Time to Boycott Marathons

Dumbererer & Dumbererest wrote:

Explain it for us then, Hawking.

explain what? there really is nothing to figure out unless (like i pointed out) you are absolutely retarded.

nobody give a shit about elite runners. the only reason marathons get ANY attention is because everyone can participate. It's the only reason there are so many big name, big money sponsors, and the only reason marathons are more than just 50 guys/gals running fast loops in some empty park or county roads.

really, get a life please. people like all you whiners really are an embarrassment to runners.

Figures that you couldn't and that you only posted to be insulting. Typical letsrun. You deserve exactly this, then: GO BACK TO DYESTAT.

Big city marathons thrive on the mix of lots of slow runners and a few very fast runners. The slow ones draw in big money sponsors and bring lots of dollars to the host city. The very fast ones give the event sporting crediblility. It would seem the least important group is the 2:30 type guys.

Boycott if you wish, but will anyone notice?

Historian wrote:

Big city marathons thrive on the mix of lots of slow runners and a few very fast runners. The slow ones draw in big money sponsors and bring lots of dollars to the host city. The very fast ones give the event sporting crediblility. It would seem the least important group is the 2:30 type guys.

Boycott if you wish, but will anyone notice?

Great post

LetsRunOurMouths wrote:

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.

What's to get? Fastest guy wins right?

And just so I know, because I've been taking a ton of notes on this thread, what is the exact finishing time at which one "respects" the sport?

Why do you newbies stampede straight for the marathon? What's wrong with a good old fashioned 10K...oh wait, they don't exist anymore.

desert rodent wrote:

Why do you newbies stampede straight for the marathon? What's wrong with a good old fashioned 10K...oh wait, they don't exist anymore.

Be careful when you suggest such outlandish things.

It is a persons god given right to run a marathon, ask Keith Stone.

Actually, the very fast ones are what draw in big money sponsors. Big money sponsors get hardly anything from the "slow ones".

The "LASALLE BANK chicago marathon" was on live TV on the CBS affiliate for over three hours. There was a live radio broadcast on WSCR, the major sports/talk station. If the race was just about a few fast people from other countries, it would have been lucky to get a few lines in the back of the sports page the next day.

The sponsors would not be interested without the large numbers involved. The elites and the masses are synergenic for marketing purposes. Together, they make it an *event*. They need both.

Actually it is a combination effect. It is called Star System Marketing.

Fact Check wrote:

Actually, the very fast ones are what draw in big money sponsors. Big money sponsors get hardly anything from the "slow ones".

desert rodent wrote:Why do you newbies stampede straight for the marathon? What's wrong with a good old fashioned 10K...oh wait, they don't exist anymore.

I don't think they all are stampeding right to the marathon. Nowadays the half is seeing the most growth. The first timers I know who aren't what I'd consider "competitive" runners are heading to the marathon because it's a challenge that forces a certain amount of commitment that's really not required for a 5K/10K.

I do agree that a good old 10K is hard to find, it seems to be all 5K or half/full marathon. That's a shame really because I really enjoy a good 10K.

I do vehemently disagree with the common thought amongst the various blowhards around here that > 4 hours means you didn't train at all. Could someone have trained more? Maybe, but the fact is a 30 year old guy that plays softball a couple days a week could run 35-40 miles a week tops and pop off a marathon most would feel "acceptable". A 45 year old woman can't. A 45 year old woman who drug her ass out the door after ferrying her kids around all day shows a higher level of commitment than any of the narcissistic dickweeds whining about her running a marathon ever have. You don't see them whining about the 20 year old soccer players that run a marathon for kicks after the season is over. They have no commitment to the sport and didn't train either, it's just youth and health are on their side.

And that's what it really comes down to. It really doesn't matter if you trained, if you follow the sport, or do anything else. What matters is are you fast enough, and do you "look" like a runner. Some 25 year old that runs a marathon on a dare is home free, some 50 year old that trains for 9 months isn't. According to the mental midgets you see deriding the "penguins" on this thread, they and they alone are the arbitors of who belongs. Everyone behind them just doesn't pass muster and everyone in front must be on drugs.

Regarding the running a half before a full marathon:

1) Then one should run a 15K before a half

2) Then run a 10K before the 15K

3) Then an 8K before the 10K

4) Then a 5K before the 8K

5) A mile fun run before the 5K

fact checking fact check wrote:

Actually it is a combination effect. It is called Star System Marketing.

Fact Check wrote:

Actually, the very fast ones are what draw in big money sponsors. Big money sponsors get hardly anything from the "slow ones".

I don't think I'd agree that it's "Star System Marketing". The elite marathoners are not stars per se in this county. Even most runners are not all that up on who is who in the racing world. What is important is that "world class" type people who are capable of setting records are in the race. It gives the race an importance that sheer numbers could never achieve.

PR machine wrote:

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?

3:43? You are not fast enough to be posting on this site. I think to post here, you need run 2:30 or better.

Keith, I somewhat agree, altho many use the 1/2 as a stepping stone to the full marathon. Once they have run the full marathon - mission accomplished, let's quit running and move on to some other activity that is "in fashion"..."in vogue".

Keith, do you really think Culpepper enjoys the marathon distance, or training for it. NO, it is a necessary evil for him. How many times does he say under his breath - "Why couldn't Phidippides have run 10 miles".

Keith, you will have to admit that 26 miles is an "unnatural" distance for a human being to run.

luv2run wrote:

Regarding the running a half before a full marathon:

1) Then one should run a 15K before a half

2) Then run a 10K before the 15K

3) Then an 8K before the 10K

4) Then a 5K before the 8K

5) A mile fun run before the 5K

That is absolutely correct - any decent HS coach would advocate the same. It is called building up to the distance. Heaven forbid we advocate the theory of instilling speed - seeing how FAST we can go, before we tackle how FAR.

True, I think that's my main beef with charity "training". I periodically analyst the results of regional races and compare who participates from the area. It's bizarre to see the number of people that will travel 300 miles to a marathon and never run a race in the county they live in. I don't necessarily like it, but I think it's kinda silly to try and stop it.

No doubt. Of course I haven't seen any interviews where Culpepper says "if I see anther soccer mom with an iPod I'm quitting the sport" either. One of the years I ran TCM one of the Kenyans that placed was at the table next to our group. We invited him to join us and it was incredibly interesting. He had absolutely no comprehension of running as anything other than a job. He was amazed that we would train for months with no hope of winning or even placing in the money. He made no sense to him we'd consider it "fun". He didn't think we shouldn't be out there, just couldn't understand why we'd want to be. Two really different goal sets.

Once you're past the first 100 or so people in nearly all of these races you're down to what's basically a recreational runner. You have your better recreational runners and your duffers, but they're all doing it for personal gratification at some level and that's it. Once you're at that level you have to face a some facts, does it make a hill of beans difference if we have 1000 50 year old women under 4:30 instead of 100? Say we take 10,000 middle aged people and whip them into shape to run a sub 4, did that improve our international standing? Nope. We did make the age group awards a little more challenging but in terms of the real competition it really didn't mean doodly squat.

Those folks are getting out of it what they want, and they may or may not stick around, but I'd rather have 10,000 people that had been a runner once that none at all. Our local mayor's wife started running and has even stuck with it. She's a penguin, but it makes a difference when we want the mayor's ear for a greenway or park trail. Ritz got started running because his dad got off the couch and ran. Participation counts, just not in the ways some people think it should. To paraphrase the Stones they don't bring what you want, but can bring what you need.

Who gives a crap about "level of commitment"? That isn't what they base the results on. If she isn't a part of the actual race then she doesn't belong, maybe she should commit herself to something that she might be better at or that doesn't involve crashing a race to run what amounts to a time trial.

Keep Stoned wrote:

Who gives a crap about "level of commitment"? That isn't what they base the results on. If she isn't a part of the actual race then she doesn't belong, maybe she should commit herself to something that she might be better at or that doesn't involve crashing a race to run what amounts to a time trial.

My guess is you're not top 100 either, so by your logic you don't belong.