Do plodders have a place in the marathon? NYT article

The finishers at the extreme back of the pack actually raise the fees for everyone else considerably. It is in the mid-pack where the money is made. Having to have the streets blocked off for up to 8 hours is a huge expense.

I think 6 hours from the time the last person crosses the starting line is fair enough.

you people who care are total douchebags.

my only marathon was a 2:31 on a fairly tough course, and my older track times were comparably much faster. so if you think your opinions matter b/c you're faster than the plodders, than mine (most likely) matters more than yours. I know there is a great chance that i'm faster than you, because I personally have lived and trained with guys ranging down to the 2:14 range, and they sure as hell don't give a shit about how fast the fatties run.

douches...get a life. I'd rather hang out with a 4:05 marathoner who isn't full of himself than a bunch of dumbshit 2:45ers who think they are special b/c they wear marathon finisher dryfit shirts to the bars on the weekend where they can't stop talking about the sweet 20 miler they hammered that morning and how they're so buzzed off of two beers because of the effort. jesus christ.

Damm skippy we do, you idiots. We pay for those races you win so STFU and run.

Well said fresca, I agree fully.

My issue with someone who takes a considerable amount of time to complete a marathon is to ask them if they think its wise or healthy. I couldn't care less about who is fast or slow.

Many of these first timers don't realize that they can get the same sort of satisfaction and challenges by say breaking 40min in a 10k etc, which takes a lot less mileage and is still an obstacle for the average person.

A lot of it has to do with the myth of running a marathon.

Another Runner Guy wrote:

Sure they have a place in the marathon -- at the back.

It's no skin off my nose if people want to run a marathon slowly. Good for them. It's still better than sitting around on their asses and it helps support the running industry for more competitive runners.

Quite. Geb has made a pretty lovely chunk of change from the whole running thing and that's because marathons can afford to pay him and that's because they have sponsors and I'll just best that that is because more and more people are participating in marathons these days.

That is hilarious. 4 hours and she's talking down about other runners?[/quote]

Exactly. Well Said

Tommy2Nutts wrote:

A lot of it has to do with the myth of running a marathon.

Great post Tommy.

Your last sentence really stood out. Do you think the "marathon myth" really took off when charities realized marathons could expand their business model in ways they never imagined? Where else can you get that many people in one event?

Even though novice runners 20 through 40 would be much better off working their way up through the distances, why should they when the charity business says it isn't necessary?

A 6 hour marathoner doesn't really have much idea at all either about how fast a 2:06 is.

To them 2:06 or 2:36 sound equally as fast.

They'll say:

Oh, so you ran a "2-hour marathon"

Bullcrap. What, were there no or even less sponsorship opportunities back in the 80's, when the median finish time (and finisher and entrant numbers) was a whole lot lower than it is today? All those slow runners are having their participation in marathons subsidized by faster runners. They are leeches. On average, which type buys more running gear in a lifetime, or even just a single year? The sub-4 marathoner or the 5-6 hour marathoner? The sub-4 runner is probably running 50 mpw (400 miles/shoe yields 2-month useful lifespans (or less) for shoes, so 6+ pair per year, plus flats) or more throughout the year, year after year. They are buying several more pairs of running shoes and other running gear. The 5-6 hour marathoner probably goes through what, maybe 2-3 pairs of running shoes a year in putting in their <30 mpw average? And do you even know how much more it costs to keep a marathon course open for 5-7 hours rather than just 4?

Bullcrap again. A 6-hour marathoner would react the same to a 2:06 or a 3:06 or even a 4:06 marathon: you're a no-life freak with ungodly talent.

Right, like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning should welcome any quarterback, no matter that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a pass from 10 yards away. You are just another one of those who wants to see this sport further pussified, you won't be happy until it's as inclusive and as pluralistic as the Special Olympics.

In 2005 I headed to New york,with 2 friends to run the NYC marathon.

One guy finished in 3:05.

I finished in 4:06.

The last guy finished in 5:04.

He had previously run in 1980 and had set a task of running

on His 25th anniversary.

He spent months walking to get his weight down to a safe level just to jog.

He was absolutely ecstatic to finish and who could deny him.

A years training,a trip across the globe and a lot of expense.

It was worth it just to share the moment.

Slow runners pay for races, but they also consume what they pay for. For a non-profit venture, quality matters. For a profit venture, cram as many people in as possible.

Out.

I agree with Tommy. This isn't about who deserves the credit for running a marathon. I'm not even remotely pissed that people think I'm not as hardcore as their niece who qualified for Boston, just because I don't run marathons. I don't run to impress people.

The problem is that the marathon plodders, by and large, are not doing something good for their health. It would be fine if they were all like The Penguin, because then they would be running consistently and getting healthy. But most plodders are one-and-done marathoners. They push themselves through something that they're not prepared for, and they end up hating running. I have huge respect for the mental determination it would take to do something so painful and unenjoyable.

I always encourage beginning runners to stick with the 5k for a while, and to try to improve their times before moving up in distance. Unfortunately, all of their role models in the recreational running world only run 5ks when they're not actually training for a marathon. They don't see it as a serious race in and of itself.

Some of the comments from plodders about how long they've trained are revealing. Six months is not that much time when you consider that most successful marathoners have been running competitively, year-round, for a decade before they start marathoning. Trying to run a marathon in one's first year of running is like trying to write a dissertation before getting a BA. I suppose one could manage to painfully churn out 300 pages, and they'd certainly learn something from the process, but if one's goal is to learn, there's a better way to start. On the other hand, if one's goal is to do something difficult, deriving no other benefit, then I suppose you can do the job by writing dissertations in high school or running marathons on just 500 lifetime miles. Whatever gets you off...

gimme back my sport! wrote:

you won't be happy until it's as inclusive and as pluralistic as the Special Olympics.

If the main goal of your post was to prove yourself as a "intellectual plodder" than mission accomplished

Based on your arguments against plodders I'd suggest you return your computer to it's place of origin and buy an etch a sketch

gimme back my sport.......My last post was a little harsh. Sorry to make it personal.

I'm new to running and feel like it's all our sport. I just don't see how the slow runners impede any way on the faster runners.

Here is my opinion.

There is a group at the front who has gone through the trial of miles and miles of trials, pushed their bodies to the limit to be as fast as they can be. Then their is a second group its a do the best they can given that its not too inconvenient they train hard but don't do everything and get a respectable road race/marathon times. This group still cares about time. Then there is the third group that runs just to make it the distance.

The third group changed the public's view of racing. Racing a marathon has lost its meaning and also its glory for that second group. The top group doesn't care because they know that the general public will never understand what they do.

Thanks for the illiterate's point of view, I can now sleep soundly at night.

Alan Gosse wrote:

gimme back my sport! wrote:

you won't be happy until it's as inclusive and as pluralistic as the Special Olympics.

If the main goal of your post was to prove yourself as a "intellectual plodder" than mission accomplished

Based on your arguments against plodders I'd suggest you return your computer to it's place of origin and buy an etch a sketch

The only thing I don't like about slower runners is that races fill up too soon.

I wish all major races would start a top 100 program for aspiring sub_elites. I don't want to sign up for a major race until after I see how I do in the race I'm currently training for.

Example: if I'm training for a fall marathon I won't decide if my next race will be a winter half or a spring marathon until after the fall marathon. But a competitive half like Huston is already full. I may be good enough to finish top 50 but not good enough for a special invite.