WSJ article on how we are becoming slower - quotes Reavis and Rojo

I'm another one who is in Al Carius' "Run for Fun and for Personal Bests" camp.

More people running isn't a problem. If the fast people are running slower than they used to, blame the fast people. If the fast people aren't running slower, then there isn't a problem.

The true benefits of running will always be felt primarily by the people running. While I took a great deal of pleasure out of watching Kenenisa beat Mo in that half marathon, the real value of running is in the miles I put on. I'm much larger and much slower than I used to be. I'm only out there 25 miles a week, but those 25 miles are improving the quality of my life.

Plus, the more people who are running at all, then the more people who are in the pool to realize that with real effort, better performances are to be had.

someone had to do it,

You don't seem to understand that a RACE has different meanings for different people! Why can't you see that? Racing is not an absolute, universal term for wich we can agree on a single definition. To you, a RACE is trying to beat other people and pushing yourself as hard as possible to the line. For most others, a RACE is a block party where you run for the sheer thrill of being in a large crowd. Who made you sheriff of this town anyway or guardian of the sport? The sport doesn't belong to you or any single person. Partake, don't dicate.

just tea for me wrote:

Even if I were to accept your point about races, I don't believe that the word "race" shows up in the name of, for instance, the NYC Marathon.

http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/

The irony is that even while you decry the presence of slower runners, your ego depends on beating them to improve your "finisher percentage."

And of course, slower runners are subsidizing a race that otherwise might not exist.

Okay, I can see you are a bit slow so I will try and make things even simpler for you.

1) I NEVER "decry the presence of slower runners". I said TWO TIMES that RACING does not depend on speed. It depends on relative effort.

Understand?

RACING does not depend on speed. It depends on relative effort

RACING does not depend on speed. It depends on relative effort

RACING does not depend on speed. It depends on relative effort

What I said applies to people of all ability levels.

2) You really should stop projecting sh!t onto me that I never said, like "your ego depends on beating them to improve your "finisher percentage."

I never said that and you're just making stuff up. My ego depends on nothing, let alone some insignificant road race.

3) "And of course, slower runners are subsidizing a race that otherwise might not exist."

Well, for starters I will again repeat -

RACING does not depend on speed. It depends on relative effort

What I said has nothing to do with what your 5k PR is? Understand?

You have some bizarre idea that I am hating on "slower runners" I NEVER said that and I WENT OUT OF MY WAY to make that clear. Apparently I should have said that about two dozen more times. Maybe then you would have gotten it.

someone had to do it wrote:

RACING does not depend on speed. It depends on relative effort

Why does someone's relative effort have any effect on you?

If someone wants to tempo a half marathon, why do you care?

If someone wants to jog a 5k, why do you care?

What someone does at the back of the pack in no way diminishes your accomplishment. If you can walk away from a race knowing that you gave your best effort, then you should be happy. Worrying about people at the back of the pack "not racing" is just going to give you an ulcer.

If you want to get more involved, maybe start coaching some of these back of the packers. Show them that increasing one's effort can be fun. Show them that chasing times (even if their 5ks start with 3) can be fun.

The fast runners are still there but the participant "we're all winners" make up of many races has expanded. The pure depth of serious runners just isn't there anymore.

I noticed that in Bay to Breakers this year my best time would have put me in 32nd place versus the 88th place I got in the early 1980's.

It is the time of the rule of the four and five hour marathoners. Suggest to slower marathoners that they might run faster if they did more miles year round and got their 5 & 10k times down and you get a vacant state.

mgm wrote:

someone had to do it,

You don't seem to understand that a RACE has different meanings for different people! Why can't you see that? Racing is not an absolute, universal term for wich we can agree on a single definition. To you, a RACE is trying to beat other people and pushing yourself as hard as possible to the line. For most others, a RACE is a block party where you run for the sheer thrill of being in a large crowd. Who made you sheriff of this town anyway or guardian of the sport? The sport doesn't belong to you or any single person. Partake, don't dicate.

This goes both ways. Many of the "party goers" claim they are "unselfish and friendly" because they don't care about the time and placement. They also preach that it is narcissistic and egocentric to try to run faster. If someone is trying to pass them on the course (full/half, 5K/10K runners often share the course), they treat the faster runner like an intruder to their "party." I would see them in a more positive light, if they showed some respect for us.

It may have more to do with there being more options out there for races. That and you tend to see more of the faster runners ego can't take going to a race unless they will be winning or placing well, we can call it the Tim Broe way of thinking, if he can't win why try.

The Tim Broe way of thinking?Can you expand on that? I remember when Tim Broe was one of our best 5K runners and then gravitated to coaching.

?????????????? wrote:

It may have more to do with there being more options out there for races. That and you tend to see more of the faster runners ego can't take going to a race unless they will be winning or placing well, we can call it the Tim Broe way of thinking, if he can't win why try.

Distance running is unique in that you can suck without consequence. What's the worst that can happen if you come in last place in the local 5k? Nothing, really. In fact you'll be commended for having the mere courage to enter the race.

Compare that to, say, basketball. If you suck as basketball, then you'll hold your team back and people will laugh when they see you shoot an air ball. Hence, people who are slow and uncoordinated do not pursue basketball as a hobby and do not enter tournaments. Yes, I suppose I do know some non-agile, weak people who love playing pickup basketball, but they do it because they're at least mediocre at shooting 3 pointers.

Does anyone care how many people finish behind her?

Does anyone train and race to impress others?

Broe was one of the first elites to US championships in cc and indoor track and skip going to world champs because he would not place well. Now it seems like all do it but there was a time when it was an big thing to make a world team.

They "all do it?" Did Ben True and Chris Derrick skip World Cross?

I remember a time when you had to be pretty good to not come in last.

someone had to do it wrote:

You have some bizarre idea that I am hating on "slower runners" I NEVER said that and I WENT OUT OF MY WAY to make that clear. Apparently I should have said that about two dozen more times. Maybe then you would have gotten it.

Oh, I get it loud and clear.

the fact that on any given weekend hundreds of thousands of people are out racing even if none of them will approach a record time is still better for the sport(not to mention the health of the country as a whole) then to not have people out running. So what if the back of the pack is slow and the plethora of race choices dilutes the competition? There are plenty of competitive races out there and if you want to go fast you can. That said I don't see the point in entering a race unless I plan on running fast but that's a personal motivation doesn't have to be everyone's goal.

Narcissistic Egocentrist wrote:

This goes both ways. Many of the "party goers" claim they are "unselfish and friendly" because they don't care about the time and placement. They also preach that it is narcissistic and egocentric to try to run faster. If someone is trying to pass them on the course (full/half, 5K/10K runners often share the course), they treat the faster runner like an intruder to their "party." I would see them in a more positive light, if they showed some respect for us.

^This^

I don't give a flying fck if you jog/walk/party/have fun in a race. Just don't get in my way, or impede me in anyway, as I race past you!

This happens not only in multiple race courses, but the larger races where people (joggers/walkers) start before the actual gun start.

Narcissistic Egocentrist wrote:

This goes both ways. Many of the "party goers" claim they are "unselfish and friendly" because they don't care about the time and placement. They also preach that it is narcissistic and egocentric to try to run faster. If someone is trying to pass them on the course (full/half, 5K/10K runners often share the course), they treat the faster runner like an intruder to their "party." I would see them in a more positive light, if they showed some respect for us.

The fact that perhaps a half dozen individuals "treat the faster runner like an intruder to their party" does not imply that the ten thousand slow runners are all A-holes. I use half a dozen just to make up a number - the argument does not change if you change this number, unless it is actually in the thousands.

So, I would suggest that you rethink your fundamental mental construct regarding who is "Us" and who is "Them"?

Based upon your comment I would suggest that "Us" should be 'reasonably positive, respectful participants' while "Them" should A-holes.

Don't join the fast A-holes just because there are some slow A-holes. Instead, add your name to the ranks of the fast reasonably positive, respectful participants.

I think it's great that people run for whatever reason they want to run. I never understood running just to finish a race as I know I could run the distance. I wanted a time and would would never run a race that didn't give one. For many people, just finishing the distance IS a bigger accomplishment. This is good for them but also very sad for the state of our country as it seems to foster an attitude of "I will just do enough to finish but not anymore". As a whole, younger generations seem to be less competitive as they grew up with "everyone gets a medal for participation" mentality. (This is not to say that there isn't a small subset that are competitive and want to be so as these people do exist). It also seems in this conversation that many people are more concerned with what others think of their running accomplishments and the praise they will get. Do it for you not what others say. Be competitive with yourself and in races with others - otherwise you can just run the distance alone and say you did it!

I've always been a subscriber to the sort of everybody go their own way and wish each other the best mentality that's emerging in this thread. What really started this conversation though was the Competitor Group cutting their elite funding and it strikes me that my mentality could be just as much to blame as someone just showing up for a medal and a t-shirt.

The company's pretty reasonable, profit-based decision assumes that the average person at one of their events doesn't know or care about about elite athletes or about the higher end (performance-wise) of the sport in general.

The WSJ article assumes that that the average person in a road race hasn't ever really been exposed to any real competitive running or training truing at all and can't even conceive of putting in mileage towards a specific time or goal (as opposed to just completing a certain distance).

Both these assumptions are probably true and they probably say more about the way that the serious, competitive side of the sport is presented than they do about the nature of people who some might label "hobby-joggers" or people who are just in it to finish. Why the separation? We just accept the fact that the elite side of the sport definitely will always be a money suck for people who put on these events out of the goodness of their hearts? There are apparently huge, constantly growing numbers of people who are interested in some form of running in some way. Why not try a little harder to make that an audience that knows about competitive running instead of dismissing it a something that's somehow taking away from the sport?

Take Nike for example. They sponsor a lot of track and field and lose money doing it right? What if instead of having multiple groups based in Oregon they had one really serious group training somewhere else in the country. They could hype up that regional rivalry and advertise around that a little and maybe people who aren't huge nerds like most letsrun posters would actually start to care who wins some of these races just within the U.S. I know it's a company that takes a lot of pride in it's regional roots, but they don't seem to have any problem spreading the wealth around in other sports.

Or NBC. They own the track and field broadcasting rights (not sure about road-racing). Can't imagine they get a big return on that investment. What if they tried to actually get people to watch running instead of just relegating it to some deep cable channel or the internet? With the sheer number of people participating in Marathons every year it's impossible to believe that a lot of them wouldn't tune in to watch a good race if you advertised and presented it well.

Obviously these ideas are incomplete and full of wholes. Don't mean to hate on either of these two companies, since they sponsor the elite level of the sport out of pocket. I just don't think it has to be that way.

Sorry for the freaking essay. I've been watching the Jets play the Bills. Had to focus mostly on something else.