Time to Boycott Marathons

Keith Stone wrote:

[quote]:

So you're really suggesting that everyone that runs a marathon needs to run a half BEFORE REGISTERING for a marathon? You really think there's no "harm" in that?

What is the harm? Boston, NY and Chicago already assign large numbers of people to assigned starting areas based on half or full times, why not the people in the open corrals too?

Gee, what an outrageous request that people actually have to finish a half marathon before a full!

You are right, there is zero logic there.

What I don't get is, when do you even see these 4 hr+joggers? You start ahead of them, you finish ahead of them, you get the hell out of there.

I don't care if a track race has a slow heat, because it doesn't affect the fast heat at all! Who cares!

Well we know you're bush#t when you say you're running 2:20's (so that goes without saying).

So we're going to boycott NYC, LA, Boston, etc... sounds great, the races will probably need to be cancelled for the lack of participants in the 2:30-2:50 range-right?

You know they actually have marathons for running Gods like yourself...they're going to be held in NYC on 11/3 and I hear there will only be fast guys just like you allowed to race. You're welcome to participate.

ticktock wrote:

What I don't get is, when do you even see these 4 hr+joggers? You start ahead of them, you finish ahead of them, you get the hell out of there.

I don't care if a track race has a slow heat, because it doesn't affect the fast heat at all! Who cares!

I guess you never heard of an "Out & Back" course. They are great for "improving" your times.

I'll tell you who isn't having this debate right now--elite Kenyan marathoners. They pump their arms in a cash-register motion and say "cha-ching" everytime a walker registers for a big-city marathon, or at least they would if they weren't so humble and so busy training their asses off.

CMamcms wrote:What is the harm? Boston, NY and Chicago already assign large numbers of people to assigned starting areas based on half or full times, why not the people in the open corrals too?

Gee, what an outrageous request that people actually have to finish a half marathon before a full!

You are right, there is zero logic there.

The starting corral assignments only involve a limited number of people except for Boston. You can also get up front with just a 10K time and some credentials. In Boston's case there's a lot of overhead involved in tracking and verifying times.

But the reason why you have exhibited zero logic isn't just the overhead involved. You claim it's to prove they've trained. Even Boston's system doesn't prove a thing. I can run a qual time and not run another step for 18 months and still register for Boston. All your "solution" does is give races more work, for more cost, merely to "prove" that someone at some time in the past made some imaginary criteria and make things more logistically difficult for everyone to run a marathon.

Keith Stone wrote:

for everyone to run a marathon.

Amen, someone gets it!!

Well you are looking at the work and overhead from your standpoint of race director of your local buttf*** 5k.

Chicago has what, 5 different starting areas. Elite, top 100 and corrals A,B,C? Tell me, how do they place people in these corrals, previous time right? That's the majority of people in the race, right?

I believe the term I used was "minimum fitness required to cover the distance."

Is that what set you off on your defensive rant?

I just cannot believe it wrote:

Keith Stone wrote:

for everyone to run a marathon.

Amen, someone gets it!!

I definitely think you should boycott all marathons from now on. In 20 or so years, come back and let us know how that worked for you. We'll be very curious, I'm sure.

If Chicago does this, what would be so hard about putting two more corrals for sub 5 hour and sub 6 hour with previous qualifying times?

Start Corral A

Located directly behind the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for Start Corral A for 2007 are as follows:

Half Marathon time: < 1:25:59

Full Marathon time: < 3:10:59

Expected capacity: 1,500

Start Corral B

Located close to the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for Start Corral B for 2007 are as follows.

Half Marathon time: < 1:35:59

Full Marathon time: < 3:35:59

Expected capacity: 3,000

Start Corral C

Located near the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for the Start Corral C for 2007 are as follows:

Half Marathon time: < 1:45:59

Full Marathon time: < 3:55:59

Expected capacity: 4,000

Start Corral D

Located near the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for the Start Corral D for 2007 are as follows:

Full Marathon time: < 4:00:59

Expected capacity: 4,000

Keith Stone wrote:

Even Boston's system doesn't prove a thing. I can run a qual time and not run another step for 18 months and still register for Boston. All your "solution" does is give races more work, for more cost, merely to "prove" that someone at some time in the past made some imaginary criteria and make things more logistically difficult for everyone to run a marathon.

On an individual basis, you're right. It is possible to qualify, and then not run for 18 months. Do you think this is the norm? Of course it isn't. On average, the qualifiers will run fairly close to their qualifying times. It will never be possible to make completely accurate seedings, but the major marathons can go a long way with relatively little effort. In fact, the level of effort has gone down significantly for Boston because many (most?) qualifiers have chip times that are easily verified electronically.

Runningart2004 wrote:

If you take away the walkers you'll take away about 1/3 to 1/2 of the proceeds in ANY race of ANY distance. That won't go over well with race directors or the charities involved.

Alan

Boston marathon says hi.

There are many ways to donate to charities other than waddling on for 26.2 miles

I'm always happy to see lots of people slower than me in any race. They don't get in my way, and it makes my own not so great times seem better than they should. So I say, "Slow people, come on down!"

When I directed a local race a few years ago, I was always happy to see lots of walkers (and their entry fees). They tended to be a pleasant lot, appreciated the T-shirt, and you didn't have to spend any money on trophies for them. Such a deal.

It won't go over well with the elites who run these races for the large purses.

because it take away from the respect people get for finishing a marathon.

Just because you can walk 26.2 miles on no preparation, means nothing. But months of training to run 26.2 miles in 4hrs. I can admire that. Or even the fat guy that trains to walk a marathon or racewalkers. But not the soccermom with her sport water in one hand and an Ipod in the other.

I can't ever admire any accomplishment that requires no preparation other than going to the store and buying jogging shorts.

CMamcms wrote:

Well you are looking at the work and overhead from your standpoint of race director of your local buttf*** 5k.

No, I'm looking at it from both the local buttf*** 5K and large races, including Chicago, Boston, and New York. In fact your "solution" really only has the chance of viability at the bigger events since they have the staff available.

Chicago has what, 5 different starting areas. Elite, top 100 and corrals A,B,C? Tell me, how do they place people in these corrals, previous time right? That's the majority of people in the race, right?

Estimated time is used for all but the front corrals.

I believe the term I used was "minimum fitness required to cover the distance."

Is that what set you off on your defensive rant?

I'm not opposed to people having minimum fitness, I just think it's asinine to assume that forcing a pre-determined race in advance does anything to prove it. It's a solution for a "problem" that's really only in your head.

Other than make a few whiners feel good, what purpose does it serve to have people "prove" they've trained to your satifaction? It does nothing to improve the sport or the marathon, and even if a 2:45 half requirement was imposed there'll still be some dickweed saying "IT SHOULD BE 2:10 OR THERE'S NOT ENOUGH VIAGRA IN THE WORLD TO MAKE MY DICK HARD", so what's the point?

Here is a clue wrote:

because it take away from the respect people get for finishing a marathon.

Just because you can walk 26.2 miles on no preparation, means nothing. But months of training to run 26.2 miles in 4hrs. I can admire that. Or even the fat guy that trains to walk a marathon or racewalkers. But not the soccermom with her sport water in one hand and an Ipod in the other.

I can't ever admire any accomplishment that requires no preparation other than going to the store and buying jogging shorts.

Okay, I have a question. Which bothers you more: (A) that no one else cares how fast you can run; or (B) that no one else cares what you think?

and who says that someone who is walking a 5 hour marathon hasn't prepared. they just haven't prepared to your standard, isn't that it?

Maybe the marathon, in general, is just an overrated race. People talk about 5k's like they are some nothing race, but many of the races I'm most proud of have been 5k. My marathons were more of a grind it out sort of thing. If a runner hasn't done a marathon, it's like they aren't a *real* runner, which is b******t.

It's not that I don't have respect for the race, it's just that most people would be so much better off training and racing shorter distances. But if they want to walk/jog 26.2 miles to say they finished a marathon, that's their business. Anything that gets people away from the TV seems a good thing to me. Maybe it will put them on the road to more serious training.