RoJo, are you going to let this slide?

I haven't been here that long, but I searched the old posts and have found several on Galloway and everyone's distaste for him. After reading one of those threads in particular, I can't imagine that much more needs to be said on this topic.

I see that rojo is wejo's brother. Does rojo help run this site, or is it all wejo?

[quote]Brian wrote:

Kyle Elizabeth Gancher of Plantsville, Conn. added: "We should hand out special medals for those at the back of the pack."

WTF?? Does anyone else find that quote ridiculous? Reward the losers... yes, that is the solution, right on Kyle...

there is no way to argue with a 70 yr old guy who runs marathons and come out on top.

higdon was a decent marathoner who has captured public fancy with columns and last year's 7 marathons/ 7 months/ 70 years old. how can you argue with that? I am surprised he didn't talk about de castella's 2:07:51 in Boston after tripping and walking the first mile in 1986.

i've talked to a miler who ran against him in the 1950s and 1960s and has since moved on in life, he laughed at higdon's name. He said, "oh yeah, he's a lifer."

the whole personal web site and gallo coaching deal and magazine articles stink of a guy looking for dough.

they're slower doesnot mean they 'lose'.

they'd survived 26.2 and that counts.

organizers should start doing door-prize medals as participation recognition.

they brave and not ashamed of being one of the lasts.

the spirit counts.

i admire and respect that.

karangasem.

In some ways the Higdon argument does not ring true. A guy who cannot keep up with KK's marathon pace (i.e., 105 400s) for a single ... ONE ... 400-meter interval (71.point seconds) is not on the same PLANET (let alone class) as a professional runner, plain and simple. That being said, if someone goes into a race trying to run the whole way and finishes the thing in 5.5 hours, indeed that person is admirable for sticking to it. They're not trying to stop, they're fighting through the discomfort and not giving up to the pain JUST like the elite marathoners. They can't duplicate the elite's performance, but in this way they can duplicate the heart it takes to RUN a marathon and not give into the demons that say 'STOP.' It takes guts to run for 5-plus hours and do your damndest not to stop.

On one hand, it IS good that people are getting off their fat asses and trying to get through a marathon, even if it is through Galloway. Less overall health problems with the general public = less spent on health care for said fat asses who got off the couch and ran/walked a marathon.

Other than that, Galloway and his ilk are like lawyers with straw arguments--fond of citing Bill Rodgers as a shining example of their method's viability, but Boston Billy stopped involuntarily at Boston (untied shoe) and slowed down to walk to make sure he didn't miss getting his water. That's it, a one-time occurrence, not a heel-toe loafing break every couple of Ks. No elite runner walks on purpose in a race, ever, they jog in for water on occasion and lose a couple of ticks, max.

Contrarily, Gallowalkers do negatively affect races and its more mid-pack participants. Example: If someone Gallowalks after an opening 6:40 mile and clogs up the 7-minute per mile pace runners trying to get a qualifier for Boston (this happened last year's Marine Corps Marathon), such lack of consideration by Galloway and his followers is unacceptable and he never answered for this. Secondly, it costs race directors tens of thousands of dollars to keep the streets open for a major marathon (Metro area police protection is VERY pricey), and moreso if they have eight-hour, back-of-the-pack sloggers in the race. In many cases this probably more than (financially) offsets having a couple of thousand Galloway-trained runners pay their way into a race. That's the argument for a five-hour cut-off. Maybe six is better but that's about all the time anyone who is doing a marathon should need to complete it.

The Galloway guy is making bank. Probably kicking down some bread to Higdon and RW for all we know. Take Galloway with a huge grain of salt.

Oh, give me a break. Someone who runs a 6:40 first mile

and then literally walks (12:00 pace or slower, say)

is goofed in the head, but that's a far cry from

someone who starts out at 9:30 pace and then slows down

to 12. The second isn't nearly as disruptive to the other

runners. The first is more likely to happen with someone

who seriously misjudged their pace (and probably didn't belong there in the first place).

Regarding the cost of keeping the roads open: I'm fairly

sure the RDs know the cost breakdowns better than you do. And I'd be willing to bet that it's profitable for them to keep the race open for as many hours as they do, or they

wouldn't do it. If you get lots of walkers at the end, maybe it's worth it. Or you can solicit sponsors from a wider group, since the race seems more 'open'.

Finally, agressive cutoffs aren't necessarily good for the

(really) older runners. I dunno about you, but I think it's

damn impressive that a 90 year old can _complete_ a marathon,

regardless of their time. Far more impressive than, say,

an over-3 effort by a healthy twentysomething (like myself). If it's economically viable, let them do it.

Better than sitting around eating cheesypoofs and getting fat. Someone else's slow marathon times don't cheapen

your own accomplishments. Just means that instead of finishing in the top 5%, you finish in the top 2%. :-)bb

Boys,

I recently ran a 3:20 marathon with nothing in my legs but a couple of 7 mile group runs and some 40 mile cycling spins with friends. I blew up of course and Gallowalked the aid-stations because I thought I was near death.

In contrast, my unathletic sister trained her ass off and ran a 5:20 marathon that the whole family flew in to witness and cheer her on. I was so damn proud of her I later cried.

Those of you who disapprove of slow times are missing something fundamental. Running is living. Chill out and enjoy. Life is short. Cheers.

Kevin

I have always sort of looked at this from the perspective of other sports. Take basketball, for example. People mean a lot of things when they say "I play basketball." Very, very few people mean "I play basketball professionally." Some play "competitively" in city leagues with uniforms, coaches, and the whole nine yards. Most people, when they "play basketball," head down to the local playground and play four-on-four pick-up ball with modified rules, no refs, and a lot of slop. NO ONE would ever imagine that your weekend pick-up basketball player is on equal footing with an NBA player. It is not even the same game as they play in a competitive league. Could you imagine someone saying: "Don't worry about scoring a basket. Don't worry about playing defense. What matters is that you are on the court. Just finishing the game is an accomplishment." Pick-up basketball is a DIFFERENT SPORT than real basketball.

Here is where I make my big, analogy switch. People that run marathons in 5-6 hours are not RUNNING. It is a different sport. Did they accomplish something? Sure. Was it hard for them? Sure. But, it is not the same sport as a sub 2:20 runner. Imagine walking up to a pro-basketball player and saying "Yeah, I play ball too." They would laugh at you. And then if you insisted that "my 2 points at playground are just as important as your two points in the coliseum," then you would piss him off.

My problem is that Galloway and company peddle the idea that you're slow, you have no talent, you're always going to be that way, so walk, enjoy the ride and pat yourself on the back for such a great accomplishment because it's the best you're ever going to be. It's irresponsible for Galloway and his ilk to spread that garbage.

The basketball analogy is horribly flawed.

Someone can just walk out and play basketball.

99% of people can't just come out for a marathon and finish. It takes months of at least a long run of a pretty good distance and some other runs which are not exactly EASY for the "non-runner." They put in a pretty good amount of time and effort to be able to complete the marathon. It's an agonizing battle for most.

To "play ball" is a fun recreation, with no training and self-inflicted weekly pain involved.

No, the basketball analogy is not flawed. However, running is a little different in that you can line up on the same starting line as the sport's stars. Try going to the American Airlines Center to shoot some hoops with Dirk and the boys.

My freakin' 3-year-old could complete a marathon. It might take him 13 hours and he would probably cry the whole way, but he could do it. So could my way overweight wife and gimpy-legged mother.

Under the various programs espoused by Galloway and others, more than 1% of the population is capable of completing a marathon. Completing 26 miles is no big deal; I hiked 30 miles in about 7-8 hours when I was 11 years old for a boy scout merit badge.

Personally, I really don't care if someone wants to claim that they "ran" a marathon in 7 hours. Great. You set a goal of completing a marathon, and you did it. However, you shouldn't expect to be put on the same platform as KK and others. I run 10Ks and 5Ks. While I'm proud of my times, I don't expect anybody to view my performances in the same light as Geb's and Tergat's.

The "dumbing down" of the marathon and other races has occurred as race directors and sponsors have catered to this crowd with parties, music, buffets, etc. while ignoring basic items as water on the course, an accurate course, and proper course monitoring.

If it's that expensive to keep the race courses open longer, then the race directors could always charge an additional fee for those who plan to take over a certain period of time. They charge an extra couple of bucks for an XXL t-shirt; charge a few extra bucks if you plan on taking over 5 hours.

Just had a thought: Gallowalking is like taking a 15 foot long jump, standing up in the pit, brushing off the sand, taking another 7 foot jump, doing it again, then telling everyone you did a 29 foot long jump, and thinking that your efforts are as noble as those of Mike Powell and the rest of the 29 foot club. It's kind of funny, actually.

I don't think about Gallowankers much, but that analogy came to mind, and I had to share it.

Inscription: "You not win"

Slow Runner wrote:

Finally, agressive cutoffs aren't necessarily good for the

(really) older runners. I dunno about you, but I think it's

damn impressive that a 90 year old can _complete_ a marathon,

regardless of their time.

Why it must be done in race? Why can people who want take all day for marathon not do it on own time? If want to run race, train to get under time cutoff. 5 hour more than reasonable.

Anderson wrote:

and one more thing! i love keeping up to date with the us scene. it's far more advanced and entertaining than over here in the uk, BUT... I notice you have standards that you percieve as elite. to compete in the trials for the olympics require you to run 2.19? that ain't elite boys.

You mistaken. Men must run 2:22 or better to get in U.S. Olympic Trials marathon. That just standard to get in, as set by U.S. federation; not mean all who qualify are elite.

Rather than continue to bash (and I do share in your sentiments) let's discuss how to take back our sport. My initial thought is that we encourage a handful of regional events or create a few 'thons with qualifying standards similar to Boston.

We could also attempt to alter the way race fields are filled. Any male with a 3:30 or woman with a 4:30 clocking is guaranteed a spot until 90 days out. After that deadline, all remaining spots are open to first-timers, walkers, etc. These time standards, I feel, are quite inclusive and would allow serious midpack athletes the opportunity to run marquee events without being closed out by charity groups and others.

This would require lobbying race directors to get on board. Perhaps this would be a worthy function of the RRCA? Perhaps USATF can require these standards as a condition of course certification and insurance coverage?

Your golf comparsion is not correct. Golfers train on a golf course where anyone with any ability can golf.

If someone with a handicap over 10 tried to get in the PGA Tour, they would get publicly laughed and berated.

As runners, we train on the roads, where anyone of any ability can run. Races (especially the high profile marathons) are a showcase for the elites.

That said, I'm not saying the cut-off times in a marathon should be moved up. But comparing the effort of the winner and a Gallow-walker are not the same thing. Someone who walks through miles 20-24 or portions thereof is not feeling the same pain as someone who ran them. The two are not comparable.

Captain Haddock wrote:

Just had a thought: Gallowalking is like taking a 15 foot long jump, standing up in the pit, brushing off the sand, taking another 7 foot jump, doing it again, then telling everyone you did a 29 foot long jump, and thinking that your efforts are as noble as those of Mike Powell and the rest of the 29 foot club. It's kind of funny, actually.

Ouch. You better'd not be talking smack about 15' long jumpers.

(Note: Beefed's long jump PR is 13')