I love his channel. While not everyone agrees w/what he says/does he's a great presence on the running scene.
Yes, people reviewing shoes who literally get paid by the shoe companies, and flown around the world by them, is an excellent presence on the running scene.
I love his channel. While not everyone agrees w/what he says/does he's a great presence on the running scene.
Yes, people reviewing shoes who literally get paid by the shoe companies, and flown around the world by them, is an excellent presence on the running scene.
Sorry if I’m letting this get a little off topic, but I didn’t know about the “flown around the world” part. I saw a couple of Kofuzi reviews that looked pretty in-depth and informative, and I appreciated the disclosure of “___ supplied the shoes for me for free to review but did not provide me with any additional remuneration, and they did not have a chance to review this information before I posted it” (or however the precise wording went). And the content also didn’t strike me as incredibly biased (e.g., there were some pros and cons listed for shoes rather than the mere raves a paid shill could be more likely to spout). Of course, I wouldn’t use that as a sole (heh-heh) source of info before buying the shoes, and I’d do more due diligence about a purveyor of info for something more significant. Because someone who would be a sellout isn’t above lying in the purported disclosure statement (not that I have info myself to make such a charge about any reviewer I’ve seen).
Amazing how there is always a contingent of people who insist on poo-poo'ing (if it wasn't a word, it is now) any and every thing or happening. Everyone wants to be the inventor of a better mousetrap and everybody is looking for recognition as the 'second coming.'
“Pooh-pooh” is a word, and if you misunderstand orthography and try to write it as “poo-poo,” you run the risk of having others talk s**t about you.
My bad. I stand corrected. Poo-poo is a noun while 'to pooh-pooh' is a verb. I did use it in the verb form.
But in fairness, neither was the 1984 Olympics marathon course in Los Angeles. However, the significance of the event still necessitated very stringent entry standards.
To a lesser extent, the same principle should apply to the Boston marathon, so... ...if it isn't a "record eligible" course, it should not be a BQ course.
Amazing how there is always a contingent of people who insist on poo-poo'ing (if it wasn't a word, it is now) any and every thing or happening. Everyone wants to be the inventor of a better mousetrap and everybody is looking for recognition as the 'second coming.'
The BAA is the body tasked with administering the Boston Marathon, and they have been quite successful in doing just that since 1897. If you're a marathon runner with your sights on qualifying for and running the Boston Marathon, you're in the same as everyone else that is in that boat being steered by the BAA.
If you are a couch-potato-armchair-quarterback with goals of changing the BM - have fun and good luck. If you are a subpar runner that doesn't know how to maneuver yourself to being a participant - too bad. As far as the rest of us that know the drill and can meet the task - see you in Boston on April 21, 2025
Are you implying that disqualifying non-record eligible courses would hurt the BAA make the Boston Marathon less successful?
One reason people bring up this point so much is because it wouldn't hurt the BAA's bottom line one bit.
Are you implying that disqualifying non-record eligible courses would hurt the BAA make the Boston Marathon less successful?
One reason people bring up this point so much is because it wouldn't hurt the BAA's bottom line one bit.
They would never. Those races are an endless funnel of more attention for the BAA.
Again, it’s an incredibly achievable benchmark even with the cutoff. Flat course, rolling course, downhill course, I don’t care. This is why it’s a non-issue for me, just train a bit more and run faster. Boston is not an OTQ.
Are you implying that disqualifying non-record eligible courses would hurt the BAA make the Boston Marathon less successful?
One reason people bring up this point so much is because it wouldn't hurt the BAA's bottom line one bit.
They would never. Those races are an endless funnel of more attention for the BAA.
Again, it’s an incredibly achievable benchmark even with the cutoff. Flat course, rolling course, downhill course, I don’t care. This is why it’s a non-issue for me, just train a bit more and run faster. Boston is not an OTQ.
You say 'again' like I was responding to you or anything you wrote. If all the downhill races disappeared tomorrow you wouldn't be able to tell from the BAA's balance sheet.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.