Time to Boycott Marathons

Keith Stone wrote:

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.

At may be a little faster than a brisk walk, but it certainly is a herculean effort either.

Reasonable people can disagree. You as a race director probably need to have the viewpoint that it is important to cater to the masses, even the slow ones. I think it detracts from the sport and am unlikely to change my opinion.

Keith Stone wrote:

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.

The fact remains that it's still far, far, far from competitive.

Jean in training wrote:

You tell em Keith, don't give an inch to these elitist f***ers.

I suppose if its elitist to expect people to give a 100% effort and train accordingly to what they've committed to then I'm guilty as charged.

And proud of it.

- Until I walk 26.2 miles, or jog it in 5 hours, I will not make a judgment as to its ease.

- Has anyone ever approached the race directors of the big three with these concerns? Good luck.

- To say that someone who ran a marathon in 5 hours is not giving full effort is implying that most people could drop 30 -60 minutes off their times if they "just" tried. I don't see it. You must take genetics into consideration when determining what people are capable of. I coach youth track, and I can't make any of the kids faster than they are genetically capable, no matter how hard I coach and no matter how hard they try. I'm not interested in telling the slow ones to go home and run in their backyards so there is more room on the track.

- I know a gentleman who is capable of a 2:45 hour marathon. The last marathon he ran, he did it in 3:30 to run with a friend. He did not train accordingly nor did he give 100% effort (in relation to what he is capable of running). Should he have not participated?

- How do you devise a system to filter slower runners who trained properly from those who didn't without making the form look like a college application? (EXAGGERATION ALERT - please submit a notarized copy of your running log and and an essay 100 or words or less on why you think you should run our marathon). I see a $20 processing fee attached to the already standard cost just to pay for extra staff to filter through the qualification standards.

- Put it this way - if I am a guest at a wedding, I wouldn't dare tell the bride and groom whom to invite and what to serve just because I'm bringing them the most expensive gift. Some are relatives (sub - 2:30), some are friends (2:30-4:00) , and some are just co-workers (hope to finish before dark) - but in the end, we are all guests.

chase your own tail often? wrote: The fact remains that it's still far, far, far from competitive.

True, but in the big scheme of things so is a 2:59 for a man under 50. Neither affects the outcome of the race unless the 2:59 guy led for 10 miles and coughed up a furball.

I'd also be willing to bet that that 2:59 guy could have trained a lot more if he really put his mind to it. With proper training, I bet even DenverRunner could pop off a 2:40. If he really cared about the sport he'd be a monk and do something, but in actually he and 90% of the people out there are doing nothing more for the sport than the 5:30 people are. They are running as much as they deem practical, and just because they do it faster than some others doesn't really mean anything at their level.

His and the other posers egos are in danger from the lack of exclusivity. For sure it's an ego thing for a 5:30 marathon to finish a marathon to, but a 3:05 ego isn't better than a 5:30 ego.

Now if DenverRunner and others are really that passionate about the 5:00 cutoff they can feel free to start their own marathons. I'm all for it. If they feel it's make their's exclusive like Boston, that's great. I've never said race directors shouldn't impose conditions that match their capability to stage a race.

Joe Schmuck with the limp dick saying RD's should have these conditions imposed on them "for the good of the sport" at the water cooler Monday morning is a different story. It's bogus, and really meaningless as "demanding" changes in the designated hitter rule.

Rubbish. First off I never claimed to be doing anything for the sport. I guess you could ask the people that I've coached who ran significantly faster after training with me (and all broke 5 hours significantly) if I've done anything for them. i'd hazaed a guess their answer would be yes. But I do far more for the sport than the "posers" (your term, not mine) that sign up for a mass participation circus, spend $90+ on entry fees, jack up hotle room costs because 30,000 extra people come in, and then "run" a 5:30 marathon.

You call me a "poser." So be it. I guess you can't handle the fact that I'm comfortable with my position on this matter. I really don't give a shit what you do with the races you direct, in my opinion people that open these events to mass participation by every clamoring soul who wants to claim he/she ran a marathon so they can make an extra buck are not good for the sport.

Apparently you missed my post where I said that reasonable people can disagree. You're obviously not a reasonable person because you've decided now to attack me and call me names because you don't like the fact that I disagree with you about this matter. That's not particularly flattering.

I am aware of several runners who dropped from 5:1X:XX to a little over 4 hours on their second attempt because they made changes in their training.

Your point about screening is well taken, and I'm not proposing some system to figure out how people trained. I would like to see a 5 hour cut off for the event, that is more than reasonable. If you train your ass off and still can't cut it (which IMO would be very rare) then so be it, life's rough. I wanted to play in the NBA when I was younger, genetics determined that I could not and I'm okay with that.

Its funny, no one seems to complain about Boston and thier qualifications standards. Yet by the arguments about letting anyone who wants to "run" a marathon in regradless of how long it takes them due to fairness, how come no one complains that its unfair for the oldest continuing running marathon in the world to not allow slower runners in so they can experience the "thrill of Boston." After all, we want to be fair, don't we?

Keith Stone wrote:

[quote]:

Joe Schmuck with the limp dick saying RD's should have these conditions imposed on them

I love how Keith acts like the great voice of reason for the sport but can't seem to get his thoughts across without attacking people and is the only one using any profanity.

(Also disturbing is his fascination with references to the male sex organ)

Keith, is anyone allowed to have a different opinion than you?

I think no one complains about Boston because there are other marathons to run (many now a days). On the other side of that coin, if all marathons had Boston's qualification standards, would Boston be as special? Most people know and understand that you must qualify for Boston, and it is not easy. Apart from the elite part of the race, Boston is the "really good" marathoner's Olympics, and I think people know that.

Did anyone catch Nova on PBS tonight? Through a study at Tufts, a group of non-runner types trained to run the Boston marathon. All of the participants seemed to put in the work, and none of them looked anything but damn tired at the finish. And what went on at the "back" of the race is what I suspected. The entire course was not closed for six hours. Gates were being removed and traffic let through while the stragglers marched on (many on the sidewalk to avoid cars). As the last ones finished, you could see no one was in the stands to welcome them home, only team members and their families. It looked pretty lonely to me. One of the these NOVA/Tufts team members appropriately described what he had done - "I completed a marathon." I think he knew the difference, and he seemed very humble (and tired!).

Many people bring up the NBA, MLB and NFL in analagies when arguing the point "slower runners need not apply." Remember, major league sports wouldn't survive if people weren't willing to pay to see the game, buy merchandise, subscribe to NFL cable packages, etc, etc, etc. In other words, they need a fan base to survive. Think of the slower runners as the fan base. It would be hard to charge tickets to watch a marathon, and not many people these days want to watch one on TV. It just so happens a large part of that fan base wants to finish a marathon, and that's how they bring the dollars into the sport. They buy shoes, they enter races, and they make it attractive for cities to host a marathon (hotels, meals, $$$$$$). And if one of them happethat they will see their friend on TV... well, they just brought one more viewer to the set. That may not be such a bad thing. Treat your fan base poorly, and pay the price .

DenverRunner wrote:

Your point about screening is well taken, and I'm not proposing some system to figure out how people trained. I would like to see a 5 hour cut off for the event, that is more than reasonable. If you train your ass off and still can't cut it (which IMO would be very rare) then so be it, life's rough. I wanted to play in the NBA when I was younger, genetics determined that I could not and I'm okay with that.

You make a good point about Boston, itr really is the Olympics for us non-elites and that is what does make it special. I think if other marathons had a 5 hour requirement, it wouldn't detract from Boston in the least.

I wish I had been able to catch that special. To be perfectly honest I have some respect for people that are out there for that long. Its a back handed compliment I suppose because I cannot imagine being out there for 5-6 hours and if I was, I probably wouldn't do it. So I guess they've got one up on me! LOL!

On the other hand, I have a friend of mine that has done a couple of marathons. In fact she asked me and a well known runner who we both know to come up with a training plan for her for the NY marathon. To make a long story short, she didn't follow the training that she asked for, walked around NYC for two days before the mararthon sight seeing, and trudged home with a 5:2X:XX. Of course in her office she has her race bibs and finisher's medals hanging on her wall for all to see. While she is a friend of mine, I have difficulty with this because it seems that she's more interested in getting attention for her "marathoning" than she actually is about trying to train and run a good race. I don't have my finsher's medals hanging on my office wall, nor do I have any of my other medals from races that I've actually won, placed in my division, etc in my office because I recognize that I'm far from anything special as a runner and I don't need people to fawn over me and my running.

I know not every slow marathoner is like that, but I would hazard a guess that a large percentage are, otherwise why do it?

Perhaps they do it for nothing more than a sense of accomplishment.

DenverRunner wrote:

I know not every slow marathoner is like that, but I would hazard a guess that a large percentage are, otherwise why do it?

people are very different in what motivates them and what they enjoy.

when i run a marathon my goal is always for a faster better time than the one before. i view the event as a "race," sure i wont win, but i am racing myself, the clock, friends in the race, the guy in front of me...

many others view it as less a race and more an event, kind of like climbing a mountain - no rush to get to the top, the goal is simply getting to the top. for them, finishing is the goal.

i know people who do it as a motivational tool to try and lose weight. the goal keeps them running and helps them be healthier. there is very little "race" to it. none of those people view their accomplishment in the same category as the winners.

different people have different reasons. that just does not bother me.

on things like this i am a "live and let live" kind of person. there is enough in this world to be upset about, people walking or slow jogging marathons just does not rise to the level of an issue that bothers me. more power to them (as long as they are not walking in front of me).

I would imagine most people think of her what they would think of somone who put up their longest drive trophy from their church golf tournament... leave that stuff at home. I never put that stuff up at work, and I wouldn't talk about my marathons unless someone specifically asked me about how they went. Most people don't like braggarts. Re: the people who take six hours. My husband watched it with me (he just jogs to stay in shape), and when he heard that people take that long to run the race, he looked at me in amazement and said "people take six hours to finish these things?" I laughed and said "yup." I'm not saying it is a good idea, or sounds like fun to me, but I just don't think I am in the position to tell anyone not to do it. During their training, this NOVA training group had access to doctors, trainers, VO2 max tests, etc. They weren't doing it unsupervised, so it didn't appear to be a reckless attempt to complete a marathon. If anything, it portrayed the marathon as a difficult endeavor, and that it should not be entered into lightly. One other thing, you can't achieve a five hour marathon time without actually running a measured course with standard timing. How do the slow pokes qualify without having access to some marathon somewhere in the world? I guess you could drop it down to "you must run a 1/2 marathon" in a certain time to qualify for the marathon? It just sounds like a whole lot of extra work to me. If anything, our 1/2 marathon fees would rise with all the influx of people using them as qualifiers. Are we prepared for that? You can go round and round about this. I say the system will probably fix itself. Sooner or later, marathon running won't be as vogue as it is now, and many people will go on to something else. In the meantime, put up with the crowds, be glad we have all these marathons to choose from (most mid size cities have at least one these days), and hope that they don't go away. If anything, we'll always have Boston.

Here's an article you might like, DenverRunner. Better take a Valium before reading, though...

A group of five women from Fort Collins, Colo., represent the demographic perfectly. Tiffany Green, Connie Le, Kris Baugh, Erin Thomas and Stephanie Rogers are all in their 30s, married with children, and here on a running vacation.

"It's girl time," says Green. "We're using this race as a reason to get away."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/28/MARATHON.TMP

My goal is the same as yours, every time I run I want to go faster than I did before. I know eventually that will not be possible and there I times now that that does not happen, but these events are first and foremost races (at least they were and are supposed to be) which by defintion means "start to finish as fast as possible."

Your mountain climbing analogy is well taken, but would peeople feel the same way about someone entering the Pike's Peak Marathon with the sole intention of just "getting to the top and back down" regarless of thier time. That race fills up every year, I see no place for people who aren't racing in some acpacity.

I'm all for people getting fit, losing weight, getting off the couche etc, but better health should be their motivator. Once we turn these races into events (we already have) we lose the essence of what they mean in the first place. Call me a traditionalist I guess.

What happened to the days when a girls weekend away meant going to Vegas, getting drunk and maybe hooking up?!?!?! Ah the good ol' days.

BrRnR wrote:

Here's an article you might like, DenverRunner. Better take a Valium before reading, though...

A group of five women from Fort Collins, Colo., represent the demographic perfectly. Tiffany Green, Connie Le, Kris Baugh, Erin Thomas and Stephanie Rogers are all in their 30s, married with children, and here on a running vacation.

"It's girl time," says Green. "We're using this race as a reason to get away."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/28/MARATHON.TMP

Yeah that was lovely, but not surprising. I especially like the line about "time doesn't matter." If that's the case then why even bother giving out chips, starting at a certain time, printing results, giving splits, etc.

What a joke.

Wow, my short thread has hit 300!!