A tangential comment in praise of the Boston Marathon.
I am old enough to remember when RW was a good magazine. In fact, I think I can pinpoint when it slipped over the edge. It was the late 70's issue that first put Susan Anton (star of the moving hard-core track movie "Goldengirl") on the cover, yet at the same time actually contained a good article about Steve Ovett. Since then, lots more Goldengirls, lots fewer Steve Ovetts.
Much of this thread has been a lament about RW as a reflection of the diminished value placed on excellence in this sport. To this end, I think the Boston Marathon deserves some praise; and in some ways the philosophy it inhabits is getting lonely. Clearly, for most of us sloggers (okay, you guys are fast, I'm a slogger) there is no hope of the Olympic trials or a sub-30 10k. I'm happy with a sub-40 10k. But by limiting entrants to those who pass a reasonably tough qualifying cut-off, the Boston Marathon manages to enforce at least SOME standard of excellence for the common hoofer. Something RW really can't lay claim to. The BM remains attainable, but only if we (well, the untalented we) put the screws down a bit and actually train. It's qualifying cut-offs are just tough enough; I really doubt a Gallowalker will break 3:10 (or 3:20 at my age) and get into the BM. Imagine the sense of loss and diminishment if the BM just allowed anyone to enter based solely on a lottery -- no need for tempo runs, just luck. How many common sloggers still grab a Lydiard book and get serious for 18 months to sneak into Boston (well, that's how I did it anyway)? Good for them. Yrs, EricG (see ya in Hopkinton 4-19-04)