Wow There wrote:
Entry fees do help pay for top runners. How funny that anyone would think otherwise.
And what does a person finishing in 5:30, three hours behind the best folks on here, do to disrupt their efforts? Nothing.
You're grasping at straws and creating strawmen. Typical Letsrun.
There are some great human stories at the rear of the pack with aging runners who are attempting their first athletic endeavor and are not at all confident that they even have the capacity to finish. It's obvious how much the effort means to them as they cross the line with tears in their eyes and absolute expressions of joy on their faces. I wish I got that worked up.
There's a Nova program on one such group of aging athletes:
http://video.pbs.org/video/1050815967/
Good for them!
Sporting contests are elitist by their very nature, why are people ever puzzled by that? Also, races put on as business ventures first and foremost (i.e. to make money) seem to also tend to suffer in terms of quality competition. See all the races that jam marathoners, half-marathoners, and even 10K/5K runners onto the same course at essentially the same time. Somehow quality races were quite possible years ago before the waddle-on phenomenon popped up at races. Go ahead and crunch numbers from races such as ING NYCM, see if that the time span (1 hour, 2 hours) with the lowest concentration of finishers (after the winner crosses the finish line) is not at the tail end of a marathon with a course open for over 6-7 hours. Why I am a "prick" because I can recognize that having a course on urban surface streets closed for seven hours will have much higher associated cost than keeping it closed for four or even five hours? I did not indicate any value judgment with my statement. So quick to jump to the lame ad hominem, pathetic.
"Why are runners such elitist pricks?"
Great question. One thing that turned me off in triathlon was the elitism. In running, it's not as bad, but it is there.
There are plenty of races in the 5k-10k range that would be far more appropriate to their abilities than the NY or any other marathon is. If they really need to go far instead then they can do it on something like an Avon walk. Or hell, strap on the Camelback and strike out on their own. Completing is not racing.
It's Camelbak.
Why are runners also such inclusive dorks, so intent on ramping up the wussification of running and America?
sfadfdf wrote:
"Why are runners such elitist pricks?"
Great question. One thing that turned me off in triathlon was the elitism. In running, it's not as bad, but it is there.
It's normal to be inclusive. It's not normal to be rude and exclusive.
hardset nipples wrote:
Except that prize and appearance money come from title sponsors, not from entry fees. So it has nothing to do with how many marathoners, slow or fast, enter a race.
Even so, the title sponsor has an interest in being attached to the biggest most widely exposed event possible. To that end the back half of the field is valuable to them.
So you also want to see all high school students just blindly given 4.0 GPAs and perfect SAT scores? College admission for anyone? Jobs awarded regardless of credentials or experience? All NFL, MLB, NBA teams in the playoffs, regardless of record? I am for being inclusive of those who merit inclusion by way of proven performance. You seem to believe in zero standards at all, the worst kind of socialist. I guess when you are still sleeping on the couch in mom's basement at age 40 that sort of thinking makes perfect sense.
Citizen Runner wrote:
Even so, the title sponsor has an interest in being attached to the biggest most widely exposed event possible. To that end the back half of the field is valuable to them.
What, exactly, does the back half of the field have to do with the event's (funny how races are now 'events') exposure?
cum-bay-yah wrote:
So you also want to see all high school students just blindly given 4.0 GPAs and perfect SAT scores? College admission for anyone? Jobs awarded regardless of credentials or experience? All NFL, MLB, NBA teams in the playoffs, regardless of record? I am for being inclusive of those who merit inclusion by way of proven performance.
He will ignore these points and come back with a response like "what difference does it make to you who finishes behind you" or "I applaud the walkers for their effort to get off the couch".
For some reason, there is a segment who thinks minimum standards should be not applied to running.
Reasons wrote:
Part of the reason is that if you're an able bodied individual under age 45 with no medical issues there is no reason you should be "running" 5+ hours. That is simply a lack of effort in training and a lack of respecting the event and taking it seriously. I find that offensive.
The other reason that comes to mind for me is that (and I am speaking from experience) many of them try to make it out that their 5 hour + charade is the same as my 2:52 run. I personally don't care all that much about talking about my times, but I will absolutely call B.S. on someone trying to eqaute what they did with what I do, just as I would expect that if i tried to go around acting like some elite runner, others that are faster than me would do the same.
Are you also offended when someone shoots 120 on the golf course, or can't get down the beginner ski slope without falling? What about swimmers at the club who can barely make it a few laps without feeling exhausted, or tennis players who can't get a serve in bounds?
If someone starts running at age 45 after a lifetime of mostly inactivity do you really expect them to go out and break 3 hours? Like it or not, running is a recreational sport for millions of people. I'm sorry that offends you. You have your own reasons for wanting to put in the time and effort to run fast. Not everyone chooses to make it a priority in life. So let's ban them from the sport! And if they feel a sense of accomplishment and pride from participating, let's make sure we put them in their place so they know how slow they are compared to "real" runners.
take a hike wrote:
There are plenty of races in the 5k-10k range that would be far more appropriate to their abilities than the NY or any other marathon is. If they really need to go far instead then they can do it on something like an Avon walk. Or hell, strap on the Camelback and strike out on their own. Completing is not racing.
The point of the matter is that yes everyone dose have a right to enter however it is a race. The best example of this is Boston filling up this year in 8 hours. Especially since the race is known/use to be stricter in its acceptance.
Now specify this to different people, a person can train their ass off and still run a 5 hour/ a person can barley train and run 3.5 hours. However, im sorry to say buts its a tough world out there and the main point is to run as fast as possible which makes the faster people more deserving to be in the race.
While its tough to say it like this but the point of the marathon is to run the best time overall especially at the more popular ones such as new york and boston, etc. While its nice to run a PR, a 2:30 is still better than 5 hours.
To compare this to other sports you would see regular joes out there applying and playing minor league baseball if it was up to who got there application out first not by skill level. Now popularity in playing might go up (like in Marathoning) but the level of competition will decrease.
Now this argument is excluding charity runners and such. I hope to see this system going into the major marathons and return them into what they use to be.
JB
It's clear that we completely disagree with each other, but that's cool.
please consider wrote:
If someone starts running at age 45 after a lifetime of mostly inactivity do you really expect them to go out and break 3 hours? Like it or not, running is a recreational sport for millions of people. I'm sorry that offends you. You have your own reasons for wanting to put in the time and effort to run fast. Not everyone chooses to make it a priority in life. So let's ban them from the sport! And if they feel a sense of accomplishment and pride from participating, let's make sure we put them in their place so they know how slow they are compared to "real" runners.
The appropriate thing for this someone to do is get fit to run well before entering the race. Entering races is not a prerequisite to anyone getting fit, nor is it a requirement to be a runner.
Who left the door open to the Jogger's Earth crowd today?
It's cool if you want to bail because you have no logic to back up your position, only feelings and emotion.
please consider wrote:
Are you also offended when someone shoots 120 on the golf course, or can't get down the beginner ski slope without falling? What about swimmers at the club who can barely make it a few laps without feeling exhausted, or tennis players who can't get a serve in bounds?
Now that you mention it, I may be offended if they decide to play the championship golf course from the black tees and tie up the whole course with slow play. Hit the local muni course instead. Or, they decide to ski down the black diamond slope instead of the bunny hills. Let's face it, we'd all laugh at these people, hacking up the country club fairway or careening down the ski slopes head over heels.
Point is, if you aren't prepared for the ultimate test in running, you should stick to the local 5ks and turkey trots.
back to my point, if the race isnt at the cap, let them do it. 5 hours is still bettter than most Americans
but let the fast runner who deserve to run....run
JB
Wow There wrote:
Entry fees do help pay for top runners. How funny that anyone would think otherwise.
And what does a person finishing in 5:30, three hours behind the best folks on here, do to disrupt their efforts? Nothing.
Well, I was a bit miffed when I viewed the finish line video for my recent marathon. There I am finishing...right next to the fatties finishing their half marathon walk. Kind of ruined it for me.