Harry Kooter wrote:
Having random people behind you in a race doesn't effect you.
The word is "affect" and have you not read this thread thoroughly enough to know that this simply isn't true?
Harry Kooter wrote:
Having random people behind you in a race doesn't effect you.
The word is "affect" and have you not read this thread thoroughly enough to know that this simply isn't true?
I actually like the carnival atmosphere of the all-inclusive marathons that include 7 to 8 hour finishers but I would like the choice of a few events where the vibe was similar to what it was 20 years ago.
Running books from that period provide a good gauge for levels of runners; a healthy person who is not overweight and has 'some' running or athletic experience and trains for the event should not be too much over 4 hours on the first attempt. Older folks would of course be slower.
That breaking 4 hours now beats the majority of the field proves that most of the folks who enter marathons do not run regularly, are overweight or do not actually prepare for the event.
It's great to see those folks out there participating but it would be enjoyable to again, every now and then, experience the energy of those purely RUNNING events.
I have encountered few folks who begrudge the hikers and shufflers their spots at the starting line. It is the disappearance of the more serious events in their wake that rankles.
We've all stepped onto a track for a workout to find runners who are much fitter and faster. It is exhilarating and we run better that day.
There is nothing elitist about declaring one's love for a sport and the desire to see that sport at its best and if there is room for the 7 hour shufflers every week of the year, there must be room for one or two marathons for the true officiandos.
I think they should do away with the finisher's medal. It is an example of "everyone is a winner" b.s. that is harming today's youth. I am sorry chunky monkey but when I blast by you during my 3:43 marathon and leave you in my wake, you don't deserve a medal. A medal used to mean something. Now I see this idiots wearing theres in O'Hara after chicago like it is some bling.
How long before finisher's medal start to appear at 5ks?
Perhaps they lost 50 pounds and knowing that they were going to do a marathon was their motivation. They just completed something that they never thought possible. One year earlier, they may have been incapable of walk/jogging a mile and they just strung 26 of them together. Maybe that's why they're wearing their medal.
Got ignorance? wrote:
The word is "affect" and have you not read this thread thoroughly enough to know that this simply isn't true?
I have read the thread and have not been convinced. Most of the arguments have been along the lines of "I can't keep the giant hard-on for myself when random people think that anyone can run a marathon. They should know that I am special and that my marathon means more."
People bring up the issue of paying more to keep the course open longer, which I really don't buy. The fact that there are always people who want to run but are unable to get in shows that fees are already lower than market value. They have no reason to lower prices if fewer people run.
I don't remember at the moment what other half-baked arguments were posted, but in short, I'm not convinced.
I apologize for the typo. I know that is the kind of thing that should never happen in a formal setting such as this.
Your right, they don't admire all really good marathoners. They admire all of them BUT you, you cranky old thing.As far as if the penguins know who won any of the top marathons, you are speculating, since I doubt you have ever spoken to a penguin. And since you're far better a runner than they are, please don't bother asking any one of them. We wouldn't want to find you slumming around. In any case, that wasn't my point. I said they were interested in the RESULTS, not WINNERS, of the race They are fans of you (well, everyone except YOU, now). They admire good runners. They are fans of the 2:30 guys; the 3:10 women. You act as if you are so desperate for recognition, why don't you take it from where you can get it.By the way, I don't have one TWIT in my family. Where are these TWITS that you see running 20 milers as part of a 20 mile week - access to their running logs have you (oh wait, I forgot, the shmucks wouldn't have one of those, probably don't know what they are, right)? In any case, you don't have access to the training logs of my family and friends, so don't tell me what they averaged per week during their training (it was more than 40 miles, I guarantee you). Plus, not one of them ever quit nor did they need help at the finish. As far as them cheapening the competition by their mere presence, the Cubs have been in the Major Leagues for over 100 years, does that tarnish the World Series somehow? I don't see anyone screaming for the Arizona Cardinals to be removed from the NFL so we can all feel better about the Super Bowl winner. Quite frankly, your general attitude is what sours the sport. I wouldn't give a rat's behind who the winners were of any marathon if I thought they were as arrogant as you. If you are going to throw everyone out of these marathons except those who can achieve the qualifying times you think we so desperately need, be sure to be public about the reasons. I guarantee you, after that, no one will care about your time BUT you.
first second third wrote:
Runner Mom wrote: remember how many fans you have lining up behind you at every race you run.Really? I'd really like to know just how many 'penguins' could, without looking it up, name anyone from the top 10 world or US marathon lists besides Geb, Tergat, Meb, Radcliffe, and Deena. Anyone willing to run a poll of RWOL forum users? I'd be incredibly surprised if more than 10% could and would be not surprised at all if that were under 5%.
Second -As far as putting in the work, I personally know four 5-hour marathon runners, and they get to the line, PREPARED. Each of them has always run at least one 20 miler prior to race day.
From your pedestrian perspective they're "PREPARED", but "at least one 20 miler" is indicative of little at all. I've seen twits who run 20 milers as a part of 20-40 mile max weeks.
Third - Why does anybody care how long someone is out on the course, so long as the race directors have prepared for it. It's not like they are making the winners go back to the 20 mile marker and pass out water for the next two hours. You're probably at home and showered by the time the penguins finish. Why do you care?
Well, let's see, because the ever-rising entry fees are what are used to pay for the course closure. That means permits, EMT pay, cop pay, and so on. Why should someone who doesn't need the course open longer than three hours pay the same amount as all those who need it open for hours and hours longer? It's an unfair burden placed on faster runners to subsidize much slower joggers and walkers. That's why we care.
Oh yeah, and letting all those slow runners, joggers, and walkers into a RACE is like letting rec league softballers man the outfield for the Red Sox. THEY DON'T BELONG, they cheapen the competition.
Interchangeable names? chuck d one minute and Harry Kooter the next? I don't really expect anything pertinent or insightful from an illiterate.
What this thread really brings out is how insecure some competitive runners are. They want to be told how wonderful their not quite good enough efforts are, and resent that less dedicated/talented people get any attention at all; attention they feel they deserve. How weak.
Not that I buy your simplistic and reactionary (and even defensive?) assessment, but I'd rather be a prick than a free-loading outsider who crashes other people's parties.
They belong wrote:
It's pr**k's like you that don't belong. Runner Mom is right on; the only people who even appreciate fast times are the people lining up for the race, and the other "twits" out on the roads. And all you can do is dis them. The rest of the world could give a rats a$$.
first second third wrote:
You like to project, don't ya? I've seen your posts before. Why don't you take issue with the actual content if you feel like I've expressed anything that's unfair, rather than sit back and take petty, ad hominem pot-shots? You aren't lazy, are you?
- no, i don't like to project.
- i'm glad you've read my posts. it's nice to be read.
- i never said or implied that you said anything unfair, simply that you're angry. and, because you're supposedly a rather fast runner, you're little. you used all caps multiple times, indicating that you're "yelling." additionally, your overall tone and word choice - you know, "twit" and "pedestrian" - clearly conveyed your indignation, just as you wanted it to. have i expressed anything unfair?
- no, i'm not lazy. i just have better things to do than go point by point through your post - and you should have better things to do than read it. there is no requirement on this site that i respond fully. i preferred to focus on what i perceive as a wildly over the top attitude towards an issue.
I agree 100%, except for the first half of the first sentence.
gallagher wrote:
I actually like the carnival atmosphere of the all-inclusive marathons that include 7 to 8 hour finishers but I would like the choice of a few events where the vibe was similar to what it was 20 years ago.
Running books from that period provide a good gauge for levels of runners; a healthy person who is not overweight and has 'some' running or athletic experience and trains for the event should not be too much over 4 hours on the first attempt. Older folks would of course be slower.
That breaking 4 hours now beats the majority of the field proves that most of the folks who enter marathons do not run regularly, are overweight or do not actually prepare for the event.
It's great to see those folks out there participating but it would be enjoyable to again, every now and then, experience the energy of those purely RUNNING events.
I have encountered few folks who begrudge the hikers and shufflers their spots at the starting line. It is the disappearance of the more serious events in their wake that rankles.
We've all stepped onto a track for a workout to find runners who are much fitter and faster. It is exhilarating and we run better that day.
There is nothing elitist about declaring one's love for a sport and the desire to see that sport at its best and if there is room for the 7 hour shufflers every week of the year, there must be room for one or two marathons for the true officiandos.
first second third wrote:
Not that I buy your simplistic and reactionary (and even defensive?) assessment, but I'd rather be a prick than a free-loading outsider who crashes other people's parties.
They belong wrote:It's pr**k's like you that don't belong. Runner Mom is right on; the only people who even appreciate fast times are the people lining up for the race, and the other "twits" out on the roads. And all you can do is dis them. The rest of the world could give a rats a$$.
"other people's parties"? "free-loading outsider"? Would you be so kind as to define these things? Thank you.
Runner Mom wrote:
Your right, they don't admire all really good marathoners. They admire all of them BUT you, you cranky old thing.
Shows what you know, silly old pedestrian hen.
As far as if the penguins know who won any of the top marathons, you are speculating, since I doubt you have ever spoken to a penguin.
No, you're the one speculating. I actually have. I have a pretty good idea of how firm of a grasp the average RW reading penguin has on the sport. There is little understanding and even less interest. Most penguins act like outrageous narcissists.
And since you're far better a runner than they are, please don't bother asking any one of them. We wouldn't want to find you slumming around. In any case, that wasn't my point. I said they were interested in the RESULTS, not WINNERS, of the race They are fans of you (well, everyone except YOU, now). They admire good runners. They are fans of the 2:30 guys; the 3:10 women. You act as if you are so desperate for recognition, why don't you take it from where you can get it.
Maybe they should try acting like it then. The evidence so far has shown that they don't. Show me otherwise if you come up with evidence to the contrary.
By the way, I don't have one TWIT in my family. Where are these TWITS that you see running 20 milers as part of a 20 mile week - access to their running logs have you (oh wait, I forgot, the shmucks wouldn't have one of those, probably don't know what they are, right)?
I never stated "20 milers as part of a 20 mile week". Pay attention, would ya?
In any case, you don't have access to the training logs of my family and friends, so don't tell me what they averaged per week during their training (it was more than 40 miles, I guarantee you).
I never claimed what their mileage level was. I've noticed that you still haven't either, which still is no more revealing how how "PREPARED" they were.
As far as them cheapening the competition by their mere presence, the Cubs have been in the Major Leagues for over 100 years, does that tarnish the World Series somehow?
Don't compare 4+ hour marathoners with the Cubs, deary.
I don't see anyone screaming for the Arizona Cardinals to be removed from the NFL so we can all feel better about the Super Bowl winner.
Again, patently false comparison.
Quite frankly, your general attitude is what sours the sport.
What attitude is that, Ms. Perceptive?
I wouldn't give a rat's behind who the winners were of any marathon if I thought they were as arrogant as you.
I suppose you'd call Peyton Manning "arrogant" for not wanting your chunky butt on the Colts' roster.
If you are going to throw everyone out of these marathons except those who can achieve the qualifying times you think we so desperately need, be sure to be public about the reasons.
Classic strawman. I've never insisted on "qualifying times". You're confusing me with someone else, princess.
I guarantee you, after that, no one will care about your time BUT you.
Yeah, I believe the likes of you.
They belong wrote:
"other people's parties"? "free-loading outsider"? Would you be so kind as to define these things? Thank you.
First you need to do your homework on what defines a race. Get back to me with your report and I'll look it over and grade it and correct it, if necessary. That is all.
luv2run wrote:
The other interesting thing is that I have talked to a lot of truly elite runners (Olympic caliber, not letsrun posters)
That's so awesome that you know so many truly elite runners! How did you get to meet them all? You must be really fast yourself! Do you always discuss the slower runners?
A Fan
ha, first second third, you are just rockin' this thread man. Wow.
They belong wrote:
What this thread really brings out is how insecure some competitive runners are. They want to be told how wonderful their not quite good enough efforts are, and resent that less dedicated/talented people get any attention at all; attention they feel they deserve. How weak.
True, but I've yet to meet a true Elite that whines about people behind them. I think the OP has the right idea. Every whiny wanna-be that feels emasculated by having to share the road with an ipod wearing soccer mom SHOULD boycott marathons. Marathon participation nationwide will drop by dozens. That will really make race directors notice how pleasant a marathon can be and help the sport overall.
I like this idea brought up on RunningStats:
"Sliding entry fee scale: Have a sliding entry fee scale, according to previous marathon, half marathon or longer distance entry time requirements. To increase the chances that an entrant can go the marathon distance, require that they have completed at least a half marathon. Then use an average finishing time from three (three instead of one to avoid entry time fudging or course cutting to secure same) preliminary events to determine entry category. Say you have a 2:10-3:00 (or combination 1:00-1:30 half marathon & 42:00-1:10 15K, etc.) preliminary average time from three marathons - the entry fee is $60; 3:00-4:00 - the entry fee increases to $100; 4:00-5:00 an entrant pays $125; over 5:00 or for those with no preliminary qualifying times, the price goes up to $150. Why? Because corresponding costs include providing more water, holding police in place longer, closing roads for a longer period of time, keeping volunteers in place longer, etc.
Slow running and walking—only for marathons or longer, and not for shorter charity runs and walks—should come at a premium. Runners could still enter any shorter distances for a single price without regard to qualifying times or level of fitness. The sliding scale for marathons, however, also would encourage runners to improve over time to lower their marathon entry fees."
I agree with Runner Mom. Slower runners don't know individual elite runners, but they know and do appreciate a faster runner. Every time I mention a pace (eg 7:30/mile) or race time (eg 17:44 5k), they act like I'm superhuman. Is it unrealistic? Of course, but don't act like slower runners don't know that they're slow. Yes, they do care about themselves and they think that they're accomplishing something, but they should.
They belong wrote:
What this thread really brings out is how insecure some competitive runners are. They want to be told how wonderful their not quite good enough efforts are, and resent that less dedicated/talented people get any attention at all; attention they feel they deserve. How weak.
Keith Stone wrote:
True, but I've yet to meet a true Elite that whines about people behind them. I think the OP has the right idea. Every whiny wanna-be that feels emasculated by having to share the road with an ipod wearing soccer mom SHOULD boycott marathons. Marathon participation nationwide will drop by dozens. That will really make race directors notice how pleasant a marathon can be and help the sport overall.
Hmm, so either (a) you have yet to meet a "true Elite" or (b) you believe that an elite would open up to the mighty Keith Stone if he had a beef regarding "people behind them" (sic). Of course, we all know Keith Stone to be an unabashed apologist for penguins, who knows why, so this typical irrational defensiveness is expected if still of mysterious origin.