Time to Boycott Marathons

DenverRunner wrote:

My point is that in almost all of these situations the "race" is secondary, and that to me is troubling. If you enjoy running as a sport it should be troubling as well. If it is simply an activity to be done and wrangle some money out of it for a cuase, then it probably doesn't bother you.

BTW, from the rocky mountain news:

Along those lines when I used to work in an office there wasn't a since day after a nice afternoon where people didn't talk golf smack around the office. I think Tiger Woods got over it.

In any case sure I'm troubled, but being troubled about something that you can't do anything about isn't worth the trouble. Cutting marathons off at 5 hours aren't going to make them more competitive, they're just going to be smaller. YOU may be less troubled, but still nothing was accomplished. Many of those people that run slower marathon are older, and thus with more disposable income (usually). While a young person can crack 4 hours without much work, a 50 year old has a different thing to do. Since we already know young people don't have money (at least for races) maybe it's more productive to get money from those that have it. So, why would you think kicking out people that can afford to be in the event will be good for the sport?

LOL! I forgot about the hole in one reports that are in there. i always wondered about those too...

As for people over 50, I agree that they need more time and that's fine by me. Maybe an age graded system like they have in Boston. I know plenty of younger people though who have not even come close to breaking 4 hours.

I know that my complaining or being troubled by the state of the sport isn't going to change it. But I also feel that there needs to be a greater emphasis on proper training and not selling people a bill of goods to simply get them to come out and Gallowalk a race. My fiancee's sister did that "running" a 5:3X:XX marathon last year and hasn't done another one since. What's the point of that? Afterward she went right back to her sedentary ways, so was this really some great accomplishment? The biggest argument for these types is "well at least their getting off the couch and doing something!" Fine, but that only works if it leads to a continued lifestyle of fitness and exercise. How many of these tyoes continue to exercise and train after their marathon?

Bottom line, I can see that there are legitimate arguments to be made for inclusion of these people. But there are also legitimate arguments to be made to restrict the race to some sort of standards. I don't think people should necessarily be ripped because they fall into the latter. Of course when they make the argument in a arrogant and condescendig way, let them have it.

O.K. - I went to the Columbus Dispatch Website, and found a few decent articles in that paper about the marathon (I assume they appeared in print, as opposed to just on their website). First and second place male and female winners were named, with time, and it also noted the two women who ran OT qualifiers. It also included pictures of both the male and female winners of the marathon as they crossed the finish line. Top 10 finishers in the marathon were listed, while a comprehensive finishers list was available online. In their response to the letter, I think the newspaper is saying "this is not as an elite race as it once was, so we are only going to list the top finishers in the paper." Considering the recent banter back and forth on this issue, that sure is ironic, isn't it?!?!My question... did this paper not do what some on this site have asked? It acknowledged the winners, and relegated the slow people to a list on a website. Do you have a problem with the Columbus paper's coverage of the event, or the individual letter writer's expectation of seeing his name in the paper because he ran a 1/2 marathon?

[quote]bit of a question wrote:

O.K. - I went to the Columbus Dispatch Website, and found a few decent articles in that paper about the marathon (I assume they appeared in print, as opposed to just on their website). First and second place male and female winners were named, with time, and it also noted the two women who ran OT qualifiers. It also included pictures of both the male and female winners of the marathon as they crossed the finish line. Top 10 finishers in the marathon were listed, while a comprehensive finishers list was available online. In their response to the letter, I think the newspaper is saying "this is not as an elite race as it once was, so we are only going to list the top finishers in the paper." Considering the recent banter back and forth on this issue, that sure is ironic, isn't it?!?!

My question... did this paper not do what some on this site have asked? It acknowledged the winners, and relegated the slow people to a list on a website. Do you have a problem with the Columbus paper's coverage of the event, or the individual letter writer's expectation of seeing his name in the paper because he ran a 1/2 marathon?"

Well I'd have to say that the paper did what they should do which is acknowledge the winners, something like top three male and female and maybe the age division winners or something like that.

I was under the impression that the paper didn't even bother to cover the event because it has become less of a sporting event or competition due to how it has evolved over time.

Sheryl Crow wrote:

I doubt that a 5 hour marathon or 2:30 half marathon QT will make anyone of these elitist sub 2:30 guys happy. In fact, it's probably just going to piss them off further.

I'm not a 2:30 marathon guy and I'm not an elitist, but I think that these standards are wonderful and should be applied to more marathons.

quantum wrote:

Look - there are some races which lend themselves to only elite or higher or higher to moderate level runners. Keep those and support them.

But discouraging slower runners or walkers? No!! To the extent that the US is the land of the overweight (some truth to that, right?), we want to do everything you can to encourage physical activity - even if just walking. I am not a coach or trainer, and certainly never will be, but there are those on this site that are and in their scientific and considered judgment they likely have had clients where the right thing to do is to get them to walk - hopefully as a precursor to running - but in general as a start for lifelong exercise. The last thing we need is a haughty attitude from the better runners out there.

I'm actually both, and you are correct. I have many clients for who walking is an approriate exercise and one that I prescribe. I am certianly not going to tell them to go out and walk a marathon. If that is something that they desire to do I will coach them and train them in a progression from walking to jogging, to eventually jogging or running a 5K or 10K FIRST. Then if they still enjoy the sport and activity we can look at doing a half or full marathon.

You don't start a novice weight lifter with Olympic lifts, the same applies to running a marathon.

In time, certain marathons that develop qualifying standards may come to be seen as the *real* marathons, and the big circus marathons like Chicago may be seen as glorified walk-a-thons.

Would that make people here happy?

The "real" marathons to the world class athletes will always be where the big checks are. I don't think it will ever matter to them if 5,000 or 50,000 start the race.

Marty L. wrote:

In time, certain marathons that develop qualifying standards may come to be seen as the *real* marathons, and the big circus marathons like Chicago may be seen as glorified walk-a-thons.

Would that make people here happy?

Marty L. wrote:

In time, certain marathons that develop qualifying standards may come to be seen as the *real* marathons, and the big circus marathons like Chicago may be seen as glorified walk-a-thons.

Would that make people here happy?

Well I think that right now the big marathons are strating to be seen as walk-a-thons, at least by some. I mean I have no desire to even come close to that one, not so much because of the slower people, but because the expo and everything else has got to be a zoo. Boston is crowded enough as it is and it is half the size.

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.

I see Galloway taking a lot of hits on this site. From what I've read from him lately, he's advising people to take short walking breaks from time to time, not to walk the course. For people in the four hour area, that might lead to faster times, not slower. Maybe I'm missing something, but Galloway is still trying to get people to finish faster, right?

Then explain. Eliminate runners needing longer than 5 hours to run the race would eliminate needing to keep roads closed and cops and EMT's around for longer than 5 hours. Big cost difference, but your knowledge of basic economics should have already told you that, unless it didn't.

Whole picture? WTF does that have to do with RACING?! I couldn't care less about 25K reduction in hotel rooms (well, hotel beds), meals, souvenirs, taxis, whatever. BFD, I say, those are all external issues.

Trite Claim wrote: Then explain. Eliminate runners needing longer than 5 hours to run the race would eliminate needing to keep roads closed and cops and EMT's around for longer than 5 hours. Big cost difference, but your knowledge of basic economics should have already told you that, unless it didn't.

Actually your math is what is suspect. The argument eliminating slow people would save tons of money is bogus as a 3 dollar bill. Let's say 10000 people are in a race and each pays $100. That means $1,000,000 income. Let's also say that you need 50 police officers to cover the course at $30 per hour. Keeping the course open 5 hours doesn't cost $7500, it costs some lesser fraction because not all those officers work all 5 hours. Let's say you keep the course open 7 hours. That means worst case is $10,500.

Now we already know from average times that likely at least a 1/3 of the field of 10,000 will finish after 5 hours. That also means that in order to save $3000 you're turning away $333,333 in income.

If you look at it further, you'll see the average cost per person for police support is $1.05 per person for the 7 hour cutoff. IF you cut the field size, the cost per participant for police support goes UP to $1.13 per person.

SO that means you obviously flunked economics and that you speed folks should thank your lucky stars because the slower folks are subsidizing YOU.

Your claims are moot if the 5-hour cut-off is announced before they start accepting registrations. Saying that 3,333 fewer people will enter this marathon and that they'll only reach 6,667 of their 10,000 field size limit is an asinine assumption. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that instituting a time limit will necessarily "cut the field size". This must mean that YOUR ILLITERATE SELF didn't even sit in on a single lecture of a logic or reasoning class, you're clearly completely unexposed to and ignorant of it and never even tried to get a clue.

Trite Claim wrote:

Eliminate runners needing longer than 5 hours to run the race would eliminate needing to keep roads closed and cops and EMT's around for longer than 5 hours. Big cost difference, but your knowledge of basic economics should have already told you that, unless it didn't.

-----------------

i trust that the people who put on marathons know more about the economics of marathons than anyone here (the indy classic people excepted).

the planners of a marathon will know how much it costs to keep the roads open. they will also know about how many runners will be finishing and when. it will not be hard for them to calculate whether it makes economic sense to close the race at 5, 6 or 7 or even 8 hours.

if you have taken an economics class, this deals with the concept of "marginal revenue" and "marginal cost." when the marginal cost exceeds marginal revenue they will stop production - put another way, when the cost to keep the course open exceeds the revenue they are bringing in at that moment, they will shut it down.

races have obviously concluded the cost of keeping the roads closed is less than what they are bringing in from those runners.

That is retarded logic wrote:

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that instituting a time limit will necessarily "cut the field size".

i dont think you can say that. in 2006 the AVERAGE time to finish a marathon was 4:45. for men it was around 4:31 and for women it was 5:06.

it looks that a 5:00 cutoff would drastically reduce the filed size. most marathons do not have caps to them like chicago and new york do. as such, all the sub 5 hour marathoners that want to enter are already in the race. for the vast majority of races all a 5 hour cap would do is eliminate MORE THAN 50% of the women, and around 40% of the men.

you argument might carry more weight IF there are a lot of people being kept out of marathons by size caps AND you could assume that a sizable portion of those being kept out were faster than 5 hour marathoners. i dont think you can assume those that did not make it into chicago/new york are different quality marathoners than those that got in. it might be a reasonable assumption they are exactly like those that got in, or even that they are SLOWER than those that got in since the more "serious" runners might be more likely to register early.

in any event, all of the speculation about marathoners kept out by caps is speculation and we dont know who they are. we do know most races dont have caps.

in my state we have 10 marathons each year. 1 has a cap.

all that tells me a 5 hour cap will eliminate runners and revenue.

This is your problem - you're a classic example of saying, 'Lets put a 5hr limit - problem solved', but without looking at the whole picture this opens a myriad of other issues. If YOU YOU YOU are now in charge of the NYC Marathon for '08, you put the cutoff at 5hrs, thus reducing the field by at least 50% and cutting revenue to the city as well by 50%....what do you think the city of NY, ING, etc... is going to say about this?

Are you that thick that you don't understand it's not about racing?

No sh#t the 5hr finishers aren't about racing, BUT the 5hr finishers are as much in the race as a 2:30 finishers - neither has a chance in hell of winning?

10guys/girls contend for the o'all - who gives a sh#t if there's 50 or 50,000 finishers behind them? Who cares if the girl in 50,000th place goes 7hrs and tells her coworkers she 'ran' a marathon? I'm not sure how that diminishes your accomplishment if you're going 2:30 :40 :50 etc....?

You are an ugly, pathetic, small person.

Where is the evidence that field size would be cut that much, or even at all, with a 5-hour shut-down? The race field (for NYCM, Chicago, Boston, TCM, etc.) fills up MANY MONTHS IN ADVANCE, there is obviously MUCH greater demand for entry than there is supply of entries. Instituting a 5-hour limit will not eliminate that demand to the degree that there would be no demand beyond the <5-hour marathoners who would have been entered anyway.

I don't care in the least about 'my accomplishment' with regard to this issue, that has nothing to do with any of this so take your moronic, petty strawman and shove it up your butthole. You don't have to "give a sh#t", but if you don't care about this sport then why are you even visiting this site, let alone posting on this site's message board?

Take a peek at marathonguide.com. Punch on any marathon, and the website will give you a bar graph on how many people finished the marathon in half hour increments. Select any marathon, and for the most part, you will see the majority of marathoners are on the slow side. Race directors are not going to toss them from the race - too many dollars to be had.

Our local track club put on a one mile race (w/ several heats based on age groups). Participation was low, and the sponsor basically told the track club to get more runners or they would pull their support. Without support, track club announced there would be no race. The sponsor didn't care how fast anyone ran the race; they just wanted more people, period. I would think this was true for most races, big or small.

From what I read, smaller marathons (Columbus, et al.) are dropping prize money (or offering only small purses) and adding half-marathons to survive. They need the numbers to continue. If anything, I see half-marathon participants perhaps subsidizing the marathoners in these races. The 1/2 runners always seem to outnumber the 26.2 runners (they do pay less, but RD's probably collect more from them b/c of their numbers). Because the average finishing time for a marathon is in the 4:30+ area, RDs who want to keep their race afloat are trying to poach these runners from the larger races (Chicago, NY) by dropping/reducing prize money (save a little money), offering a half, and advertising their race as one for the average runner. This may do everyone a favor in the long run. If we can get people to think 26.2 is 26.2 no matter where you run it, perhaps participation will spread amongst all of these marathons.

If we start demanding that each marathon have a sharp cut-off point, we may find there are fewer marathons TO run. That will only jam up the ones left. Personally, I don't mind who runs in the race. I would rather run in a field of 30,000 runners who can cover the distance anywhere between 2:10 and 6:30, than between 2:10 and 4:15 (I would be in the middle of that). In the latter, too many people at the back of the pack would be of similar abilities, and that would seem (to me) to lead to a very packed course for those in the 3:45 - 4:15 range. I know when I ran Boston, I did a lot of lateral running.

Just some thoughts.