In today's NYT: Modern Marathoners Have Fewer Miles on Them

There are so many money quotes in there, from completing, not competing, to Gallowalking, to not running two days in a row. I think that article pretty much sums up the reasoning behind the ill will that a lot of people here have toward all the penguins out there.

My thought: if you are just going into something to complete it, there are harder things to complete than a marathon, and way too many people give it more credit that it is worth.

Some of these programs only last 12 weeks. Anything that only lasts 3 months and includes walking can't be that hard. If you really want to walk, do the 3-day, at least those women I have a little respect for.

On the other hand, at least all these overweight middle-aged people are getting up off their asses and doing something. But don't get so excited for walking a marathon.

migo wrote:

My thought: if you are just going into something to complete it, there are harder things to complete than a marathon, and way too many people give it more credit that it is worth.

THIS is exactly why the marathon is such a popular goal- not because it is some pie-in-the-sky challenge, but because it IS attainable for most average people who are willing to put in the work (I'm not comparing the "work" it takes to complete a 5-hour marathon with a 2:30, just saying that for most it takes some amount of focus and labor). The marathon is kind of a convenient "mid-range" goal for the average non-athlete.

migo wrote: If you really want to walk, do the 3-day, at least those women I have a little respect for.

Yes, and someone somewhere is scoffing, "those 3 day walkers get respect way out of proportion to their effort. Let them through-hike the AT or PCT if they want respect."

If you only do things you're willing to commit to 100% or even 70%, you're very passionate about a really limited set of activities. Which is of course cool.

But there are people, it is rumored, who maybe commit to one or two things and kind of like to dabble in a variety others. And sometimes running falls into the "dabble" category. That's really not so evil in the greater scheme.

Sure, the better than average (5 hour marathoner at the office; Dean K) get recognition out out of proportion, and the best remain unknown to the general populace. But that's the way it is in so many areas of life. Somehow I don't think James Joyce's Ulysses outsold the Harlequin Romances of its day. Van Gogh only became a superstar posthumously. Americans respect Rachel Ray and Emeril as authorities on fine food and consider a freaking McDonald's offshoot a place to get "really good Mexican food". It's hardly the case that only running suffers from an ignorant public, people.

In this context more democratic is referring more open to all.

There is nothing in that article that is surprising or is not lamented at many running related message boards.

I had never considered Oprah's MCM to be a pivotal moment, but she is very influential. If she said to read "Once a Runner" Parker would be a very rich man overnight.

anyone who walks a significant portion of a marathon has simply not "completed" the marathon. the marathon is a running event. it's not that difficult to walk 26.2 miles.

i felt ridiculous cheering on the walking masses at last year's nyc marathon. my favorite part of the article is where it describes running six days a week as grueling or arduous. and then there's the hypocrisy of people like burfoot championing training methods entirely at odds wih their own successful programs.

luv2run wrote:

I had never considered Oprah's MCM to be a pivotal moment, but she is very influential.

i do think that her running the mcm was a big factor in the current running boom. marathon participation spiked after she ran hers. though it was on an upswing at the time.

the current running boom is bigger than the boom after shorter won the olympic marathon. that got a lot of people running, but nothing like we have now. what i do not understand is why with all the new runners this does not translate to more sub 2:30, or 2:40 times.

well it was in the 'fashion and style' section.

It's time to stop worrying about and resenting these people. They are not jihadists. And if you still have honest goals like running 2:30 or better for the marathon, they are not going to get in your way. What they are going to do is get sponsors interested in the marathon, and help keep shoe companies interested in running, and help fund groups like Team Running USA that help produce guys like Ryan Hall and....etc.

Stop complaining already. Folks who want to be serious about running marathons fast still will be, no matter what the people do who are so far behind them that they can't see them anyway.

A) This is in the NY Times, known fabricators and sensationalists.

B) This is in the "Fashion and Style" section. Whatever.

C) Overweight people getting off their asses is good for society. And running.

D) Marathoning is stale anyway. The new fad is 100s. That is for real tough guys.

jonesy wrote:

anyone who walks a significant portion of a marathon has simply not "completed" the marathon. the marathon is a running event. it's not that difficult to walk 26.2 miles.

i felt ridiculous cheering on the walking masses at last year's nyc marathon. my favorite part of the article is where it describes running six days a week as grueling or arduous. and then there's the hypocrisy of people like burfoot championing training methods entirely at odds wih their own successful programs.

I do not recall seeing anything in the rules stating that one has to "run" the distance.

I think Burfoot is just acknowledging the reality of the situation not being hypocritical.

Ngah! wrote:

D) Marathoning is stale anyway. The new fad is 100s. That is for real tough guys.

Stale? Maybe to you. I doubt we will see 40,000 lining up for an ultra.

The marathon is just the right distance to be very challenging and yet not unreachable. Even as a long time runner, ultras have no appeal to me (marathons have lost a lot of the appeal for that matter as I just cannot commit to the training and recovery needed like I once could).

luv2run wrote:

In this context more democratic is referring more open to all.

Yes, I get that, but I disagree entirely. The NYT presents the 70s/80s boom as a bunch of middle-class men inspired by that Yalie, Frank Shorter. In actuality, I think that the era also saw folks such as Bill Rodgers, Patti Catalano, Ron Daws, and Fixx just as influential and as reflective of the boom. Funny how I recall rich and poor men, women, and kids racing back then. I also recall that running was a lot cheaper and accessible then, too. For Christ's sake, how many of us put thousands of miles on our shoes, just repairing them with Shoe Goo? How many people ran in their normal shorts and board shorts?

The old days could be described as a democratic meritocracy, if you will, in which effort and training were an equalizer. All were equal in the face of miles and all could contribute to the polis that was the running boom.

I find the zeitgeist that the NYT presents as today's as far less democratic: it's a self segregation that creates striation within the running world. A common observation is that in any major race, there are two races: the guys up front and those wallowing in the rear. Those wallowing the rear choose to be that way.

Additionally, if the studies that the USATF (I think it was them) put out a few years back are correct, the second boom is a predominately upper and upper-middle class phenomenon. Not surprising. Who else can afford the freaking gear and the shoes?

Nobody is keeping any Americans now from running as fast as Shorter or Rodgers or Patti Catalano did. In fact, the path to doing so is now made easier. The New York Road Runners and Atlanta Track Club are supporters of Team Running USA. How do you suppose they can afford to be? It's because of all the membership and entry fees supplied by slow runners.

People, just get OVER this. Train as hard as you want, race as fast as you can. No one will stop you.

Runner's World article from October 2004

"Walking the Walk"

Average marathon times in 1995

Male - 3:54

Female - 4:20

Average marathon times in 2004

Male - 4:15

Female - 4:53