Can you please articulate why the sport is diminished by those going over x-time? For the life of me don't see how you can be so passionate about the need to eliminate this slower group?
Can you please articulate why the sport is diminished by those going over x-time? For the life of me don't see how you can be so passionate about the need to eliminate this slower group?
Oh Enlightened One wrote:
Can you please articulate why the sport is diminished by those going over x-time? For the life of me don't see how you can be so passionate about the need to eliminate this slower group?
Further to that... can you do it with an argument that is not laced with profane language and amounts to more in content than "nanny, nanny, boo-boo?"
I've been away from running for a long time, and since I've been back into it, I can see very clearly that things just ain't the way they used to be.
For one thing, the average runner is much older and heavier than 20 years ago. I looked at some of the web sites of the running clubs in my area (Chicago), and see a lot of grey hair and extra weight around the middle in the group photos. Back in the day, runners who raced tended to be lean, mean and on the young side. Not so any more.
I live across the street from one of the busiest running trails in the Chicago area. The average runner is just not training for speed anymore. I see very few people ever pushing their pace. The attitudes have changed a great deal. I'm not making any judgement on this, just reporting what I see.
When I started to race in 1985 in my late twenties, my age bracket was fast and deep at just about any race or distance. That just isn't the case anymore. Younger people are staying away from racing in droves, and the ones that are in it seem to be happy with less than intense efforts. Take a look at some race results from around here and you'll see this is true.
http://archive.cararuns.org/race_results/index.html
Make the older and slower runners feel second rate and unwelcome, and you will be killing the only cash cow the sport has. Older people have the money to spend on this sport. Get rid of them, and it would go back to pre-running boom days of few races and no attention what so ever. Is that what you really want?
The influx of slow runners has given life to road racing in general, and the marathon in particular. Maybe it's not the kind of life that people on this site like, but any life is better than the option of no life. I'm sure there are some here that won't even agree with that. There are so many marathons to choose from now a days, I don't see how anyone has a right to complain.
The people who feel the sport is insulted by slow runners are really saying that they are mad at not getting enough attention. Strictly an ego thing.
All you "fast" runners (whatever that may mean to you) need to remember that the people at the races are the ONLY ones who give a damn about any of this. Get rid of them and you will be more miserable than ever, if that's possible. I'm reminded of a line from one of George Sheehan's books, where, at Boston, a friend tells him, "George, three blocks away from Boylston Street, you're just another skinny Irishman."
Be careful what you wish for.
Wes Holman wrote:
are really saying that they are mad at not getting enough attention. Strictly an ego thing.
Couldn't the same be said for those beginners who insist on doing a marathon right away instead of a shorter distance?
Why are the "faster" runners or anyone who dares comment on walkers always called out as egotistical, but nobody is allowed to question the motives of the walkers and why they choose to do marathons instead of halfs or 10k's?
Could it be because the 6 or 7 hour "runners" wouldn't get as much attention doing the shorter distance?
gfdc wrote:
Wes Holman wrote:are really saying that they are mad at not getting enough attention. Strictly an ego thing.
Couldn't the same be said for those beginners who insist on doing a marathon right away instead of a shorter distance?
Why are the "faster" runners or anyone who dares comment on walkers always called out as egotistical, but nobody is allowed to question the motives of the walkers and why they choose to do marathons instead of halfs or 10k's?
Could it be because the 6 or 7 hour "runners" wouldn't get as much attention doing the shorter distance?
#1
Yes, the same could be said about beginners. I don't think people should worry about the marathon until they have lots of running experience.
#2
I think most runners who race have a problem with being egotistical. Racers want praise for their efforts.
#3
Yes, for sure.
sam w wrote:
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.
You are correct, but that is also calculated into the cost of the registration fee. Perhaps by keeping the course open longer, the race needs to charge a higher entry fee to cover this cost than it would if a time limit were instituted.
If this is the case, then I am paying more than I should to run in these races because they are allowing 5+ hour people into them. That is another reason why I support time limits.
sam w wrote:
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.
Perhaps a 5 hour cap would encourage people to train to be able to finish in under 5 hours and weed out those who have no desire or intention of doing so? I'm all for that.
gfdc wrote:
Wes Holman wrote:are really saying that they are mad at not getting enough attention. Strictly an ego thing.
Couldn't the same be said for those beginners who insist on doing a marathon right away instead of a shorter distance?
Why are the "faster" runners or anyone who dares comment on walkers always called out as egotistical, but nobody is allowed to question the motives of the walkers and why they choose to do marathons instead of halfs or 10k's?
Could it be because the 6 or 7 hour "runners" wouldn't get as much attention doing the shorter distance?
Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.
Yup, you pretty much nailed it on the head right there. No one at work would give a rat's ass if Joe Schmoe showed up and told them that he ran a 5K this weekend. But say you "ran" a marathon and let the people bow down to you.
Its funny how these walking apologists want to denigrate people like myself who feel that if you enter a marathon that you should train hard and give it your best effort. Its symptomatic of American society in general where if Johnny can't read and Johnny can't write, that's okay, we'll just pass him to the next grade anyway because we don't want to damage his self esteem. So when someone comes on here and has the audacity to opine that people should give their best effort and not half ass it when it comes to marathoning it is met with scorn and criticism. When you ask why, the only thing they can come up with is that you are some "ego-maniac" who is threatened by the walker taking away "our glory." Funny, I rarely tell my co-workers or anyone else outside of family about my races, don't talk them up when they inquire, and pretty much keep to myself about it. But I guess I'm against half ass walkers showing up in droves in marathons because I need the attention for my ego. Sure, whatever.
Why are you so friggin passionate about not having slow runners/walkers? You finish in 2:30 and go home - why do you care if the course stays open for 20mins or 20hrs to accommodate them - no skin off your back.
So if it's not about your ego, then maybe it's not about theirs, either. Why do you care that these people are running/jogging/walking behind you? And why does everyone assume that they've just jumped into the marathon distance in lieu of shorter races. I would suggest to you that many of these slower participants have indeed walked/jogged the 5 and 10K races, too.
"Its funny how these walking apologists want to denigrate people like myself who feel that if you enter a marathon that you should train hard and give it your best effort."
How do you know somebody who's running a 5 hour marathon is not training hard or to the best of their effort? You've said this multiple times. I'm truly curious how you equate time with effort?
DenverRunner wrote:
You are correct, but that is also calculated into the cost of the registration fee. Perhaps by keeping the course open longer, the race needs to charge a higher entry fee to cover this cost than it would if a time limit were instituted.
If this is the case, then I am paying more than I should to run in these races because they are allowing 5+ hour people into them. That is another reason why I support time limits.
in my experience, races are charging what the market will bear. people will pay $110 for chicago. just because the cost goes down (something i dispute) does not mean the price will go down. competition would allow for the price to go down in that situation, but if people are willing to pay that much there will be no incentive for marathons to drop the price.
in business school you learn there are 2 types of costs: fixed and variable. my guess is that most costs in a marathon are fixed costs, though shirts and the amount water/gatorade would be variable costs, if that is the case, then the more runners you have the better. for each added runner the COST PER RUNNER goes DOWN. i think you could probably argue more convincingly that the slower runners are subsidizing YOU and cause the cost of the event to go down, not up.
since each runner needs to generate enough revenue to cover his/her variable costs (the shirt,water,food) for every dollar that runner brings in over the variable cost of the runner, that amount goes to decrease fixed costs. the more runners you have, the lower the fixed costs per runner and thus the cheaper you can run the event.
keith stone, puts on races, i think he made a comment about this on an earlier post.
Barry Badrinath wrote:
How do you know somebody who's running a 5 hour marathon is not training hard or to the best of their effort? You've said this multiple times. I'm truly curious how you equate time with effort?
That's not really the point. Sure there are some 5-hour marathoners who train hard. If not, the BQ standard for 80+ women would be 4:30. But we all know that plenty of people don't exactly train their asses off to "do" marathons - as evidenced by said asses still being there. The real question is, so what?
In my view, the more people participate, the better the event... usually. But I do require a few things of mega-marathon organizations in order to spend my money with them.
One is a corralled start. That's a no-brainer these days, but just a few years ago they didn't have it at Chicago. Except for the elite/invited runners.
The other is a reasonable registration deadline OR a reasonable refund policy. The harder you train, the more likely you get injured, and the less likely you'll want to run the race if you're not in top shape due to injury-related disruptions during your training. I just don't sign up 6 months in advance. If I were guaranteed at least a partial refund - say 75% provided I cancelled a month in advance - then I might register. But as it is, I don't run Chicago, NYC, London or Tokyo. Instead I'll run Berlin, Boston, or smaller marathons. There are plenty to choose from.
It is indeed a logical assumption that if the time limit to finish before the course closes and get into the results that there will be a higher % in the field who train and execute to give it their best effort if the time limit is 4 or 5 hours than if it's 7 or 8 hours. We all know that not everyone is built to run a marathon well, the sport needn't be dumbed-down just to accommodate them just like any other pro or high-level amateur sport needn't be dumbed-down to accommodate lesser talent.
Put too much dingy gravel around brilliant gems and the gems' brilliance becomes obscured, I want to see the sports' stars stand out more. I'd rather see them beating 1000 5 marathoners than see them beating 200 5 marathoners. Raise the bar incrementally yet consistently and the athletes will respond. The ONLY reason the bar has been lowered is $, plain and simple, and that level of $ isn't really helping the sport any. If marathoning were even at the level of golf in terms of pay for the professionals, due in-part to income and attention gleaned from chubby walkers, then I would probably feel differently. As it is, I really see little (positive) difference due to their inclusion.
Why does distance running lag so far behind sports like tennis and golf in terms of sponsorships and prize purses? I think it has to have something to do with the fact that the general public and average sports fans don't take it seriously because the sport has tried to be way too inclusive. (Just to be clear, I'm not talking about fitness runners who get after it to lose weight and improve their health yet don't race.)
Inadvertent formatting killed part of that message:
"I'd rather see them beating 1000 sub-3 marathoners and 0 5+ marathoners than see them beating 200 sub-3 marathoners and 20,000 5+ marathoners."
Barry Badrinath wrote:
"Its funny how these walking apologists want to denigrate people like myself who feel that if you enter a marathon that you should train hard and give it your best effort."
How do you know somebody who's running a 5 hour marathon is not training hard or to the best of their effort? You've said this multiple times. I'm truly curious how you equate time with effort?
A 5 hour marathon equates to 11:28 mile pace, which is not much faster than a brisk walk. There may be a few outliers out there, but the majority of under 50 apparently healthy people out there ought to be able to do better than that if they simply put a little more effort into it. Perhaps my experience working with people who aren't particularly gifted when it comes to running but regularly go under 4:30 because they put in the effort tells me that most should be able to.
I'm curious how you think an apparently healthy could train hard, give it their best effort and not break 5 hours.
Seriously?? wrote:
Why are you so friggin passionate about not having slow runners/walkers? You finish in 2:30 and go home - why do you care if the course stays open for 20mins or 20hrs to accommodate them - no skin off your back.
Why do you care that it is my opinion that it detracts from the sport? I'm entitled to it jsut as your entitled to think that is doesn't.
Whether its skin off my back or not is irrelevent, my opinion is that if you sign up to do something like that, give it an honest 100% effort.
Why are you so passionate that people should just sign up, half ass it through training and then "run" to a 5:30 marathon?
It'd be nice to see USATF or RRCA or some other entity do something to help preserve a block (or multiple blocks) of entries for the large, fast marathons for runners who can meet set performance criteria. Those blocks of entries could be held until maybe a month before race day and then whatever amount remains could be opened to anyone at all between that time and race day. If charities like TiT and Jean's Cheaters can negotiate that kind of thing for their participants, then why can't those who (should) have the best interests of the sport in mind?
DenverRunner wrote:
A 5 hour marathon equates to 11:28 mile pace, which is not much faster than a brisk walk.
A very brisk walk is between 14 and 15 minute pace, reasonably challenging to maintain. A normal walk is 18-20 minute pace. You can give up on the "5 hours (or even 6 hours) is just a walk" because it's not. It's slow, but it's not some effortless stroll you are making it out to be.