Dumbing Down of The Marathon In US

[quote]blank_ wrote:

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.

I didn't realize how poorly they regulate the start in new york (this will be my first ny marathon). I was refering mainly to my experiences with chicago. You can jump into the competive corral up to about 10 minutes before race time (provided you have the right color bib number) and not have to worry about a bunch of slower runners jumping in front of you...

blank_ wrote:

[quote]nyc in 2 days wrote:

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).

There are a lot more guys running 100-140 than there are guys getting paid to run. You're either overestimating the amount of people getting paid to run or underestimating the amount of people putting in that kind of work. It's a minor point, but of the few runners that are doing that kind of volume - most of that small group are not getting paid for it.

i also do not understand the strong dislike many seem to have for the penguins.

a few thoughts:

1)the gallow-walker/TnT types and MORE marathons.

without them there would be fewer marathons and fewer choices for "real" runners, whatever they are, to choose from. the increase in runners is what has created the increase in marathons.

from this perspective, they are a very very good thing.

2) gallow-walker/TnT close only a few races.

most marathons do not have caps. with the exception of a few big marathons like chicago and ny you can get into any marathon you want with little trouble. they are attracted to the big name marathons like chicago and as such take space from others.

that being said, i am not sure why a 3 hour marathoner has some sort of moral entitlement over a 5 hour marathoner to a place in the race. each has an equal chance to get in.

from this perspective they are not a big problem.

3) etiquette issues.

i do think some of the gallow-walker types probably do not know the basic courtesy issues of races - most notably lining up too close to the front. many of them seem oblivious to the idea that there is a RACE going on.

interestingly, just as many of you do not understand what motivates the 6 hour runner, some of them seem not to understand what motivates you.

on this, many are a problem.

my 2 cents.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one side, it's nice to see more people exercising, and the fact that we have more trails and better facilities for running is in due partly to the masses discovering running, however slow they may go.

But we have definitely lost some respect that the marathon once had, and that aura inspired me to become more than I otherwise would have as a runner. I didn't run much in HS (my sport of choice was swimming), but when I got into running regularly in the late 70s, I ran a marathon in the mid 3:30s, and dreamed of qualifying for Boston even though you had to run a 2:50 at that time. I busted my ass for 2 years to run 2:47, and in the process someone who never broke 11 min for 2 miles in HS ended up running sub-16 for 5K. Those are some of the best years of my life and I sincerely wish my schedule and my body could handle that much running again, and without that 2:50 goal it never would've happened.

I also remember watching a TV documentary about the marathon as a part of ABC's buildup for the 1972 Olympics. It was a history of the marathon race, and included several of the well-known meltdowns in history such as Pietri in 1908 and Jim Peters at the 1954 Commonwealth games. But the one that stuck in my memory was the 1948 Olympics, where Etienne Gailly came into the stadium in first place and was passed by two runners before the finish line as he plodded around the track with legs that were totally shot. What was it about such a race that could reduce someone to the point where their will couldn't make the body respond to competition in the arena where it mattered the most?

That was probably the moment that I became inspired to eventually run a marathon. And I didn't just want to finish; I wanted to test my limits. Sadly, had I grown up today, I don't think I would've found inspiration in the modern-day "marathoning for the masses", and I would've missed out on a one of the primary defining experiences of my life.

So do you all think it would be a reasonable solution to open entries 2 months in advance only for people who've run faster than a certain time in the last 2 years? Say, 3 hours for men, 3:30 for women, or a comparable time in the HM. Then after those 2 months, anyone could get an entry to fill up the rest of the field.

Usher,

i tend to agree with all you wrote. i too have mixed feelings on this subject. on the one hand the masses create more options for running marathons and it is good to see a fat guy out running/jogging/walking as opposed to sitting. i hope the marathon can be "the gateway drug" into running for some of these people. it is a heck of a place to start, but if they continue on to a better life style then great.

on the other hand, i am bothered a bit by the fact that the marathon is losing some of its luster. afterall, how hard can it be when a 400lb grandma can do it in 6:29?

Getting off the couch is a big feat in today's world. Go work at a gym and you'll see why. In today's world of 60 hour work weeks and fast food people don't allow themselves the time to workout and by eating more food and unhealthier food they give themselves a huge disadvantage in the calorie in vs calorie out equation. The 30,000 or so charity runners and "gallowalkers" are indirectly paying for the prize money and "perks" that better runners enjoy. Gone are the days of 100 person races with popsicle stick finishes and t-shirts as your only "prize". Now you have 1000 person races with 900 of them just there for the experience and not "racing". Of course with more people brings more sponsors which brings more money which brings more prizes & perks which brings more people, etc.

Alan

If all the people that are having problems with the state of marathoning in this country are that good, then why aren't they in the elite field? Get real, we're all trying to do the best we can and for the most part it works. But I'm not naive, marathoning these days, as someone said, is definitely "big business".

this article was written a year ago. give us something fresh.

If you are good enough to be elite - they will make room for you. Most marathons will let you in after the official close date if you are a sub 2:25. Even New York lets you by-pass the lottery if you are a sub 2:50.

If you happen to get caught behind to many slow people at the start then it is your fault for not starting where you should. If your expected finish time should place you in the top 100, then start there. If your expected finish time would put you at 1,000 then start there and expect some traffic issues.

At what point do you consider someone to slow? Is it anyone slower than you? If you want to run an elitest race - run a sub 2:22 and you will be invited to a little race in spring 2008.

Having lots of races with lots of people allow business to justify spending sponsorship money to pay the elite racers. Why do you think prize money has went up as the interest in marathons have went up. You spend money where you think you will hit your target audience.

I am actually more disturbed when a marathon allows walkers to start early or has a half marathon that joins back up with the marathon in the closing miles. I mentally to not have the patience to bob and weave around people 3-5 across at mile 25.

I believe lifestyles have changed and yes probably b/c of the economy and inflation. I know you can make a lot of money if you just work overtime, but getting of the couch is not and I would argue never will be an "accomplishment" of any kind for a healthy human being! Come on! I worked at least 55 hours a week last year and still had time to put in over 80 mpw for at least 2 months. I dont think my weeks were very hard and there are definately people who work harder now than I probably ever will but I bet you those people have time for a beer a few times a week, or to catch the game, or watch CSI, and yes their free time should be spent doing whatever they enjoy but they choose to do what they do therefore they choose to sit; and choosing to get up is not an accomplishment it is positive for their health and they should choose this over other things if thats all the time they have free.

nyc in 2 days wrote:

[quote]blank_ wrote:

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.

I didn't realize how poorly they regulate the start in new york (this will be my first ny marathon). I was refering mainly to my experiences with chicago. You can jump into the competive corral up to about 10 minutes before race time (provided you have the right color bib number) and not have to worry about a bunch of slower runners jumping in front of you...

Uh, I started near the front at Chicago this year and I had a 200lb guy and 2 women with headphones to push through at the start (they were in the SECOND ROW).

man I guess I have learned somethin, I started on the line last year and there were all these black dudes talkin all funny, hu it was a riot. I couldnt believe how many people caming running by me, i mean did they know how long it was? Anyway I finished in 6:58 and that night I was the special on my local nbc affiliate it was awesome.

In a weird sort of way, I feel uneasy when a non runner hears I've done marathons because I'm afraid they might lump me in with "those other people." I'm not fast but it took quite a bit of effort for this 40 year old bag of bones to run 2:55ish. But when they find out I ran Chicago, they all know someone (niece, pastor, something-in-law) that "ran" it in 5 hours. I know this sounds elitist and I don't deserve to be so, but it really pisses me off!

I don't bring it up and if it comes up I change the subject and get the hell out. How messed up is that? But after 25 years in the sport, I just want to be part of that other crowd.

It's not about speed but it IS about dedication, commitment and sacrifice. Respect the sport.

correction "But after 25 years in the sport, I just want to be part of that other crowd."

Meant to say...

But after 25 years in the sport, I just DON'T want to be part of that other crowd.

weird stuff wrote:

In a weird sort of way, I feel uneasy when a non runner hears I've done marathons because I'm afraid they might lump me in with "those other people." I'm not fast but it took quite a bit of effort for this 40 year old bag of bones to run 2:55ish. But when they find out I ran Chicago, they all know someone (niece, pastor, something-in-law) that "ran" it in 5 hours. I know this sounds elitist and I don't deserve to be so, but it really pisses me off!

I don't bring it up and if it comes up I change the subject and get the hell out. How messed up is that? But after 25 years in the sport, I just want to be part of that other crowd.

It's not about speed but it IS about dedication, commitment and sacrifice. Respect the sport.

I feel exactly the same way. One of those "oh I run a marathon too" when I've run under 3 hours and they've gallowalked a marathon in 5-plus. True, I look like a gallowalker compared to the elites, and like you, I hate to sound elitist, but we're definitely talking two different sports here.

Actually, it was the HP Houston rep who said that. The Chicago rep (Pinkowski) was the one making the pandering comments.

maynard wrote:

Go Figure wrote:

I think that is more of symptom then the root problem. The increase in marathon starts and decrease in speed is not due to race directors asking folks to come run 5-hour races. It's because people now think finishing a marathon at any speed is an accomplishment, and they think that an 11 mpm pace is pretty fast.

Kudos to the Chicago rep questioning whether that is really running at all.

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.