What do you people think?
What do you people think?
I once heard that Oprah ruined the marathon.
j0nathan wrote:
I once heard that Oprah ruined the marathon.
+1
At one time, yes. I coach HS, back in the 90's we had RW reading, 5 hour marathoning parents telling us that we didn't know how to train their kids. "RW said ..."
One mother actually told us that we should be playing more soccer and frisbee in XC practice.
But, RW has changed- they still have the article for the 40-50 hr a week exec who wants to just finish a 5K, but there is also some real training advice.
I think RW can play a role in making track/road racing more popular by bridging the gap between the elite and the hobby joggers.
If the HJ's knew who the top runners were and followed them it could be a fan base.
In the old days RW was much more like Running Times is now. Personally I like RT.
I agree with Runn that RW is useful for bridging the gap. Runners like Kara Goucher (does well, has a kid, etc) can get a huge fan base and bring attention to the sport. Then the 5 hour marathoners have some interest in what happens at the front of the pack.
Runner's World Dogma
----------------------
1. Run slow... heck, just walk.
2. Less is More
Short answer - No.
No. What serious runner reads RW for training advice? Quenton Cassidy even mocks it in OAR, so we know that it wasn't taken seriously at least as far back as 1978. RW as I remember it is more for (as another poster said) someone looking to run their first 5k, and maybe even sneak under the half-hour barrier. I don't think that sort of demographic hurts running any more than my gaunt, goofy friends playing pick-up football hurts that sport.
Just went over to the RW Loop and found this gem.
Well they cater to people like this
This is their demographic and makes up a much larger percentage of the "running" community. The issue here is that letsrun generally doesn't consider those people to be members of the "running" community and thus the discrepency.
Don't read it if you don't like it.
right up there with puma answering our running related questions. that brand reps.... one distance runner? and makes crappy shoes. and crappy apparel. will fila or reebok answer for us next?? or MAYBE SKECHERS?!
how about we hear from a brand that actually supports a reasonable amount of distance athletes. or from the distance athletes themselves. or their coaches.
with that, make sure to get your minimalist shoes! but only if they match your moisture wicking running gear and water bottle belt!! but wait... where's my GU!? the tri-berry flavor! i like it cuz it's pink and it matches my socks! i can't do my 5 miler without it!!
and anyways... that's the real problem with american distance running. we're all a bunch of self-centered egotistical jerks that are too concerned with our self-image/perception, eating fast food (read: instant gratification), and getting drunk so that we can forget how pathetic we all really are.
not to mention the fact that the american lifestyle is horrific. we're overworked and overstimulated. and for no real good reason. our standard of life seems to be measured primarily on $$$$$$$. personally, i think it's atrocious.
but heyyyyyyy get that money!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! and put it in your beer gut or hide it in your cellulite while you ride the escalator to your desk job cubicle.
your newest edition of runner's world magazine will be waiting for you when you get home so you can stare blankly at it(did they just say chocolate milk is good for me?! zomg) while you watch tv, eating take-out, and not talking to your kids.
then strap on your vibrams and walk/jog 3 miles on the sidewalk. (arm band with iPhone? check! hand held water bottle filled with gatorade? check! and where the hell did i put that tri-berry gu?! gahhhh how will i ever get through this without my SUGAR?!) don't worry you will be a marathoner soon enough. just get up to 15 mpw and you can walk/run 6+ hours of your life away one day.
that place is an abomination.
Sure. But its not the worst thing for ADR.
indeed.
I read it because I subscribed to RW and RT via a link someone posted here one day, where I got 2 years of RW at less than $1.00 per issue, and and 4 years of RT for $16.00. So I really don't give a crap about the useless stuff, because every issue has at least a few good pictures, some info on elites, short articles on a real race, and other random stuff.
The MonBRO Doctrine wrote:
No. What serious runner reads RW for training advice? Quenton Cassidy even mocks it in OAR, so we know that it wasn't taken seriously at least as far back as 1978. RW as I remember it is more for (as another poster said) someone looking to run their first 5k, and maybe even sneak under the half-hour barrier. I don't think that sort of demographic hurts running any more than my gaunt, goofy friends playing pick-up football hurts that sport.
Dude, if Quenton Cassidy mocks it, then it must suck. He's, like, a god.
I think the connection MonBRO Doctrine is referring to is the one between Parker and the elites he ran with at UF.
RW does some things very well. They will often have great feature writing that make the issue really interesting and then there are some issues (the fashonista one leaps to mind) that have nothing of interest to me. What I find truly bizarre about RW is that if you read for your source of running news you would could be convinced the only professional runners of note were Kara Goucher and Ryan Hall. the first year I subscribed to RW Goucher was pictured in 10 of 12 issues and was on the cover twice. I find Running Times is more helpful to me these days but RW certainly has its purpose.
Currently on the RW web page they have a series of "motivational posters" that are pretty funny and well done. Some examples:
http://dailyviews.runnersworld.com/files/2011/12/poster-2-fullsize.jpg
http://dailyviews.runnersworld.com/files/2011/12/poster11.jpg
and lastly for Valentine's Day.
Those posters are actually funny, in a good way. I'm surprised they come from RW.
