Time to Boycott Marathons

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.

Not so. At least with me, it's attention that I feel the top men and women (winners and those in the money) deserve. I've never been among the top men or women, not that I needed to tell anyone here that. I don't care if anyone notices how fast and where I finish, you'll notice a lot more marathon "race reports" posted on running forums from penguins than you will from people like me. I'm pretty humble, believe it or not, but I also have a fairly high level of reverence for the sport. I'm pretty sure that people who loaf along for 5 hours really don't.

The Masses wrote:

You have it backwards. Setting aside the argument that marathons should bar participants who choose to walk, the more competitors (walkers, jumpers, skippers, etc.) the more money that gets thrown into the pile FOR the elite athletes. It doesn't take an economist to see that the cost race directors NEED for each participant is far less than what is actually charged. Where does all this money go? It goes to insurance and permits, etc. but it also goes into inviting top athletes to perform and then handing out giant paychecks (bigger than ever paychecks) to athletes who do well. Of course this all occurs even before the race attracts a marquee sponsor like ING or LaSalle to throw even more money onto the pile.

Except that it's the title sponsor (like Hancock or LaSalle Bank or ING) that provides the money for elites, both prize purse and appearance fees. So you'd be the one who has it backwards in this case.[/quote]

No, you get a clue chump. The "big ticket" sponsors like LaSalle and ING are paying a dowry to be married to the event almost entirely so they can plaster every thing from press releases to hand wipes with their logo emblazoned next to the race logo. The sponsors could give two shits if the money they spend to do that is going towards the prize money or the safety pins for numbers. Take Marketing 101 in between bong hits and shaving your "elite" legs.[quote]getta clue, chump. wrote:

It's a cost, even if it isn't a monetary one, believe it or not. It's harder to get volunteers if they know it'll be an 8 hour gig rather than a 5 hour one. There's more than one definition for "cost", you know.

Keith Stone wrote:

[quote]\:

[quote]Chicago has what, 5 different starting areas. Elite, top 100 and corrals A,B,C? Tell me, how do they place people in these corrals, previous time right? That's the majority of people in the race, right?

Estimated time is used for all but the front corrals.

These are all the corrals. The times needed for entry are not estimated.

Start Corral A

Located directly behind the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for Start Corral A for 2007 are as follows:

Half Marathon time: < 1:25:59

Full Marathon time: < 3:10:59

Expected capacity: 1,500

Start Corral B

Located close to the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for Start Corral B for 2007 are as follows.

Half Marathon time: < 1:35:59

Full Marathon time: < 3:35:59

Expected capacity: 3,000

Start Corral C

Located near the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for the Start Corral C for 2007 are as follows:

Half Marathon time: < 1:45:59

Full Marathon time: < 3:55:59

Expected capacity: 4,000

Start Corral D

Located near the start line for all qualifying participants. Qualifications for the Start Corral D for 2007 are as follows:

Full Marathon time: < 4:00:59

Expected capacity: 4,000

All goals times would attainable through normal training. The marathon office makes every effort to move you up in a corral if you post a better time before the race, quite a few I know have registered in January, posted a good time in the spring and the marathon office moved them up whenever possible.

All I did was suggest a format for discussion,and ever since you've been on here ranting like a lunatic with comments like "THERE'S NOT ENOUGH VIAGRA IN THE WORLD TO MAKE MY DICK HARD". Maybe if you looked outside the box of your experience once and a while, you could add something constructive to the discussion instead of coming off as a jilted school girl. Have a nice evening and I hope the next 3k walk you organize doesn't add anymore stress or bitterness to your life, you have seem to have enough.

The Masses wrote:

No, you get a clue chump. The "big ticket" sponsors like LaSalle and ING are paying a dowry to be married to the event almost entirely so they can plaster every thing from press releases to hand wipes with their logo emblazoned next to the race logo. The sponsors could give two shits if the money they spend to do that is going towards the prize money or the safety pins for numbers. Take Marketing 101 in between bong hits and shaving your "elite" legs.

That's where the money comes from, though, like it or not. Get some real-world info before you go spouting off all half-cocked. Those sponsors put up the dough (dowry, as you term it) so that their name will be attached to press releases that go out regarding the elites to audiences numbering in the millions. That several thousand penguins might notice their logo is just a bonus.

I see, when your argument fails you resort to some extraneous piece of it. You go from sponsor's money paying directly for prize money to a parallel thought that really isn't the same thing. I'm enjoying my half-cock while you squirm.

Since the overwhelming majority of these posts are in support of slow people, I must make the assumption that most of you are slow. There are forums on RunnersWorld for you to post on.

no, i'm a sub-elite. get comped entries, place well, run fairly fast, etc... but i still understand that nobody would give a flying f*** about marathons or any other road races if the slow people couldn't enter.

you people are absolutely retarded. get a life

For all of you that are in need of an elite marathon there's one in NYC on Nov 3 (they're so stuck up they won't even let you start unless you've run <2:22?!?). Have you ever heard of this crazy thing?!?

Based on how exceptionally fast you are, I'm sure you're welcome to enter and don't have to worry about us slugs going 2:40+.

Good luck!

And I want a pony. And world peace.

Once a race like the Columbus Marathon, held yesterday, doesn't have any fast runners the results will no longer get in the sports page and the sports department will no cover the jog. It will become article for the Life section of the paper. That is where the Race for Cure gets its’ coverage in the Columbus Dispatch as the paper doesn't see it as a sporting event. I didn’t say it wasn’t for a good cause or had a lot of participants…But it isn’t covered as an athletic “sport” event.

That is a downside of an event no longer considered good enough to be covered by the “sports department”

I hate to break it to you but the sports department could probably give 2 sh#ts whether the winner ran 2:31 or 2:21.

You do make a valid point though, that if these 'fast' runners don't show up it won't be covered in the sports section - you're kidding me right?!? Do you care whether or not an event w/ guys going 2:2x shows up in the sports section? Sure I'm po'd that Geb goes 2:04 and doesn't get covered, but whether or not Columbus receives press has nothing to do w/ the OP to suggest these events should have some sort of time 'cut-off'.

The Columbus Dispatch isn't what I'd use as a measuring stick for anything. They barely produce coverage of things that really matter, like world events

Another idiot proves he's the one that should lookout the box and take some math classes.

Last time I checked 12,500 (or 12,600 if you count the top 100) isn't the majority of 45,000 people. I assume by your estimation it's no more work to manage those extra 30,000+ people?

and you can have a coach or other reputable source talk to the marathon office and get a seed without a recent race result such as a half, a good 10K will do (like it does for the trials). The purpose of this is to SEED, not to prove fitness. It's overhead that brings value to the race participants, not some silly gauntlet to weed out the perceived undeserving.

Well apparently organizing a 3K walk is more experience than you've ever had. Maybe you should get some real world organizing experience before you spout off like a cream filled dildo that got stepped on.

What a race director with any experience whatsoever knows is the job #1 is make the experience as hassle free and pleasurable for as many of the participants as possible. If your proposal had any merit it'd be done already. Race directors already request that people obtain a minimum fitness level and require them to sign a waiver (that for most people don't read) acknowledging that. Your proposal says race directors are to assume runners are liars and check up on them to be sure. The RD has already taken on and solved the logistical hassles of the number of people and set a cap at a assumed manageable number, now you're saying there's no possible harm in introducing another "check" to verify something that they'd already asked. Let's inconvenience everyone so we can get what?

In any case the OP had the right point. If it's so troublesome to share the course with slow people, don't run. Don't skulk around and complain, or postulate ways races could be made to your tastes, keep your money and stay home. While you're there you can read up on some history, starting with Boston. You'll find out they didn't even have qualifying standards until 1970, and when they enacted them it wasn't to force people to prove they'd trained, it was to manage the size of the field.

Trials? wrote:

For all of you that are in need of an elite marathon there's one in NYC on Nov 3 (they're so stuck up they won't even let you start unless you've run <2:22?!?). Have you ever heard of this crazy thing?!?

Based on how exceptionally fast you are, I'm sure you're welcome to enter and don't have to worry about us slugs going 2:40+.

Haha, priceless.

I admit it's annoying when I tell someone that I'm a runner and they say "Cool! I'm a runner too! 5:12 at Chicago!" but barring that person from registering for a marathon isn't going to make her respect the sport more, or disrespect it less. Big city marathons give our sport bigger exposure than anyone could have dreamed of thirty or forty years ago, and they've been a miracle for the way they've pumped money and world prestige into the sport.

So what if most of the walkers and penguins and people watching it on tv don't get it? They didn't get it in the first place.

How do you explain the Columbus marathon then? They have grown so big, they just said "Screw any of the good runners. We won't give them ANY money and don't care if any of them come at all" (which they didn't)

It is incomprehensible that a marathon/half marathon with 10,000 hobbyjoggers was won in 2:30+

The marathon has just turned into the hot vehicle for a corporate/charity money grab. It has ceased to be about competition!!

Columbus has grown for a couple reasons. Walk now has 1500 compared to 86 three years ago. Walkers in both marathon and half… Half marathon started last year had nearly 5,000 this year. Marathon is still about the same size. So is it a marathon with 4500 runners/walkers the main event or is it the half marathon.

Yes, the sports department knows the difference between a 2:31 and a sub 2:20 time…one is in the top 100 or so in the Nation and an Olympic Marathon Trials qualifying time. A 2:31 wouldn’t have been in the top 50 a few years ago. Their press release says a local runner wins the marathon for the first time.. That is great but how many local runners have run under 2:30 back when it was a “ race” (Course record is 2:11)

For that many runners this year it is no longer a race if you can't have a faster winning time. The top woman was 10th overall….she ran 2:43 (women’s record is 2:28)

Well, the same thing happened in Houston. They saw numbers drop (and winning times rise) dramatically in the span of years that they turned their backs on the pros and, not surprisingly, saw those numbers grow again when they once again put the focus back on making it a worthwhile competition. They also saw their title sponsorships solidify, but that may have come first before the revival of the proper treatment of elites at a major city marathon. And then there's what happened to the Gasparilla Classic.

dumbasses wrote:

no, i'm a sub-elite. get comped entries, place well, run fairly fast, etc... but i still understand that nobody would give a flying f*** about marathons or any other road races if the slow people couldn't enter.

you people are absolutely retarded. get a life

Explain it for us then, Hawking.