Time to Boycott Marathons

Big marathons are marketing tools. That's all they are, whether you like it or not.

I understand in the Chicago marathon, LaSalle Bank actually bought the radio air time from sports station WSCR. It was a three hour ad for the bank. It was in the contract that the announcers had to always say "The LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon", and never just the Chicago Marathon. I listened to some of it, and once the announcer just called it the Chicago Marathon. You could tell he probably caught an elbow in the ribs, and quickly corrected himself, with a bit of a laugh thrown in.

Denver Runner: 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."

OK - lets say:

I'm a 4:05 marathoner and my never break the 4 hour barrier. My fiancee is a 5 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."

Where do you draw the line and say a person can't compete? I know sick runners that barely try and can run <2:40 and others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs. Since you can't measure nobility, why is this even an issue?

iron age wrote:

Big marathons are marketing tools. That's all they are, whether you like it or not.

I understand in the Chicago marathon, LaSalle Bank actually bought the radio air time from sports station WSCR. It was a three hour ad for the bank. It was in the contract that the announcers had to always say "The LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon", and never just the Chicago Marathon. I listened to some of it, and once the announcer just called it the Chicago Marathon. You could tell he probably caught an elbow in the ribs, and quickly corrected himself, with a bit of a laugh thrown in.

Well I understand that and I also understand that the cities love to have them because it is an economic windfall from all the out of towners that show up.

As for them being marketing tools, yeah, its unfortunate that is what they have become. Just like "Mile High Stadium" no longer exists and is called "Invesco Field at Mile High." Its a sad commentary on money's power and influence on our society.

Personally, I have really no desire to run Chicago or New York or any of these other big marathons. I run Boston every year and am content to do that. While I am not world class, at least I know when I'm running Boston that I'm sharing the course with others who take the sport seriously whether they are "recreational" or not.

OK - lets say:

I'm a 4:05 marathoner and my never break the 4 hour barrier. My fiancee is a 5 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."

Where do you draw the line and say a person can't compete? I know sick runners that barely try and can run <2:40 and others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs. Since you can't measure nobility, why is this even an issue?[/quote]

If it were up to me I wouldn't let the 2:40 slacker in. I highly doubt that your "sick" runners "barely try" and turn out those type of times, but I'll humor you. They're doing themselves and the sport a disservice if they don't give their best effort and IMO are worse than the 4 hour + runner who gives it his all in training and racing.

And you unintentionally backed up my point by using the word "compete." If you want to compete, regardless of time, then go for it. I'm all for that. I simply have little use for the "I'm going to walk a marathon, so I can say I did one and then never do it again" types that seem to be the little darlings of alot of people for God knows why.

Well??? wrote:

:

Where do you draw the line and say a person can't compete? I know sick runners that barely try and can run <2:40 and others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs. Since you can't measure nobility, why is this even an issue?

I agree. I also think they shouldn't be called races anymore so it doesn't offend walkers. I also think local 5k's, 10k's and half marathons should be outlawed so nobody is forced or tempted by the indignity of running shorter races before "running" a marathon.

There shouldn't even be any cutoff times either. They should just keep the course open until everyone finishes even if it takes a couple days.

This way we can "applaud the effort" of those "who get off the couch" and try to "end their sedentary lifestyle".

Hey, if you finish faster than those who "worked their ass off" to walk the race, why should you care if the city is bottled up, right?

Trite Claim: 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.

Sorry, I haven't done a peer reviewed analysis on this, but if you've taken basic economics you would understand this. MathWhiz is obviously being broad here, but using his #'s, remove 25K runners from the race. This now eliminates the $$ used to keep the roads open, EMT's, etc... - other things you mention. Big win for the race - according to you? Right? WRONG!!

How do you think the host city feels about the reduction of 25K hotel rooms, meals, souvenirs, taxis, etc etc etc.... 10's of MILLIONS of $$$ in revenue now eliminated, BUT in your eyes, well worth it for the <$1M in savings to cut the resources alocated to close the course after 4hrs.

Way to see the whole picture

DenverRunner wrote:

[quote]:

While I am not world class, at least I know when I'm running Boston that I'm sharing the course with others who take the sport seriously whether they are "recreational" or not.

While you may not be world class, where did you post your qualifying time BEFORE you ran Boston?

Where do you draw the line and say a person can't compete? I know sick runners that barely try and can run <2:40 and others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs. Since you can't measure nobility, why is this even an issue?[/quote]

By the way, what kind of training do the "others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs" do? Do they actually train more than 30 mpw? A 5 hour marathon is 11:28 per mile which is a tad over walking pace in and of itself. I gotta call B.S. there.

>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

DenverRunner wrote:

[quote]:

While I am not world class, at least I know when I'm running Boston that I'm sharing the course with others who take the sport seriously whether they are "recreational" or not.

While you may not be world class, where did you post your qualifying time BEFORE you ran Boston?

Philadelphia. Got beat by alot of people and beat alot of others myself.

What's your point?

Lets appoint you to be in charge of the monitoring of who is allowed or not allowed into the marathon. How do you set up the entry process?

Know a few who run more than 30 mpw, but lives don't revolve around running. One fellow - up at 4:30 during the week to get in 8+ miles before work; long runs on weekends. Tops out at about 55 mpw during training - not great, but not bad. Finishes around 5 hours. Big, strong, healthy guy - just genetically challenged in the speed dept.

DenverRunner wrote:

Where do you draw the line and say a person can't compete? I know sick runners that barely try and can run <2:40 and others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs. Since you can't measure nobility, why is this even an issue?

By the way, what kind of training do the "others who revolve their life around not walking and can barely break 5hrs" do? Do they actually train more than 30 mpw? A 5 hour marathon is 11:28 per mile which is a tad over walking pace in and of itself. I gotta call B.S. there.[/quote]

Well??? wrote:

Lets appoint you to be in charge of the monitoring of who is allowed or not allowed into the marathon. How do you set up the entry process?

5 hour time limit. Pretty simple.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. What kind of "training" do your 5 hour "life revolves around running" marathoners do?

[quote]They be out there wrote:

Know a few who run more than 30 mpw, but lives don't revolve around running. One fellow - up at 4:30 during the week to get in 8+ miles before work; long runs on weekends. Tops out at about 55 mpw during training - not great, but not bad. Finishes around 5 hours. Big, strong, healthy guy - just genetically challenged in the speed dept.

I would agree that there are some out there who are simply not prediposed to be able to run fast times. However, I would say that the gentleman that you are mentioning is the exception and not the rule.

My fiancee just ran Portland in 4:2X:XX after having her training curtailed big time due to medical issues that cropped up in the last couple months before the race. She will be the first to admit that she has little running talent (and I would agree). Now we're talking about apparently healthy individuals not being able to crak 5 hours? Something there doesn't compute. Her best has been a 4:06:XX. If she can do it, most people who want to make the effort should be able to break 5 hours as well.

Just putting this out there - probably info that can be used on both sides of issue. Found on coloradorunnermag.com (Jan/Feb 2007 issue).

According to The Running USA Road Running Information Center, The average marathon time for women was 4.51:19 and men averaged 4.20:29.

I guess, at her best, your fiance is better than the average male.

For what it is worth wrote:

Just putting this out there - probably info that can be used on both sides of issue. Found on coloradorunnermag.com (Jan/Feb 2007 issue).

According to The Running USA Road Running Information Center, The average marathon time for women was 4.51:19 and men averaged 4.20:29.

I guess, at her best, your fiance is better than the average male.

Yep, and I'd bet $100K that P-Raddy is faster over the marathon than anyone who posted on this thread. We are all pathetic and slow.

Cheddarville wrote:

For what it is worth wrote:

Just putting this out there - probably info that can be used on both sides of issue. Found on coloradorunnermag.com (Jan/Feb 2007 issue).

According to The Running USA Road Running Information Center, The average marathon time for women was 4.51:19 and men averaged 4.20:29.

I guess, at her best, your fiance is better than the average male.

Yep, and I'd bet $100K that P-Raddy is faster over the marathon than anyone who posted on this thread. We are all pathetic and slow.

Ain't that the truth! LOL!

A letter to the Columbus Sports editor - Sunday, October 28…

. “As a half-marathoner, I was excited (hoping) to see my name in print and was thoroughly disappointed.” … “the first year of moving away from an elite-status event. It is moving toward an average runner's event and there are plenty of those in The Dispatch reading area…

Response

“I think it's safe to say that the change from an "elite-status event" has affected our coverage. I know it's not an exact parallel, but there also are a lot of average Joes who play hockey in Columbus. We cover the Blue Jackets, though.”

columbus guy2 wrote:

A letter to the Columbus Sports editor - Sunday, October 28…

. “As a half-marathoner, I was excited (hoping) to see my name in print and was thoroughly disappointed.” … “the first year of moving away from an elite-status event. It is moving toward an average runner's event and there are plenty of those in The Dispatch reading area…

Response

“I think it's safe to say that the change from an "elite-status event" has affected our coverage. I know it's not an exact parallel, but there also are a lot of average Joes who play hockey in Columbus. We cover the Blue Jackets, though.”

Exactly. Why is it that in running, its "cool" and expected that you'll read your name in the paper for turning in some mediocre 4 hour plus time in the marathon, but try and demand that your box score from the local YMCA rec league where you scored 16 points on 8 for 12 shooting and you'd be laughed at by almost everyone within earshot?

For that matter how many people come to work Monday morning wearing their basketball jersey and bragging that they are leading the Men's "C" division in free throw percentage for the season? That would be ridiculous, and so is 6 hour marathoners trying to act like they accomplished something that "only more than mere mortals can do."

I actually blame guys like Galloway for this. They try to make it out that covering 26.2 miles on foot regardless of how long it takes is some super human accomplishment. Their reasons are obvious, so they can make more money. The average joe doesn't know any better. I can't really fault them, and it probably wouldn't bother me except that now we're starting to see exactly what happens when these races like Columbus cease to be about serious competition. At Race for the Cure the actual "race" is about the last thing that anyone care about. While the goal is laudable, there are plenty of other ways to raise awareness and funds for a cause.

DenverRunner wrote:Exactly. Why is it that in running, its "cool" and expected that you'll read your name in the paper for turning in some mediocre 4 hour plus time in the marathon, but try and demand that your box score from the local YMCA rec league where you scored 16 points on 8 for 12 shooting and you'd be laughed at by almost everyone within earshot?

Uhhh, box scores from local rec leagues and bowling leagues are a major staple of local newspapers. I find it easier to find out how well Joe's Bar and Grill did against the Coed Salon in volleyball than the top-10 results of the local 5K or even 1/2 marathon. Sure, not who scored what, but team scores are routine nationwide.

The only places that print the full results for about any road race are places that the newspaper is a sponsor. I doubt many people "expect" it.

In any case Galloway has less to do with races turning into citizens races than Kenyans do. More than a few sponsors got tired of putting up money and seeing the regional Kenyan "C" team show up and take it. Local races want local flavor, they want the local boy / girl on the front page and cheering locals in the crowd shots. Sponsors are in it for publicity, and they don't think they get it from a vanload that shows up, runs, and leaves not to be seen again until next year.

On the flip side someone like say, Olive Garden, gives $2000 of product to a pasta feed and gets 400 people walking around with Olive Garden bags or hats and coupons and get's the local TV station to do a stand up in front of the cafeteria where their banner is hanging and they think they've hit the mother lode.

Sure, $2000 prize money is better for the sport, but try that "for the sport" argument with anyone outside of the local running store and THAT'S when you'd be laughed at by everyone within earshot.