masses today (read as more participation) than in the 70s, so it seems as though their influence is magnified.
As for your last sentence, I have never once been at a race where I have felt as though my performance was "resented" by the field or the race directors. Sure I've been at races with crappy prizes, but I cannot think of one single race that hasn't at least recognized the winner.
The problem with all of this talk about "the sport" is that "the sport" is many different sports to many different people. Once you accept this and recognize that you should seek enjoyment from running in ways you see fit (whether its following pro running, racing at a competitive level, or running for fitness) without worrying about how other people enjoy the sport, you'll be a lot happier.
Fair enough. I missed the first running boom by a couple decades. Very possible my understanding of it is flawed and that I glorify things based on what I want to be true. And resentment is probably too strong a word. Also, having been around in the 90's it's also obvious to me that what some people are saying about U.S. Distance running actually getting a lot better is also true.
What about this thread from last month though?
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5376679&page=6There's a lot of nonsense in there on both sides of the discourse. There also seems to be a little bit of evidence to support the notion that at one point in time there were more people concerned with times and real training than there are today.
It's not that I don't accept everyone who runs for any reason and wish them the best. I just don't think that it's criminal to maybe try and incentivize a little more knowledge about training or about the top end of the sport. It's hard to wrap my head around the notion that the huge numbers of people who enjoy running on any level wouldn't have an interest in following the athletes at top competitive level of track and field and road racing if the top, competitive level of the sport was presented in a better way. I think everyone could benefit.
Hey that's a cool idea. Way to think outside the box. Its refreshing for someone to try and turn a thread positive/constructive.
Sorry for the long, poorly-formated quote, second quote and response. And here's that thread from page 1:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5376679&page=0
Not a hippo wrote:
A 4 hour marathon is not the same as a 245 (assuming equal age, sex, etc.) and it should never be treated as such.
Well, neither runner will ever be elite, but you're right, the four-hour runner's ego probably isn't tied up with his running time as closely as yours seems to be. My goodness. Take a chill pill, dude.
just tea for me wrote:
Not a hippo wrote:A 4 hour marathon is not the same as a 245 (assuming equal age, sex, etc.) and it should never be treated as such.
Well, neither runner will ever be elite, but you're right, the four-hour runner's ego probably isn't tied up with his running time as closely as yours seems to be. My goodness. Take a chill pill, dude.
I believe the women's OT Marathon Qualifying time is 2:46, so I'd disagree with you. But these are arbitrary numbers. Point is I'd much rather see people competing at these events (which means training diligently for a long period) rather than merely participating. If you want to leisurely run, then by all means join a group of friends and do it, but you don't need a race for it.
Not a hippo wrote:
A lot of venom coming out of the comments section of that article. Most of it arguing that the increased participation (coming from the walruses) is good for the sport. It's not. People are fatter than ever as 'participation' soars so obviously something isn't working. If I wanted to go for an easy marathon distance run, I'd strap on my shoes and head out my front door. I don't need to spend $175, and deal with the masses to do it. Now, if I want to RACE, then I sign up for a RACE, so I have to opportunity to compete against others.
And why does it matter to me if there are slower cows behind me? Because time does matter and yet it is entirely true that people are just as impressed with a 4 hour marathon as they are with a 245. I get that neither time will put me on the World's podium, but there is something to be said for hard work and determination and this has been lost in the American psyche. A 4 hour marathon is not the same as a 245 (assuming equal age, sex, etc.) and it should never be treated as such.
Unlike some posters who replied to this comment, I agree with much of it.
Road racing has morphed from an event where the focus is to RACE others and complete the distance as fast as possible, to an event where the focus is to merely FINISH and where participation is celebrated.
Participation is good, but when the vast majority of that participation is made up of people who are focused only on finishing then something is wrong.
All these people who sign up to run a 5k/10k/half-marathon/marathon and don't actually RACE the distance, but merely complete it are missing something.
If you only want to complete the distance you can do that on a training run by yourself. Races are for RACING. They are for COMPETING. I am not saying you have to be super fast or moderately fast to RACE. It is about (relative) effort. If your intention was never to put forth a race effort then I think you should just stay home and go on a training run.
Gotta say, I now have a newfound respect for Spartan Race over parades like Tough Mudder. At least they're emphasizing competitiveness.
someone had to do it wrote:
Unlike some posters who replied to this comment, I agree with much of it.
Road racing has morphed from an event where the focus is to RACE others and complete the distance as fast as possible, to an event where the focus is to merely FINISH and where participation is celebrated.
Participation is good, but when the vast majority of that participation is made up of people who are focused only on finishing then something is wrong.
All these people who sign up to run a 5k/10k/half-marathon/marathon and don't actually RACE the distance, but merely complete it are missing something.
If you only want to complete the distance you can do that on a training run by yourself. Races are for RACING. They are for COMPETING. I am not saying you have to be super fast or moderately fast to RACE. It is about (relative) effort. If your intention was never to put forth a race effort then I think you should just stay home and go on a training run.
Again, I'll repeat my sentiment: what others do in a road race does not affect you at all. Want to race? Then go race. No one is stopping you, and your accomplishment is only cheapened if you allow it to be.
Who cares if people running instead of racing are "missing" something? Maybe they're getting something out of it that you're missing.
I'll admit, I used to dismiss what Letsrun calls hobbyjoggers as "not worthy," but with time I've realized that running is a big tent, and there's no reason to exclude someone just because his goals are different than mine.
Looky Here wrote:
Gotta say, I now have a newfound respect for Spartan Race over parades like Tough Mudder. At least they're emphasizing competitiveness.
Well, I think I can pretty much copy the sentence, but replace Spartan Race with X-fit. It's competition oriented.
ummn wrote:
Well, I think I can pretty much copy the sentence, but replace Spartan Race with X-fit. It's competition oriented.
Same, lame crap. Different competition.
Yes, the demography of running has changed since Munich. Women, dieters and bucket listers swell road races to bursting. But I think the WSJ guy is on to something. Very few non-Letsrun runners run mileage or do speed work. This is a real change from running revolution #1, spurred by Frank, Bill, John Parker, the early edgier RW. Now, many people run 2 or 3 times a week, and, when training for a half, go for a group run organized by a running store. People don't want to work and suffer now. The Internet, video games, cells, sedentary work all play a role, as does fast-food nation, which leads many to run for weight loss. I hate the racing scene because it is overwhelmed by dilettantes. So, a week from Sat I am doing an 8 hour trail race with 20 other people.
I can't really speak to this topic because I've only been around the running scene for the last 10 years as competitive runner.
Racing is a subjective term. I think the "athletes" among us have a hard time understanding why someone would not want to push themsleves to their personal limit. But not everyone is driven by that impulse.
I see nothing wrong with people getting together at a "race" as if it were some big party. The atmosphere cannot be replicated at a normal run between friends. These are like concerts. People feed off each other's energy.
If all of a sudden they barred competitive running at these events by some asburd rule like "no running!" ..then we might have something to gripe about. But as of right now, we're not being excluded and more people means a bigger stage to compete on. That being said, if you're running for external validation that's the problem right there.
Xfit_guy_the_real_one_1 wrote:
What a stupid article. Today's kids are more educated than ever. They see right through fads. And they know that long distance running or triathlon is not healthy.
Instead they focus on a more holistic approach to (functional) fitness. Once they're out of high school, they join a gym or a crossfit box and focus on getting big and shredded. Yep, I know, buzzwords but that's what they want and that's what the young women demand. They want BUFF/RIPPED and not lean/frail.
Here's an article of more relevance for you crossfit wankers.
http://www.kernelmag.com/features/report/5292/the-adonis-complex/former upstate runner wrote:
Again, I'll repeat my sentiment: what others do in a road race does not affect you at all. Want to race? Then go race. No one is stopping you, and your accomplishment is only cheapened if you allow it to be.
Who cares if people running instead of racing are "missing" something? Maybe they're getting something out of it that you're missing.
I'll admit, I used to dismiss what Letsrun calls hobbyjoggers as "not worthy," but with time I've realized that running is a big tent, and there's no reason to exclude someone just because his goals are different than mine.
Several thoughts -
1) I never said what other people do affects me.
2) A race is for RACING. If you merely want to complete the distance then do a training run by yourself.
3) YOU are missing something, not me. The point of a race is to RACE, not finish. That is the entire point of a race.
4) It has nothing to do with "dismissing hobby joggers as not worthy". I said speed has nothing to do with it. It is about relative effort.
5) Don't run a race unless you intend to RACE. If you want to do a glorified training run then just stay home.
Everything I've said pertains to RACES. Actual races. I don't mind the color run thing because people know going into it what it is all about. A race however is different and should be treated as such.
someone had to do it wrote:
3) YOU are missing something, not me. The point of a race is to RACE, not finish. That is the entire point of a race.
Everything I've said pertains to RACES. Actual races. I don't mind the color run thing because people know going into it what it is all about. A race however is different and should be treated as such.
Even if I were to accept your point about races, I don't believe that the word "race" shows up in the name of, for instance, the NYC Marathon.
http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/The irony is that even while you decry the presence of slower runners, your ego depends on beating them to improve your "finisher percentage."
And of course, slower runners are subsidizing a race that otherwise might not exist.