Do plodders have a place in the marathon? NYT article

I'm embarrassed I went to the dirt to make my point; obviously my apology was lost on you.....oh well

So this is directed to the rest of the readers. I believe these events are organized for and entered by people to complete personal accomplishments. How else would you get 40,000 people to enter a race that maybe only 20 people in the world could win.

Does it diminish the winners prestige? I'm guessing if only the elites ran marathons than we wouldn't be commenting because no one would care. I'm assuming that no one could name the US Lacrosse champions are for 2009

Anyway I'm going to return to plodding and who knows I might try and sign up for NYC next year. If I do get in I'll be trying my best, not to win, just to do the best that I can.

Don't worry, I'm also embarrassed for you.

Have been meaning to get around to this. Two components, I think the second is new. 1. I'm a 3:05 marathoner (PR), may get below 3 at some point but prob not, spent most of my prime years at 10K. With that credential, such that it is, I have no problem with the "slow" runners, will happily call myself slow to any non-elite runner doing, say, 2:45's, and congratulate all for their initiative and effort and contribution to increased fitness across our population (stick with me though if this is not what you wanted to hear). A strength of marathon and disntance running is that we have rough and widely understood (even by non participants) benchmarks which characterize one as elite, sub-elite, etc - whatever you want, and people don't pretend to run a marathon when they're running a 10k because even a slug would recognize it and call them on it! We can have debates like this on cutoff times with some self respect, and without hoping like crazy that somebody doesn't ask certain follow up questions which brings me to 2. With that backdrop, could we all finally hit the more obvious joke that dominates the endurance sport world now - triathlons! I've done them, they're hard, and I don't want to take anything away from anybody in those either, particularly the elites for crying out loud, and including anybody who gets off the couch to accomplish this extremely impressive event at any distance (i just gave it up because i love running and it sucks to have it last when i can't enjoy it!). With that said, can we demand a little less pretend in the ego-expressive aspect of this sport in the broader population of participants? In contrast to marathons and other distance running/track and field events where the public has loose definitions based on media exposure (as little as it is, there's enough, we have track teams in high school, and the olmpics usually provide a review every four years for the broader public). In contrast, the public mostly knows (or knew) what a triathlon is based on exposure to Hawaii IM dating back quite a few years as it was featured in fragments on backwater sports sampling shows, yet because it's so impressive, the public kind of knows what it's all about. The bulk of this new wave of "triathletes" are about as close to doing an Iron Man as they are to going to the moon, and it's hilarious to watch them try to capture that response from people and conspicoulsy hope differences aren't mentioned, or even better, the awkward explanations when they are. Just watch the behavior. Watch them lean on the "olympic" part of the title when describing this widely popular distance, hoping you won't ask the individual distances. Watch them work really hard to avoid and/or hope nobody asks if they've done an ironman. Take note of how many of the suddenly serious athletes were never known to you to be any good or even interested in any of the three sports (again, congrats for getting off the couch but now they're so serious, like "you wouldn't understand". And finally, for real jewels, ask simple and legitimate questions, like "triathlon, wow!, doesn't that have a marathon at the end?" (watch the behavior and self concious wince if they're not doing what the public thinks is a tri instead of just owning up) or "Wow, have you ever done an ironman?" and my personal favorite "Somebody told me the other day that the bike portion of the "olympic" distance shorter than a marathon - that can't be true can it?." And then if they engage and want to dig themselves deeper, explore the fascinating concept of what i have seen recently called the "ironman 70.3" or something, which from what i can tell is a half ironman!! My, what would the NYT reporter think marathoners slogging for six hours just to imply they emboody a level of fitness that may be a bit overestimated, if we allowed them to do a 13.1 mile slow run instead and call it the "Marathon 13.1" !!!!!!!!!!! - hoping nobody would notice. Hilarious! Let's do it! Why won't we? Because the people who care for their sport or profession have to police this kind of nonsense - elite runners will support slow 6 hour marathoners on this board and elsewhere, but i'll bet most of you (and me) but would never allow half-marathons to be called "marathon 13.1's" so more people could pretend they did one (!) if only because it would be such a joke, and probably match up precisely with the definition of pathetic in any dictionary! So where does that leave us - they shouldn't all have to be that maxed distance right? i said i was mainly a 10K runner. Fine, but own up instead of pretedning people will think you're at a certain level and wondering how far you'll have to ratchet down. I know, the "sprint" is just a shorter distance for people optimized to compete at shorter distances and faster paces. Maybe for a few. But enough of us know how this works. Sorry - it just doesn't fly. In the runnning world for example, although the 5K is a hard core distance and has a history, and heck, sprinters seem to get most of the glory these days anyway, public road races with a 5K as the marquee are usually low serious affairs, and if it's in a package, it's often called a run/walk. In conclusion, runners have structured their events and culture so that you have to be honest when boasting, EVEN with non-runners, you can't hide even Joe Blow knows marathon times. To try to make this constructive, if only because i don't really care, it's just becoming increasingly hilarious, those who want Tri to grow into a real sport should filter this kind of nonsense because it makes them all look silly, and the time is running out, because just doing one is no longer impressive. Who hasn't?! And, really, start with this trying to pass off half an iron man for an iron man with this 70.3 stuff.

gimme back my sport! wrote:

Don't worry, I'm also embarrassed for you.

I think the plodders are great and we need more of them to lower the cost of the race and make my sub 4 hours times sound "great." As long as they have staring corals and they keep them out of my way plod on....

RTMB wrote:

And finally, for real jewels, ask simple and legitimate questions, like "triathlon, wow!, doesn't that have a marathon at the end?" (watch the behavior and self concious wince if they're not doing what the public thinks is a tri instead of just owning up)

I agree with your comments about people calling things "ironman" or "marathon" when they are not, but why would the public think that triathlon=ironman?

Surely the term triathlon simply means a multi-sport endurance competition consisting of the three disciplines swim/bike/run and if anything, the default triathlon distance=ITU world championship/ITU world cup/Olympic distance?

Because triathlon had virtually zero exposure to the general public over the past couple of decades in the U.S., but was unique because unlike other sports that suffered from zero exposure, it had a single event that had drawn attention and coverage - in fact, it's so impressive (which I hope is not lost in my comments) that you can ask Joe on the street, ten years ago and he'd be likely to say "yeah, that thing in Hawaii where they swim in the ocean, ride a bike, then run a marathon at the end! Wow!" Most people had this casual knowledge. Reinforcing the specificity of the IM, since the swim was in the ocean, and the bike was some arbitrary distance for people here in the U.S., the marathon was at least one thing that most had a feel for. That was the definition. Whether one followed or just knew about the sport casually, they were wowed by the extreme distance (anchored by the also commonly known marathon distance) as much as the ability to do well at all three. A triathlete, when used as an example or even introduced to people who didn't have a clue, carried this image. Regardless of the technical definition, the reality is, and we all know it, that the general public/friends/etc. have this rough view, and those in the community understand all the different events very well like in most enthusiast communities, whether they do them all or not. My point was, there is a substantial number of participants/enthusiasts these days and the sport has been exploding, and the public seems to be somewhat more aware of it because of articles in the popular press, yet the image is still that IM picture if you're not involved or close to a participant, and it is embarrassingly transparent how triathletes don't bother to point out that (fill in the blank)% of the people in this new wave couldn't finish an IM even if they walked the WHOLE marathon, and that the "tri" they're doing next week is about as close to the public perception as them playing for an NFL team. Why is this important, and why would I waste this time if I claim not to care? This is exactly the theme that was conveyed about the slow marathoners in the NYT article, which has generated reasonable debate, but within a context that is easily measured and understood, even by those they are trying to impress (i.e., should the person doing a 6 hour marathon get "credit" and be part of the "mystique"). Similarly, and in contrast which is what is interesting, since it generated so much attention, and since triathlon is also exploding, I believe it would be neat for the reporter to do a similar article on this sport, since the behavioral implications are the same, but the public/friends they might be impressing are even less clued in, and in addition, there are what many would consider to be blatant misrepresentations and tangible inflation of what the event is (i.e., the "ironman" with the numerical qualifier, etc.). It probably won't happen, and I'm on no campaign to make it happen, but I can tell you that the currently blown away friends and family of hundreds of "triathletes" I see around NYC, would all of a sudden be greeting the athlete's stories with polite smiles instead of the current awe. I've enjoyed it myself. They enjoy it - and I think they're well aware that the people on the receiving end of their lore are a little more impressed than they should be. And indeed, who cares, but that was clearly one theme of the article, including the 4 hour marathoner's practice of asking others what their times were in order to weed out those who might be enjoying artificial ego boosts.

Show me any aspect of the sport where they've contributed to bringing prices down. Entry fees, prices for shoes, etc. have outstripped inflation in my lifetime.

biggus dickus wrote:

I think the plodders are great and we need more of them to lower the cost of the race and make my sub 4 hours times sound "great." As long as they have staring corals and they keep them out of my way plod on....