I won some road races in the 1980s and I don't recall being contaminated or slowed down by the run/walkers in the back of the pack.
Gallowalkers are better off in terms of weight and fitness than if they had not been exposed to the sport. Some will become runners and perhaps others will inspire their children to become the next Ritzenhein or Webb.
At the very least Gallowalkers who have experienced the marathon distance will better appreciate the performance of elite runners such as yourself.
The Marine Corps Marathon, about a month ago, announced there would be a sale of returned numbers. The returned numbers were from charity organisations that no longer needed the numbers. They kindly returned the numbers so they would be available for other people who wanted to participate in the race.
This is what is wrong. All the runners that trained so hard all year and weren't allowed to enter because of number restrictions and a bunch of TITs (Team In Training) fancied run-walking a marathon. Now a month before they say it's okay you can have these numbers back, turns out we didn't need them. Only it's too late for the majority of dedicated runners who had wished to enter in the first place.
Everyone should have the opportunity to take part in the marathon if they choose - irrespective of speed or method. But you must first give the more dedicated athletes a chance to enter. My solution would be to guarantee a spot at the time of public entry to anyone male has run 3:30 and any female who has run 3:50. Then open it up to charity runners......
"This is what is wrong. All the runners that trained so hard all year and weren't allowed to enter because of number restrictions and a bunch of TITs (Team In Training) fancied run-walking a marathon."
It's for charity you titt. Chill out.
Is a 2:36 good for a 17 year old?
Just because it's for charity why should they have priority over everyone else?
There are numerous activities by which charitable funds can be raised - there is only one activity where marathoners can run their event. It's a very rare case where someone refuses to sponsor someone because the charitable event is not a sufficient test to warrant their support.
I don't think it's a bad idea but I object to them being given priority over everybody else - many of whom have dedicated a substantial amount of time to training.
Next they'll be ignoring Boston Qualifying times for charity runners.
In my opinion a marathon run slower than 4 1/2 hours (10:18 pace/mile) does not constitute "running a marathon", and I think that's pretty generous.
Does anyone here appreciate how 'tripping over yourself' slow that pace is?
I could briskly walk 12 min./mile pace, which is roughly equivalent to a 5:15.
Don't even get me started on the 6 hr. plus...
If you want to claim to have run a marathon, train yourself so that you are actually in good enough shape that you can run for 26.2 miles.
If you are "running" slower than the average person walks, than you are not running a marathon, you are walking a marathon.
I think the important part from the link you provided (very interesting, btw -- thank you) was that there were not enough runners on the course after 6 hours to justify keeping it open.
In contrast, consider the Portland Marathon, which has a significant "walker" component (actually has an official "walk 26.2 miles" entry). Judging by the t-shirts, it seemed particularly aimed at women. About 1500 women and 300 men finished between 6 and 8 hours, out of about 7,000 finishers. Don't know how many DNF. In this case, it was probably quite profitable to keep the course open for the walkers, especially with a decently priced ($75) entry fee.
I think that, to me, the major difference that upsets people is one of effort: I busted my balls to get such-and-such a time, and joe schmoe walker took it easy, and finished in 5 hours. And I think that is different - one of them doesn't hurt nearly as much, or require the same training, or commitment. But to soley base that determination on pace or style misses the boat. Finish the distance in any way you want, it's the effort and dedication that you put into it that matters.
1
The guys on this board and others such as the guy in the initial post who seem to belittle those for running slow times in comparison to them seem to be setting themselves up.
Why do some guys ridicule guys running 5 hours when they run 2.30? you'd be pretty pissed off if kk or tergat came here saying "you pussies should give it up, if you can't run 2.09, you're not really running" surely it's the same?
yes galloway is f***ed up and as runners we need to make sure everyone runs. indeed we should promote the train hard philosophy. however berating people who run 5 hours is out of order. does anyone here play golf? are you shit? you'd be pissed if a good club golfer said anyone with a handicap of less than 10 shouldn't be alowed on a golf course. it's the same thing.
and one more thing! i love keeping up to date with the us scene. it's far more advanced and entertaining than over here in the uk, BUT... I notice you have standards that you percieve as elite. to compete in the trials for the olympics require you to run 2.19? that ain't elite boys. as radcliffe mentioned in her interview on the home page that's a "good club runner". sorry if elite has a different meaning the other side of the pond but the 2.20 region doesn't class as elite! if you're running 130 miles a week etc and running 2.20 great. good luck, i hope you go faster and i know this doesn't apply to all but a lot of guys have a high opinion of themselves considering they run above average times. (being able to run 130 miles a week means nothing if you can't convert it to racing)
i may have drifted from the original post but i hope you see my point. running, if you are running and not walking! is for all. be humble as there's always someone better than you.
anderson
It\'s not about them giving up.
my point was that you\'re saying they shouldn\'t be allowed to run with you cos they\'re slow. well why should you run with the top boys because you\'re far slower than they are.
and no, it may not be that easy for all to run under 5 hours. we\'re all made different. a guy who is unbelievably shit at running, has a family and a time consuming job cannot devote hours to training. therefore, say 20 miles a week on his flat broke talent means a time of 5 hours is perhaps good.
and i fully advocate the plight to get everyone to run the whole distance. that\'s what a running race is. but if a guy turns up and runs hard and all the way he can run any race in my book regardless of time.
the marathon is a unique event. i understand that in any other sport you have set boundaries determined by size, a football pich, basketball court and a running track. so standards can be set and teams play against equal ability teams. the marathon is different. everyone can be in the same race. that\'s the way it is.
the running community is constantly trying to come up with ways to generate public interest. it\'s clearly the same in the us as in the uk. running is losing popularity. so it doesn\'t seem such a great idea to me to tell people who run slowly, but are interested in the sport to f*** off. shooting ourselves in the foot!!!!!