Time to Boycott Marathons

TrackCoach wrote:

With that said, marathoning as a business would not be what it is today w/o those 4 hour runners. It takes a lot of money to host a world class marathon and those 4 hour runners foot the bill.

Do you have references and numbers to back this claim, or is it just as much of a ridiculous assumption as when it comes from anyone else?

Do you have references and numbers to back this claim, or is it just as much of a ridiculous assumption as when it comes from anyone else?

Look at NYC as an example (using +/- #'s). There were over 37K finishers in '06 with about 25K of them finishing over the 4hr mark.

Lets do a little math assuming an entry fee of $60 (I don't even know what it is now, but that's what it was a few yrs back so lets roll w/ it).

The revenue generated from the athletes going:

<4hrs = $750K

4hrs+ = $1.5 MILLION

You tell me which group is more important to the business of the marathon. You could also argue that the 4hr+ group spends considerably more on NYC marathon t's, souvenirs, etc....

So where is the reference showing how the NYRR uses that dough? Or, once again, is this an assumption regarding what that money does for the race? How much does it cost to close down the streets in NYC for 4 hours and how much more is it to keep them closed for 5-8 hours? In other words, what is the increased cost/burden of catering to the 4+ hour crowd? There are permits, EMT costs, PD costs, etc. Don't answer the question half-assed.

Keith:

I have been a race director too. In todays computer age, it would not be that much work. They do it quite well in Boston. In a lot of races, you have to present a time and proof in order to be seeded (Crescent City Classic used to do this. Back off a little, people will take you more seriously.

The Chicago marathon was an unfortunate event this year caused by very unusual weather and poor planning on the part of race directors and race participants, alike. As an event coordinator for a large corporate sponser of marathons (and a runner, myself), I will assure you that it is our desire to have our races to be the biggest and best around; and that includes walkers. Many corporations, including my own, would not be interested in lending our brand and, more importantly, our money for a marathon with 10% of the typical number of participants.

Math Whiz's post is the gist of it, isn't it?I think a few people on this board have misunderstood me a bit, too. I'm not the champion of the walker in that I think EVERY event needs a walking division. I'm just NOT opposed to RD's opening their events to walkers. The RD's are doing the work, it's their decision. If I don't want to run in a race that has walkers, then I don't go. It's just never really bothered me.

Math Whiz.... wrote:

Do you have references and numbers to back this claim, or is it just as much of a ridiculous assumption as when it comes from anyone else?

Look at NYC as an example (using +/- #'s). There were over 37K finishers in '06 with about 25K of them finishing over the 4hr mark.

Lets do a little math assuming an entry fee of $60 (I don't even know what it is now, but that's what it was a few yrs back so lets roll w/ it).

The revenue generated from the athletes going:

<4hrs = $750K

4hrs+ = $1.5 MILLION

You tell me which group is more important to the business of the marathon. You could also argue that the 4hr+ group spends considerably more on NYC marathon t's, souvenirs, etc....

I understand the delima with Corporate Sponsorship. However, since you are a sponsor, you have to understand that these races cannot go on without volunteer support either and asking volunteers to stay on a course from sometimes 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning until late in the afternoon to accomodate walkers that are not just walking but are simplying moseying is a bit much. As I said in my earlier post, a 6:00 to 6:30 marathon is still a walk but a brisk one. That is what we do in Houston and it works well for us.

I do understand the need for volunteers. I "volunteer" every race we sponser and often spend 12 hours or more both Saturday and Sunday. From my experience, by and large, volunteers are not the problem. Volunteers are quite clear on the time commitments they make on race date and are ususally quite happy to be there.

I have read this entire thread. For those against the walking division or the "penguins" participation in these races, this discussion has never centered on the concern of our volunteers. It seems much more centered on those faster runners who believe these races are created solely for their competition and participation. They are not.

trackcoach248 wrote:

Keith:

I have been a race director too. In todays computer age, it would not be that much work. They do it quite well in Boston. In a lot of races, you have to present a time and proof in order to be seeded (Crescent City Classic used to do this. Back off a little, people will take you more seriously.

You do realize that you're responding to "Kieth", who is apparently making fun of Keith in the post you are responding to?

hhhhaaaa wrote:Actually they will piss of Keith Stone, the defensive race director for the common man.

Not really, unless you say every marathon in the country should do it. Boston does it to control the field size, but they still have charity and volunteer exceptions. I have a problem with the former but endorse the latter as a good way to bring people out to work the event.

National marathon has certain things to deal with. Every race has to have a "cutoff" of sorts. The 10K/30K I work locally has 1000 people we think we can park, that's a natural limit. We have a course closure of 4 hours for the 30K and we advertise it in advance.

I wouldn't however say that everyone that registers for the race has to prove they can run a 30K in xx:xx time before they register. If they don't finish in 4 hours they might get scored if someone is still hanging around, but we start pulling up support in 4 hours. and they know that going in.

A race directors job is to advertise what they deliver, and deliver what they advertise. I have no problem with anyone starting up a marathon and having a cutoff of 3 hours for men and 3:30 for women. I do have a problem with people saying that an existing race should do that because they can't get laid if someone from the secretarial pool mentions at the water cooler that they finished the same race they did. If a race director solves the logistics for handling the people, who should care how slow those people are.

trackcoach248 wrote:

Keith:

I have been a race director too. In todays computer age, it would not be that much work. They do it quite well in Boston. In a lot of races, you have to present a time and proof in order to be seeded (Crescent City Classic used to do this. Back off a little, people will take you more seriously.

That ain't me dude, check the spelling.

TrackCoach wrote:I agree that the object is to run the marathon, you throw in a little bit of walking if absolutely have to, but you miss the point of the accomplishment if you set out with the intent to walk.

No, I disagree. The intent is to cover the distance from the start line to the finish line in the least amount of time under your own power. If what you practiced was walking at various intervals, then you need to so on race day what your practiced. Everyone knows you don't try anything new on race day (if you're smart). It's better to walk at intervals, than run a great 19 miler and walk 7.2, if that walking at intervals gets you there faster.

In a any case, the rules are the same. Some dude that walks every 5 minutes and finishes in 3:25 beats the dude that runs all the way in 3:30. Plain and simple.

Keith Stone wrote:I have a problem with the former

So which of the below came from the REAL Keith Stone? Which needs to relax?

A poll forthe real Keith Stone wrote:

So which of the below came from the REAL Keith Stone? Which needs to relax?

Geez, you're so f**king stupid you can't figure it out for yourself?

The real Keith (spelled "ei") Stone makes it so easy to despise the lazy and the weak because he is trash himself.

This from the web site of the upcoming Marine Corp. Marathon...

"Online Registration for the 2007 Marine Corps Marathon opened on May 9th at noon eastern and closed just fourteen days later on May 23rd at 3:00 p.m. eastern with a race field of 30,000 runners."

Seems to me the race directors are probably quite happy with the influx of slow folks. The last place finisher in 2006 sped across the finish line in a blazing 7 hours 43 minutes!

Like it or not, that's the American marathon of this era. Get used to it.

'

Corporate Gal wrote:

I have read this entire thread. For those against the walking division or the "penguins" participation in these races, this discussion has never centered on the concern of our volunteers. It seems much more centered on those faster runners who believe these races are created solely for their competition and participation. They are not.

And why is that? If it were not for these people there would be no such thing as a "race" in the first place. Originally that was the point, to see who could get from point A to point B in the least amount of time. That is the whole purpose of a race.

As the race has evolved, more people decided to give it a try. They probably discovered that they could not win, but they could still "race themselves" by committing to and trying to improve thier times. That is the purpose of a race.

It boggles my mind that people can't understand why serious runners are less than enthusiastic by their sport being overrun by a bunch of people that have no desire to push themselves to their best effort. Now we have a corporate sponsor come on here and acknowledge that these races aren't even created with the competitors in mind, who are the very people that allow for these events to exist in the first place. Ridiculous.

Try putting on a non-competitive "race" where there is no placing of the finishers, no prize money and no competition and see who shows up.

If these "races" aren't created solely for competition and participation of serious athletes then why do they exist at all? Why not simply send and envelope out asking for charity donations and tell people they can go walk 26.2 miles any day of the week that they so choose?

By the way, before I get the ususal response from the walker supporters I'll throw this out there. I'm a 3:05 marathoner and my never break the 3 hour barrier. My fiancee is a 4 hour marathoner. Certainly not fast by any stretch of the imagination. But we at least train to be able to run to the best of our ability and to see what we can achieve. There's a whole lot of others out there that don't and those are the people who I do not support coming out for these "races."