Time to Boycott Marathons

I Read that article and got curious. Looked up one of the gals in the results... I believe those ladies ran the 1/2 marathon that day.

BrRnR wrote:

DenverRunner wrote:

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.

I've followed this thread from the start, and I've gone back and forth in how I feel about it. I don't run marathons anymore, so it's nothing personal to me, but after reading the SF article, I'm starting to agree with you, DenverRunner. What a joke indeed.

Those are the exact type of people I'm talking about. They couldn't give two shits about actually trying to improve their performance. Why even do it then?

You get guys on here like Keith Stone who want to belittle people like myself that feel that it is disrespectful to the sport to approach a marathon that way. All they have to criticize people like myself is that we're "elitist" because we run faster times than others. I don't really care about the times. I've coached several female runners who it will take a monumental effort and a good day for them to break four hours. That's fine. They bust thier asses for months on end trying for their best performance possible. At least they don't disrespect the sport with some cavalier attitude toward what they are doing. But apparently its cool to gab with your friends and take a "relaxing vacation" to run a marathon. What a bunch of bull.

Of course RDs like Keith love that population because it generates more revenue. IMO RDs that cater to these people disrespect the sport. I couldn't care less about generating revenue, and I really wouldn't care if half of the 300+ marathons went away because they didn't cater to the types that are profiled in that article. There are a great deal of marathons that have been around before that, and if they get back to catering to serious runners at the expense of some of these other ones dying, so be it. Boston has survived for 112 years.

Marathoning is a sport, or at least it used to be. If you want to have a feel good relaxing vaction marathon, go for it. If time doesn't matter, then forget the chips and results and just run your recreational race. I'm perfectly fine with that. See how many runners show up and I guaruntee that a "race" like that wouldn't last long.

These marathons need the serious runners more than they think.

NOTE TO BASHERS: Notice that I do not equate serious runners with times. Take that argument and go somewhere elose with it.

Random comments wrote:

I Read that article and got curious. Looked up one of the gals in the results... I believe those ladies ran the 1/2 marathon that day.

OK, then: Time to Boycott the Half Marthons!

Random comments wrote:

I Read that article and got curious. Looked up one of the gals in the results... I believe those ladies ran the 1/2 marathon that day.

You are right, Random. And Tiffany Green ran a very respectable pace of 7:57, coming in 275 of 4934.

In fact all of them were fast enough to qualify under the 5 hour standards posted on this thread earlier.

So I'm not quite as indignant now. But that could change.

NOTE TO BASHERS: Notice that I do not equate serious runners with times. Take that argument and go somewhere elose with it.[/quote]

I find it hilarious that you guys read that article and jumped to the conclusion that because it was a "girls weekend" and they went to have fun, that they would not be at least somewhat competitive. I'd say Ms. Tiffany might meet your definition of a serious runner.

I'd say Ms. Tiffany might meet your definition of a serious runner.

No she wouldn't, because his definition changes to suit his perspective. And that perspective is if they don't respect the sport like I respect it and train how I train and race how I race, then they're not worthy.

Ms. Tiffany disrespected running because she :gasp: had fun.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

I'd say Ms. Tiffany might meet your definition of a serious runner.

No she wouldn't, because his definition changes to suit his perspective. And that perspective is if they don't respect the sport like I respect it and train how I train and race how I race, then they're not worthy.

Ms. Tiffany disrespected running because she :gasp: had fun.

Wow. You know me so well, don't you? I would expect people to have fun because why do it otherwise? I suppose it depends on what your definition of fun is. To me it is giving it your all and testing your limits, if yours is something different, great.

Where has my definition changed to suit my perspective? I've been clear and stated my opinion all along and not once have I mentioned the word fun or lackthereof.

Peter Gibbons wrote:

NOTE TO BASHERS: Notice that I do not equate serious runners with times. Take that argument and go somewhere elose with it.

I find it hilarious that you guys read that article and jumped to the conclusion that because it was a "girls weekend" and they went to have fun, that they would not be at least somewhat competitive. I'd say Ms. Tiffany might meet your definition of a serious runner.[/quote]

Well the article didn't exactly paint them as the type looking for a superlative performance. I stand corrected, Ms. Tiffany's time is more than respctable.

I believe the fact that these ladies chose a weekend of marathoning versus pampering and/or debauchery, might also say a little something about their commitment to the sport.

Peter Gibbons wrote:

I believe the fact that these ladies chose a weekend of marathoning versus pampering and/or debauchery, might also say a little something about their commitment to the sport.

Well I agree with that and they certainly aren't running terrible times. I'm not sure why they spotlighted these five women and then included this phrase:

"It isn't a footrace any more, it's a running vacation."

You can do a running vacation anywhere, regardless of whether there is an actual race occuring or not.

It really boils down to what you believe. I beleive that the purpose of a race is to give your best possible performance on that given day, which includes training to do so. Did these women do that? I have no idea. Certianly the one women's time was pretty good.

If one thinks that it is no longer a footrace, then they'll side on the "finishing is winning" mentality. I don't beleive that, at least from a sporting perspective, and that is what I believe racing to be, a sport. Running is recreation, racing is sport, so if you're gonna race, get after it.

I don't think anyone is touting the "finishing is winning" mentality. I think it's more the "finishing is finishing" perspective...nothing more.

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but I found an interesting fact in the local paper today. It was in an article on two local gentlemen who are running in the trials this weekend. That info is-

"Some groups are self-funded, supporting a dozen or so runners through athlete and coaching clinics, retreats and camps. Some have corporate partners. Others are funded through marathons. Part of the entry fees from Grandma's Marathon in Duluth, Minn., funds the Minnesota Elite Athlete Development Program."

That last sentence interests me. Does anyone know of other marathons that filter entry fees to elite programs? I think it's a great idea, and perhaps more people can see a positive in letting the penguins run. Some of their money is going to support elite running. I don't see Grandma's installing qualification standards any time soon.

I hope that statement I found in the paper is correct. God knows the media isn't all that reliable (Dewey beats Truman!).

To see the full article, go to

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/othersports/story/AE20D6AFACD68A498625738500110CAD?OpenDocument

.

Yes, INGNYCM would be another.

Any I'm the only guy using profanity?? Hmmmm.

Out of one side of your mouth you say you don't equate times with effort, then you equate times with effort. What a bunch of bull. People that enjoy the sport aren't disrepecting it.

Yea, and I'd do anything for that triple digit income I get from race directing each year. On the other hand YOU would rather see half the marathons go away just so your version of respect could be upheld. No THAT'S good for running.

Golfing, basketball, softball are sports too. I assume you want to ban all the duffer golfers and people that can't hit a free throw too? Lettin

You're the only one using it wantonly and directing it at others.

The article continues with this quote from Mike Nelson, head coach of Marquette CC."The four- and five-hour marathoners are pumping a lot of money into the sport, and it's trickling down to good, young runners," Nelson said. "So, they've benefited from the whole fitness boom."I'm pleased my fee (or a portion of it) might be used to help some men and women reach their potential. Anyone who loves the sport should feel that way.Don't bite the hand that feeds you....

USATF Hijacking wrote:

Yes, INGNYCM would be another.

That's a stretch. I don't think it would be any less noble of an act if all of the entries went to (and therefore the funds raised came from) sub-4 marathoners. Just because the Penguins gobble up the remainder of race entries months in advance doesn't mean that the race wouldn't sell-out anyway if there were some entry standard or course closure that turned the fitness joggers away. Correlation is not causation.

Move 2 KC! wrote:

That's a stretch. I don't think it would be any less noble of an act if all of the entries went to (and therefore the funds raised came from) sub-4 marathoners. Just because the Penguins gobble up the remainder of race entries months in advance doesn't mean that the race wouldn't sell-out anyway if there were some entry standard or course closure that turned the fitness joggers away. Correlation is not causation.

But apparently funding the sport with money from 4 hours marathoners is better than funding it with 5 hour marathoners?

In any case there is certainly both correlation and causation. You are assuming that all marathons have caps, not true. You're also assume that only fast people are turned away so there are thousands (yes thousands) of sub-4 marathoners laying in wait.

Someone that misses Marine Corps can run Richmond, or National. Lasalle Banks isn't the only marathon in Chicago. It's not like when Chicago closes some poor 4 hour guy has no other choice. Chicago didn't even have a cap until a few years ago and neither did Grandmas, so the numbers pretty much bear out. The growth in the marathon has been "adult onset runners", numerous sources of information prove that. These people are older and a high percentage is female, which is going to swing towards slower times.

Keith Stone wrote:

[quote]:

Lasalle Banks isn't the only marathon in Chicago.

Really? Enlighten me, how many am I missing?