NY Times Draws the Line at 4.5 Hour Marathon Finishers

The NYCM should make a cutoff and should bring back pacesetters.

The marathon has lost enough respect of an event. That's great running is a hobby sport, but why do they need to race a marathon? What's wrong with a small local race? Plus, if the goal isn't to run fast but just to complete the distance, then just run 26 miles by yourself.

There should be no stupid cheering at the beginning of the race when the gun goes off. Oh just because it's a longer race that means it should be taken less seriously? And it is a mockery that people that take a while have bib numbers and chip timing and the race directors have to wait the whole time etc. Plus, um PEOPLE WOULDN'T DIE during marathons if it wasn't their first one (and no I'm not forgetting Ryan Shay, I'm talking about the majority of deaths during a marathon). It is not fair for a race director to feel guilty for someone's health because they are too stupid to fully prepare themselves and don't understand what they are getting into. At the very least if there aren't cutoffs for NYC, then people should have to at least submit proof that they've done a shorter race, like a 10K or half marathon so it's not the first time they've ever "run" in their lives.

Running is a sport full of standards. There are standards to qualify for the Olympic Trials down to standards for a local league meet in high school. Being a hobby jogger is fine, but races are for runners, and making standards are a part of races. Plus even for first timers, how much more exciting is it that you've qualified for something prestigious than just merely completing it.

Hell, should there be no standards for things like Western States too?

Andrew A. wrote:

Faster runners contribute (well in excess of the 20 who received comp'ed entries) the same amount (via entry fees) to keep the course open (road closure permits, EMT & police pay) as slower runners do, yet do not need the course to be closed as long as the slower runners do.

At $130, runners who average 3:00 are paying $0.72/min for the marathon, while runners who average 4:30 are paying $0.48/min, but the fact there are so many more runners in the slower category, means that the slower runners (as a group in absolute numbers) contribute more financially to the race than the much lower number of faster runners (even though their entry fee is higher when averaged out per minute).

Citizen Runner wrote:

Even so, the title sponsor has an interest in being attached to the biggest most widely exposed event possible. To that end the back half of the field is valuable to them.

hardset nipples wrote:

What, exactly, does the back half of the field have to do with the event's (funny how races are now 'events') exposure?

ING (or any other sponsor) isn't paying race expenses/prize purses out of their advertising budget because they have any interest in elite marathoning. They're paying to reach large numbers of potential customers. Runners, overwhelmingly middle/upper middle-class young through middle-aged adults, are representative of their target market audience. ING has no motivation to arbitrarily limit their services or marketing to faster than average customers.

I wondered if you'd pick up on the choice of words "event". While a major race like the NYCM includes a competitive race that maybe 20 entrants have even the most remote chance of winning overall and subcategory races that only the involved participants care about, it is the "event" of 45k people running the streets of NY not the "race" that most interests the sponsor.

To compare this to other sports you would see regular joes out there applying and playing minor league baseball if it was up to who got there application out first not by skill level. Now popularity in playing might go up (like in Marathoning) but the level of competition will decrease.

-----------------------------------

Uh, your analogy sucks. Minor league baseball is PROFESSIONAL baseball. Professional baseball is totally merit-driven. The running equivalent of a minor league baseball player is someone who can run a 2:15 marathon. You guys who are complaining while running 2:30s and 2:40s aren't even the equivalent of A baseball players.

And to the person who said they'd be offended by someone shooting a 120 from the professional tees or traversing down a double black, your analogy sucks too.

In every marathon, the faster runners can run from the front and never be inconvenienced by the slower people in the rear. That's not the case in your golf or skiing examples.

Bottom line is that there's no reason to care about 5:00 marathoners. If you are so insecure that you're consumed with worry that the public at large will see their accomplishment as the same as your 2:30, then you have much bigger problems.

The Waterboy wrote:

And it is a mockery that people that take a while have bib numbers and chip timing and the race directors have to wait the whole time etc. Plus, um PEOPLE WOULDN'T DIE during marathons if it wasn't their first one (and no I'm not forgetting Ryan Shay, I'm talking about the majority of deaths during a marathon). It is not fair for a race director to feel guilty for someone's health because they are too stupid to fully prepare themselves and don't understand what they are getting into. At the very least if there aren't cutoffs for NYC, then people should have to at least submit proof that they've done a shorter race, like a 10K or half marathon so it's not the first time they've ever "run" in their lives.

First of all there is nothing preventing an RD from setting any qualifying standards they want. If they are so inconvenienced and feel so guilty then why don't they just set stricter entry standards? Heck, why don't RDs just have races for only sub 2:40 runners?

The reason is that those races would not be financially feasible to put on. I'm guessing that the economies of scale are such that the more participants the better - at least up to a point.

Mega events such as Boston and NYC are in a completely different category from local races. The people running those events have a complex set of factors to balance - not just financial, but the prestige/perceptions of the brand amongst different constituencies as well.

As far as slower runners in a marathon, if a runner finishes 2 hours behind me it doesn't diminish my experience in any way. Every runner has their own goals when they tow the starting line and it's not for me to say if mine are more or less worthy of respect than those of any one else.

AW wrote:

And to the person who said they'd be offended by someone shooting a 120 from the professional tees or traversing down a double black, your analogy sucks too.

The proper analogy would not be 120, it would be 160 playing in a PGA Pro AM. Face it, you would laugh at the guy. Picture him playing with Tiger Woods, taking huge divots, hitting it 5 feet, shanking it into the gallery. Taking 10 shots getting out of a bunker. You would at least look away in cringe inducing embarrassment for the guy. He should not be celebrated...just like the 6 hour marathoner shouldn't be.

OK, ran this by my brother in law who obtained his PhD in Sports Psychology and has worked with some top notch pro teams in the past few years. His take is that the "studs" here who are upset because the slower runners water down or ruin their sport are really upset because they feel that they cant use their accomplishment in finishing a marathon in a "my dick is bigger than yours" argument when the 250 pound receptionist at work also completed the same race. Despite the fact people see a faster time as being faster-up to and maybe even more than twice as fast-it still ruins the day for aforementioned "stud".

This argument boils down to an ego being deflated and self esteem being chipped away by self imposed rules and measures that have little in common with reality. In a sense it could also be seen as a form of bigotry-"keep them out" and "their accomplishments really don't matter", "but I belong and look at what I did".

Dude has written a few magazine articles and collaborated for a few books, so I take his word as being good.

tinkler wrote:

I just thought it was interesting that the nation's paper of record, is drawing the line for results it will publish, for the NYC Marathon at 4.5 hours. I am guessing the way they arrived at that was that 4.0 hours is the "average Joe" goal...add 30 minutes to capture the women.

Where was this reported?

Some confusion here, I think. They're just stating that they are only going to publish times 4:30 and under in their special Monday newspaper release. Anyone slower than 4:30 still gets to finish and will get an official place and time, it just won't be included in the Monday newspaper results. It's not like they're closing the course at 4 1/2 hours.

tinkler wrote:

I just thought it was interesting that the nation's paper of record, is drawing the line for results it will publish, for the NYC Marathon at 4.5 hours. I am guessing the way they arrived at that was that 4.0 hours is the "average Joe" goal...add 30 minutes to capture the women.

wejo wrote:

Where was this reported?

It's in the participant manual that the race sent out recently.

Oh, man, you're totally right. My mistake.

You know, I think it's time we start breaking down these elitist walls in sports. I'm tired of all this ego pumping and bigotry that pervades our competitions.

Tiger Woods and co., I think it's high time you get on the course with an average joe in your competitions. Who CARES if you beat him by 45 shots? It doesn't diminish YOUR experience! If I want to play with the best, then I should be able to!

Same thing with basketball. I'd really love to hoop it up with LeBron James, Chris Bosh, etc. It's time for pro-ball games to be open to entry. I don't care that I can't dunk a ball, I definitely want in!

And who in the heck is running these track meets? Why can't I toe the line with Chris Solinsky? Forget that I can't run an 8K as fast as he can run 10000m. Let's get in there and rumble.

..........

Here's the thing. Sports are MEANT to be elitist. They show who is the best at playing that particular game. There are divisions for a reason, and it's because not everyone is the same skill level - and that in and of itself is not a good or a bad thing. But this whole full of sunshine crap "they're not bothering anyone" is bull souffle. Who here has gotten slowed up by a guy who darts the front of the pack because he's too proud not to admit that he's not the fastest guy there, and "has every right to be there just as much as you do"? I'm guessing quite a few. Not to mention all the guys who got shut out of Boston who train hard for marathons and really enjoy the chance to get a special race in, only to get denied because some guy who gets out and jogs 15 minutes a day thinks it's the "next big test" in his life to complete -a- marathon. And don't tell me that it was their fault for not registering fast enough - one, who knew that it was going to fill up that quickly, two, people have day jobs, and three, there are numerous reports of internet errors preventing people from registering within that eight hour span.

The point here is not to EXCLUDE the slower runners if it is not necessary. Faster runners might disdain slower runners, make fun of them and whatnot, but I'm pretty sure they'd just rather ignore them so long as they don't get in the way. But when space constraints and the like become an issue, then that's when it's time to make delineations.

Agree. And back to the original post, if you can't run a marathon in less than 4.5 hours, you dam* sure don't deserve to get your name in the paper.

No one is suggesting that 5 hour guys should be out jogging along next to Geb. That's why they have separate starting times for the elite race and waves for everyone else. The 5 hour people are essentially running in a separate race from the ones up front. How is this different than in other sports?

Obviously, slow runners should not be in a position where they can impede faster ones. In a big race that can be handled easily with a little planning. And again, if it makes financial sense for an RD to limit their race to fast runners they are free to do so.

In a race like the NYC marathon, where the number of entrants is limited by throughput rather than a lack of demand, it would make sense if runners with finishing times faster (and slower!) than the peak of the bell-curve paid less. A race like NY could easily accommodate 1000 more runners in the 2:30-2:50 category, but not in the 3:40-4:00 range.

If pricing were a question of supply and demand, you'd pay much less if you run at a pace where the roads are least congested.

In a way, that's exactly what happens in races with guaranteed entry for qualifying times: You can usually buy yourself a place regardless, either by running for a charity, or through a travel agency (who pays a lot for these places), but it'll cost you much more.

I usually find that people who run 4+ hours know quite well that it's a totally different thing to running 2:50, and can put the two performances into perspective. But I still think they can be proud of what they achieve.

There has been lots of recent discussion of whether the 26.2 is really too long for most runners and requires too much of a training commitment.

A flip side is that it's actually the extreme distance that attracts so many slow runners to the marathon, because no matter how slow you run, you can impress your friends by telling them you finished 26.2

To me the marathon should be considered an ultra, and the main even of long distance running should be closer to 14-18 miles. Then maybe we could get more emphasis on speed back. Of course its all moot, we're stuck with 26.2

Jogger to be wrote:

Lets take the Columbus marathon from this weekend

I know from experience the relay they use to have subsidized the marathon. First place overall received a cheap trophy about 5 weeks after the event even though entries for the relay alone were over $50,000!!!

I am sure now they make far more money on the half than on the full thon. 8,000 runners and under 200 broke 1:30.

Team Hoyt finished Boston in 5:26 this year. That's a 69 year old man pushing his 150 pound son in a wheelchair.

And exactly which one of you narcissists thinks that's an accomplishment unworthy of mention in the paper? That your 2:xx or 3:xx is somehow more interesting or valuable?

Wilma Flintstone wrote:

Agree. And back to the original post, if you can't run a marathon in less than 4.5 hours, you dam* sure don't deserve to get your name in the paper.

Yes, I double agree-back to the original post. Don't worry, I plan on finishing way before the 4.5 mark, I want my name in that paper!

On the serious side, don't other MAJOR marathons have a cut off for their papers as well? Like someone mentioned before, I imagine the newspaper company have other important news to cover for that day.

Personally, I find no reason why not publishing any time over 4/4.5 hours should offend anyone. Yes, everyone paid the same sum of money to race and participate, but we need to have a line drawn between "just being there" and actually doing well. Many people obviously have other focuses in life and can't be bothered to log 80 miles a week due to time constraints, work, etc...and that is understandable, but we need to have a separation between these people and those who actually put the miles in and are dedicated to the sport. In a way, this all goes back to money. Even for grade 3 cross country, only the top x number of kids move on to the city meet. However, grown adults who we'd expect to be a little more emotionally mature need to have a nice big shiny medal given to them by a falsely enthusiastic volunteer, and given thousands of empty compliments (wow, you must be so dedicated, blah blah). Not only that, but now they want to have their name published in the paper next to individuals that ran sub 3. So why do small children put up with it yet adults bitch and complain? Money. Kids didn't pay to be there, but the adults did. People in this society need to realize that money can't buy you everything, especially results. Sometimes, there are NO shortcuts just hard work. In the end, its just an arbitrary standard. Use it as motivation to improve for next time, instead of finding another reason to complain about it.

On a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing Boston qualifying times cut down SIGNIFICANTLY. something like 3:00 or under for men 34 and under, maybe even 2:55. There needs to be a separation between an elite athletic event, and one that anyone with a visa card can enter.