Ditto. Excellent numbers analysis and exactly my point. The 66-68 minute range is always a crap shoot about whether or not it will be a solo time trial for the entire race. At least with the US Champs, you're practically guaranteed to have guys to run with in that range.
excellent analysis TheGarbageDisposal. i was in one of the races you listed, and you are spot on with points 1 and 2.
my race had at least 7 guys go sub-1:06, and probably 20 guys between 1:10-1:15. and the runners i ended up finishing with weren't 1:07 guys, they had went out with the lead pack & blew up, didn't see them until after mile 10!
1:05-1:10 is just a no-man's land at most HMs these days. makes me think this article in running Times recently is a load of BS:
http://m.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/the-fast-pack-is-back
Here's my opinion. Let's call somewhere around the 1:05 to 1:10 range the sub-elite crowd. Now most of these guys are probably guys who have continued to race after college, but aren't good enough to be truly elite and make a living off it. There's no real financial incentive, so they're in it purely for the love of the sport and the desire to continue to improve after college. This probably also makes them some of the most passionate guys in the sport, almost to an obnoxious point. Most of the them probably have full time jobs and train before or after work, maybe with a few other guys in their area in the same situation. Other than the occasional comped entry fee, they're used to paying their own travel expenses.
Now answer this question. How many of your former college teammates, still race competitively and would fall into this category? Probably not many. So why is that? Most have good intentions after graduating and stick with it for a few years, but many finally give up and quit. Why? Because they're either beating the hobby joggers by 3 minutes, or getting crushed by the Kenyans. So after awhile they begin to wonder what the point is. They miss the college cross country atmosphere where there's 15-20 guys around them in any given race that they're dueling it out with. It's hard for people to continue on their own in that situation when it's purely for their own enjoyment. So they quit or become hobby joggers themselves. And then the pool of guys in that range gets even smaller for the guys that remain, and the vicious cycle feeds on itself and continues. That's why these guys are often in no-man's land, essentially doing time trials. There's just not enough guys in that range that stick with it.
So why did Houston decide to eliminate some of these guys? I'm sure money is some of it. But my guess is that somebody was lazy and just didn't want to deal with them. Having to answer their e-mails and verify their credentials and stuff. And like I said, these guys are some of the most passionate, so they might require a little more attention. Not to mention that the true elites probably have a coach that handles all the logistics for several guys, so it's easier for the organizers to deal with 1 coach and his many athletes, and not have to deal with the many individual sub-elite athletes themselves. So they don't let them in, which is even more discouraging to these guys because they feel like they're never given a shot, so more of them quit, etc. etc. You get the point.
And so the post-collegiate sub-elite runner continues to be the stepchild of the running world that's no one wants.
Jimbo Billy wrote:
This probably also makes them some of the most passionate guys in the sport, almost to an obnoxious point.
...
It's hard for people to continue on their own in that situation when it's purely for their own enjoyment.
...
And so the post-collegiate sub-elite runner continues to be the stepchild of the running world that's no one wants.
Cry me a river. It's not that no one wants sub-elites (holy persecution syndrome, Batman!) it's that unless you're getting paid, you're a recreational runner. Doesn't matter if you're running 1:08 or 2:08, but those that are running 1:08 seem to want to lump themselves in with the pros, for whatever reason. It's like xenonscreams bragging about running nationals; it's an ego thing at this point.
And I do agree that the sub-elite post-collegiate group is easily the most obnoxious of all runners. They think they're owed the world for their comparatively mediocre times, and they'll look down on the guys running 1:10-1:15 because they're not "serious" enough. I wonder if these guys truly enjoy running or if it's just become some weird compulsion, running 120 mpw in order to finish a mile (at least!) behind the winner).
Want to know why most guys quit running after college? It's because there's a whole world outside of running. Hard to believe, I know! It's not because they're not dedicated or because they're in no man's land at half marathons, it's that they want to do something else with their lives.
Hey, I'm just pointing it out like I see it. I've seen many, many, guys who try to keep going after college, but they soon quit out of frustration. They just get bored with it because the road race scene is so different.
And like someone else said on here, why the heck does everybody always say the sub-elites are just doing it for their ego? Holy crap on a stick. Is it that bad for somebody to have personal goals and things they want to achieve for their own self satisfaction? Believe it or not, some guys actually enjoy working hard towards a goal and then going out to achieve it for their own sake, without the attached strings of padding their ego for others. And if that means trying to find races where they have the best shot of achieving those goals, why are they always crucified for it like they're jerks?
I don't really understand where you're getting all this. All the 1:04-1:08 guys I train with know their/our places in the running food chain and have a clear understanding of the difference between guys our level and pros/elites.
There are guys that we run with that run in the 1:15-1:20 range and I have never once heard one of the faster guys make comments that show any sort of disrepsect towards the efforts and abilities of the slower guys. At the end of the day most of us understand we're all out there because we love running and competing.
And believe it or not, most guys in the 64-68min range does have full time jobs and lives. We just also manage to find 1-2 hours a day to still train and pursue something we love instead of sitting on the sidelines making erroneous judgments about those that do.
Your post highlights some of the reason your ilk are getting flak
1) In multiple places you claim that the sub-elites are the most passionate group of runners out there
2) You seem to think that post collegiates just give up running competitively due to frustration with the road running scene
So you both exalt your own kind while denigrating others
I'm not meaning to "exalt my own kind" or "denigrate others" (Mr. big word fancy talker). Maybe passionate was a bad choice. Maybe obsessive is better. You know what I mean. Live, breathe, and die running even though it's technically more of an activity now instead of a profession. And I'm not even saying that's a good thing or trying to say they're more dedicated. I'm just saying what I've observed during my many years in this sport.
running since 1996 wrote:
Jimbo Billy wrote:This probably also makes them some of the most passionate guys in the sport, almost to an obnoxious point.
...
It's hard for people to continue on their own in that situation when it's purely for their own enjoyment.
...
And so the post-collegiate sub-elite runner continues to be the stepchild of the running world that's no one wants.
It's like xenonscreams bragging about running nationals; it's an ego thing at this point
I've literally never bragged about running "nationals" nor have I ever run nationals. I've run Club Nationals, which everyone knows has really easy cuts for track and no standards for XC. I did write about it because it was a fun experience.
Where do you guys get this BS, seriously?
What we need to remember in this discussion is that USATF does NOT fund road championships. The local organizing committee (Houston Marathon, in this case) funds EVERYTHING. Even the bill for drug testing is covered by the LOC.
When I first became involved with USATF at the association level I was shocked to learn this. Most people - even those elites participating in championships - do not realize that.
IMO, this is something that needs to be changed. USATF foots the bill for track championships. Why is there little-no financial backing for road championships?
again, what is with the obsession with attacking the supposed "huge egos" of the sub-elites? i run in a major USATF association with clubs full of sub-elite guys, and your description describes about zero of them. it's a blast to train with & compete against this group, i can't wait for club XC to start in a few weeks! and as far as "expecting handouts", that's laughable, i've never heard of such a thing. we lavish the opportunity to race the big boys & get our butts handed to us while paying for it!i think this thread proves the most obnoxious group of runners is actually butthurt runners like yourself who have to knock on a group of guys out there training/racing hard & having tons of fun to make himself feel better about his crappy life & running situation.
running since 1996 wrote:
And I do agree that the sub-elite post-collegiate group is easily the most obnoxious of all runners. They think they're owed the world for their comparatively mediocre times, and they'll look down on the guys running 1:10-1:15 because they're not "serious" enough. I wonder if these guys truly enjoy running or if it's just become some weird compulsion, running 120 mpw in order to finish a mile (at least!) behind the winner).
not exactly wrote:
Xenostreams wrote:I'm ok with them tightening the men's standards. I always though they were kinda easy.
But leave the womens standard alone. 2h44m was hard enough as it is.
Pikachu wrote:The women's standards are still MUCH easier to achieve than the men's standards.
1:07/2:21 vs. 1:17/2:42.
It's a no brainer.
No they aren't. Using the Mercier calculator, 1:17 for a woman equates to 1:05:34 for a man. 2:42 equates to 2:17:52. The women are getting jipped.
not exactly wrote:
Xenostreams wrote:I'm ok with them tightening the men's standards. I always though they were kinda easy.
But leave the womens standard alone. 2h44m was hard enough as it is.
Pikachu wrote:The women's standards are still MUCH easier to achieve than the men's standards.
1:07/2:21 vs. 1:17/2:42.
It's a no brainer.
No they aren't. Using the Mercier calculator, 1:17 for a woman equates to 1:05:34 for a man. 2:42 equates to 2:17:52. The women are getting jipped.
2:42 no way in hell equates 2:17 and 1:17 no way 1:05 when you look how good it is to run those times. Just look at the world class times and calculate the percentages.
The standards are taking into account that women's running isn't as deep as the men's fields. It's basically a joke. 2.24low equates 2:05high, 2:20low is like 2:03low ;-)
Again: It's a no brainer for everyone that REALLY knows the sport.
Pikachu
you are that guy wrote:
i think this thread proves the most obnoxious group of runners is actually butthurt runners like yourself who have to knock on a group of guys out there training/racing hard & having tons of fun to make himself feel better about his crappy life & running situation.
^^^
This! Could not agree more!