Dumbing Down of The Marathon In US

So why does this guy choose a marathon? If he has been sedentary for that long, shouldn't he be easing into a fitness regime? Shouldn't he be running shorter distances instead of going for a marathon right away?

The person you described is likely to use the marathon as a one time attention grab, then go right back to the couch.

You are a complete f%%%ing fool if you think anyone in Africa, or even a large percentage, can run under 3 hours for a marathon.

Are the elites there faster than ours? yes

Is there more depth under 2:20 or so? yes

do they have lazy, out of shape people just like americans?yes

Are some people in Africa just like Americans, just not that fast at running long distance? yes

Now get off the message boards you racist piece of #$$t

Join the peace corps and go over there, and see if your opinions change. Go to the better parts of Nairobi, Legos, etc. and see if you think most of the middle class people there could do it. They cant.

I dont consider myself elite but I am seriously training for a marathon and I would like to break 2:30 but I agree with zippy, we should be happy any person enjoys our sport enough to challenge themselves to its most grueling race, and we dont have the right to tell anyone else what races they can or cant run b/c they might finish behind us.

I ran my last marathon back in 1983, shortly before giving up competitive running for 19 years. I was 25, running about 55-65 mpw, and ran a 2:53. I was hoping to break 2:50, because--as most of us know--that was the BQ time, and qualifying for Boston really meant something. I wasn't too disappointed by my time--I'd broken 3:00 for the first time, set a PR of almost eight minutes--but I was mildly disappointed, and wasn't sure I'd ever make the cut. Still, I was happy to KNOW that there was a cut, and that you had to be a pretty good runner to make it. Breaking three hours wasn't a huge deal among "average" runners in those days, simply a pretty solid accomplishment. Breaking 2:50, though, really meant something.

Imagine how I feel, waking after twenty years like Rip Van Winkle into the current "participatory" running scene. As far as I'm concerned, from the perspective I've outlined above, even Boston has been thoroughly dumbed down. My own BQ time would be 3:30 or below (45-49 AG). I think it should be sub 3:15. That would make it roughly the challenge that 2:50 was for me years ago.

As for other, more "participatory" marathons: well, I'm all in favor of more people getting off couches, putting in the miles, and running marathons. I'm not an elitist. But I do think that the focus--for EVERYBODY'S benefit--should still be on the elite runners: as heroes, as models of smart training & spiritual committment to the task at hand. My biggest gripe in shorter local races is the length of time it takes to actually award the top male and female finishers their trophies; they're serviced only after all the sponsors' goodies have been given away, and only after all the other slower AG runners have received their medals. That is stupid, wrong, outrageous, and f***ed up, if you'll pardon my Anglo Saxon. Races are RACES. Some real marginal benefit should accrue to the guy and gal who manage to win the thing.

I'm no elitist; I think any runner who plunks down the entry fee and plays by the rules should be able to run in the same road race that the elites run in. I don't even demand adequate training on the part of first-time marathoners. Let them undertrain and suffer! But don't make the plebes the POINT of the whole race, and forget that it's actually a race: a timed event on a measured course, designed to provide all of us with living examples of excellence in action. Race coverage on TV, for example--the NY marathon live feed--used to consist primarily of coverage of the front runners alternating with capsule bios of the potential frontrunners. Over the past twenty years it's devolved into PEOPLE magazine: capsule bios of cancer survivors, amputees, Weight Watchers success stories, and convicts on work release.

By all means, encourage ALL those people to run! But also give those of us who love the sport as a sport--and all the plebes who deserve to know who the best are and just how good they are--a renewed focus on what's happening up front.

Nobody owes you any reasons for what they do.

maynard wrote:

For the most part, I agree with you. However, there's no question that marathon organizers have changed their tunes and are now blatantly marketing themselves to the gallowalkers (oftentimes at the expense of competitors).

I also give kudos to the Chicago rep for having the courage to stand up to the sell outs.

How are the competitors (all 2 dozen of them) harmed?

Boing wrote:

I don't see why there is anomysity towards a 5 hour marathoner.

Disrespect for the sport. The five hour marathoner could be a four hour marathoner (or faster) if he/she focused on shorter distances for several years instead of hopping right off the couch into the once in a lifetime 18 week marathon training program. A lot of sub-3 people would have been five hour runners too if they went from zero activity to training for a marathon three months away (I know I would have if I tried such a stunt). The difference is in working through the right progression over a period of several years. The TNT-type people are skipping the basic fundamentals of running because of the "I want it now" syndrome and it is disrespectful to the sport. Although there is a lot of trash talk around here about how anyone over 2:10 sucks, in the non-cyber world any runner who puts in the work and has proper respect for running will not invoke animosity, even if their times are relatively pedestrian.

I think the real tragity of the whole shift toward the "paticipatory" model of road racing has been the pitting of the charity runner et al against the racers. There is really no reason the two shouldn't be able to co-exist. The real reason the rift exists in the first place is not the "elitism" of racers, or the "lazyness", or goofy behaviour of participaroty runners, it simply the result of the running industries marketing plan. Its very similar to all womens gyms - in order to attract women to the gym the gym owner eliminates the men and hence the intimidation factor - racers, except for a few token elite athletes to keep up appearences, are being squeezed out of the picture to eliminate the intimidation factor by the money makers driving the industry. To make things worse, our reaction as serious runners - lashing out at the participatory runners - has only made things worse by reinforcing the intimidation image and further necessitating our elimination from the sport.

What we really need to set up is a system similar to what they have in cycling - there are participatory rides, centuries, etc... , and then there are races. On group of events appeals to the get off your @ss crowd, and one to the competative crowd - the sport continues to grow in numbers, and aspiring racers get good competition, the chance for recognition, and an opportunity to win some money (almost all cycling races offer prize money to the winners, sometimes even down to the CAT 5 level). In the Bay Area we have a similar setup for running with most of the real racing taking place in the PAUSATF series, and plenty of big costumed running parades for everyone else (Bay to Breakers, Run to the Far Side, etc...). We may have to give up on mainstream road racing and close ranks to form our own competative series for the sport to continue to exist.

Your first sentence says that 5-hour marathoners disrespect the sport. Your last sentence states that "... any runner who puts in the work and has proper respect for running, will not invoke [sic] animosity, even if their times are relatively pedestrian." But you've already stated that a 5-hour marathoner disrespects the sport just by virtue of being a 5-hour marathoner. So it seems impossible for us 5-hour marathoners to not "invoke" [sic]your animosity. Well you can stick your animosity up your shorts.

easy on the espresso, buddy...

nizzasstyy wrote:

easy on the espresso, buddy...

Really, why don't you go for a walk with some fatties and blow off some steam. Makes sure to wear your fanny pack.

There was a time some marathons stopped keeping track of times shortly after the 4 hour mark. Now there are "Walker Friendly" marathons that are open to 7 1/2 hours.

I started running 2 years ago and have run 3:09 - 3:03 - 2:56 - 2:56 and 2:49. I think it is great that the marathon has become a participation sport. There is room for elite / competative / recreational and penguins.

What I like is that all the participants have helped keeps costs in check and have allowed me to have a choice of so many marathons to choose from. Wisconsin is not the marathon Meca (Although a darn good XC team) and we have 10 marathons:

Trail Breaker (Usually March)

Pine Line (April)

Lake Geneva (May 1st weekend)

Journeys (May 2nd weekend)

Green Bay (May 3rd weekend)

Mad City (May 4th weekend)

Paavo Nurmi (August)

Fox Cities (Septmeber)

Milwaukee (October)

Whistle Stop (October)

How many US marathons would there be is just the sub 3 hour males and sub 3:30 females ran? I am not sure, but there would only be @ 6,000 - 10,000 total in the pool to draw participants from in the 2004 results.

Jogster - read Water Rat's post again. That is the primary issue many of us have with the slow marathoners and charity groups. The non-elite age group runner gets denied entry at a fast race like Chicago because he or she cannot commit six months out only to have 6,000 drop outs on race morning.

I think what makes races like chicago and new york so much fun is the large number of racers. So in that sense, I welcome runners of all fitness levels. It's not like those races are regulated so poorly that the 5+ hour marathoners ever really get in the way of the sub 3 hour guys (except maybe in the port o john lines). I just think it's a shame how many no-shows there are to these big races. I know a number of people get sick or injured... But 6,000 people in chicago this year!? That just leads me to believe several thousand people signed up and never even bothered to train. People need to serious about doing the marathon when they sign up. There's certainly a lot of people that would like that wasted entry space...

Which is why we need the ability to transfer bib numbers...but we won't get started on that.

Jogster - read Water Rat's post again. That is the primary issue many of us have with the slow marathoners and charity groups. The non-elite age group runner gets denied entry at a fast race like Chicago because he or she cannot commit six months out only to have 6,000 drop outs on race morning.[/quote]

You misread. My reply was not to Water Rat's post. But since you brought it up I will address your concerns. Everyone has the same chance to commit six months, or any other time frame, in advance. And everyone has the same option of dropping out. And any notion that the slow runners are necessarily not as serious and don't train as hard as the faster runners is false. Some do and some don't; but that is irrelevant to this particular issue, which is one of some "faster" runners thinking that they are special and should have more rights than others. To them I say put on a race and run it any way you want.

"You can never understand the depth of me..."

nyc in 2 days wrote:

I think what makes races like chicago and new york so much fun is the large number of racers. So in that sense, I welcome runners of all fitness levels. It's not like those races are regulated so poorly that the 5+ hour marathoners ever really get in the way of the sub 3 hour guys (except maybe in the port o john lines).

Last Year I was seeded roughly 300th at the start of NYC. After they dumped the corrals together, I had roughly 1-2 thousand people ahead of me at the start. I spent the first mile diving around people up the verrazano narrows bridge. Large quantities of people in a race are alright, as long as there is adeqate distribution to the start line based upon previous performance.

On this issue of the slower crowd: I think as long as people actually take the race seriously and train it's alright. When an individual starts goofing off and does it without training, they don't hurt anyone else, but they do screw themselves over royally.

In my opinion the reason marathon depth isn't what it was in the 70's/80's is because no one is willing to put in the work these days. Only the guys up front seem to be willing to put in the 150+ mile weeks (and since they get paid to do this they actually have the time to do so).

Isn't the point of a race to determine who is faster and reward them? And in that context shouldn't the faster runners be considered more special because they have suceeded where others have failed? Many serious runners are drawn to the sport of running because it offers at least the potential of being a true meritocracy (the participants reap the rewards in direct proportion to there level of achievement).