• RW Basher
      • Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 8:40AM
      • RW Basher
      • This month's RW had an article about...marathon walkers. It appears that mere walking breaks is no longer enough. Now they're pandering to people who have no intention of running a step. They quoted race directors who are tripping over themselves to pander to these idiots because that's where the money is. This is a sad, sad commentary on not only American running, but American society. We've become a society of underachievers. Of course RW thinks this is great news. Runners World sucks eggs!
    • RW Basher
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 8:43AM - in reply to RW Basher
      • RW Basher
      • Oh, and Jeff Gallowalker and the Pengiun suck also. I needed to add that.
    • Noticed
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 9:08AM - in reply to RW Basher
      • Noticed
      • The article, journalistically, reported on the phenomenon and weighed all sides of the situation.
        Once again, folks....none of what all these walkers do will ever keep you from running the 2:03 marathon you all seem to feel capable of if ...if only....
    • OR
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 10:51AM - in reply to RW Basher
      • OR
      • Walking marathons means that they keep the courses open for a few hours longer for the ass-draggers. This drives up the very substantial costs of roadrace police protection and road closures, etc. This in turns drives up the entry fees of people who actually intend to RUN the marathon. So it does have an effect on all of those who choose to run marathons. We pay $100 for an entry instead of $60 because the course is going to be kept open for 8-10 hours.

        Jeezus: That means some folks would finish an Ironman distance triathlon before a walker finishes a lousy marathon. Go figure.
    • mc
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 12:03PM - in reply to Noticed
      • mc
      • Well, if you read race reports from Big Sur, St. Louis, and Flying Pig, etc., you'll hear tales of runners having to dodge walkers walking four abreast.
        I do not have any objections to people who rather walk, but there are many instances where they line up inappropriately in the front or are unwilling to yield to runners.
        I for one will stay away from a marathon that caters to walkers.
    • strategery
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 12:09PM - in reply to mc
      • strategery
      • big sure has a hard and fast 5.5 hour time limit. Here it is:
        "Our permit from the California Dept. of Transportation limits the race to a finishing time of 5 ½ hours, a pace of about 12:30 per mile. Race services, aid stations and traffic control will NOT be provided on the course after 5 ½ hours. You must finish the Marathon under 5 ½ hours to be considered an official finisher. An early start is not available. The Marathon begins at 7:00 A.M."
        Yeah people start walking but that's only because hurricane point is a 3 mile hill going from 100' to 600'
    • Sergeant Hulka
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 3:44PM - in reply to RW Basher
      • Sergeant Hulka
      • I agree it is not a very good trend to cater your marathon to walkers. BUT, the only thing this will do is adjust the "market", so to speak, and there will be marathons that cater to the runners.

        Do you really think that Chicago or New York will ever go that way? It was a rhetorical question. No way.

        Some of these marathons will eventually drive their costs too high to continue under corporate sponsorship, and wiil not continue when there is nothing very exciting about them.

        Eventually, this whole thing will die down and everything should go back to normal. But it's only my opinion.

        It's also my opinion that Runner's World is beginning to suck when they publish an article like that.

        On a related issue - what about that penguin article? Can you imagine having him as your celebrity shoe salesman? How many real runners came in there and told him to piss off?
    • Ray Garraty
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/11/2004 7:10PM - in reply to
      • Ray Garraty
      • MAYEROFF wrote:
        MONEY pays for things like plane tickets and hotels and appearance fees and prize money for .....ME!! (and other top runners)
        I'm pretty sure that marathon prize and appearance money typically comes from the title sponsor, while entry fees barely cover operating costs. That's how it works at Boston, anyway - without John Hancock there would be no $ or race-week clinics hosted by elite men and women in schools and at the expo.

        Don't go giving these righteous lollygaggers who love to shout (wrongly) that WITHOUT US THERE WOULD BE NO RACES!!! any false ammo with which to target those crazy, whiny bastards who, in their obsessive quest to dadgum RACE an ENTIRE marathon, hate having to go 20' out of their way to maneuver around a pack of giggling untrained assclowns marching for the Fight Against Vaginismus Foundation wielding a cotton-candy IVs and hand-held televisions.
    • simething else
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/12/2004 9:50AM - in reply to Ray Garraty
      • simething else
      • and I'm sure that the large non-fitness based companies are going to want to put up $100,000 plus purses and travel money to get their name attached to a marathon because they want exposure with the <1% of americans who actually can run a marathon. Not much exposure for a lot of money... you need numbers.
    • DougM
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:14AM - in reply to
      • DougM
      • I would argue that the increased race entry fees are due to the walkers. It's supply and demand. If people will pay for the event, you can charge for a higher fee.

        The article even suggests that as some marathon directors have pointed out the obvious; more participants equal more money.

        Personally, if I was just going for a walk, I wouldn't pay $20 (5K) to $75 (marathon) just for the privilege.
    • 6packjack
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:21AM - in reply to OR
      • 6packjack
      • OR wrote:
        Walking marathons means that they keep the courses open for a few hours longer for the ass-draggers. This drives up the very substantial costs of roadrace police protection and road closures, etc. This in turns drives up the entry fees of people who actually intend to RUN the marathon. So it does have an effect on all of those who choose to run marathons. We pay $100 for an entry instead of $60 because the course is going to be kept open for 8-10 hours.

        Jeezus: That means some folks would finish an Ironman distance triathlon before a walker finishes a lousy marathon. Go figure.
        i suspect it is the opposite.

        if the race was losing money on the walkers they would not be allowed. the costs may well go UP b/c of the need to keep the course open longer, BUT the revenue generated must be going up by an even BIGGER amount. otherwise the race would not do it.

        the entry fee is probably more a factor of what "the market will bare." that is they charge as much as they can. since people are willing to pay the current rates, even if the walkers went away the rates would stay the same - or go UP to compensate for the lost money.
    • 2:18*
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:24AM - in reply to DougM
      • 2:18*
      • Its time for the members of USATF to step up and do something about this. I propose that if you can not break 5:30 in a marathon you can not finish. Cut off . Out DQed. No marathon should be able to get sanctioned as an official marathon he they can not or will not abide by this rule. All in favor say I. Opposed say Ney.
    • UHHHHH
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:26AM - in reply to RW Basher
      • UHHHHH
      • if you are bashing RW, why do you even read it? I assume everything in there is useless, thus not even reading or associating myself with it. RW SUCKS!!!!
    • Pete
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:26AM - in reply to mc
      • Pete
      • mc wrote:...you'll hear tales of runners having to dodge walkers walking four abreast.
        I do not have any objections to people who rather walk, but there are many instances where they line up inappropriately in the front or are unwilling to yield to runners.
        Um.... how did the "runners" get themselves stuck behind the "walkers" in the first place?
    • Surprise!
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:29AM - in reply to 2:18*
      • Surprise!
      • 2:18* wrote:
        Its time for the members of USATF to step up and do something about this. I propose that if you can not break 5:30 in a marathon you can not finish. Cut off . Out DQed. No marathon should be able to get sanctioned as an official marathon he they can not or will not abide by this rule. All in favor say I. Opposed say Ney.
        Ney. They aren't preventing you from doing anything. By the way, "cannot" is one word.
    • 6packjack
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:32AM - in reply to 2:18*
      • 6packjack
      • 2:18* wrote:
        Its time for the members of USATF to step up and do something about this.
        yes the usatf does such a very good job with everything else they do that we should work to see they get more power.

        we must do all we can to stop people from walking marathons. we must act fast to marginalize our sport even more by eliminating events that allow people to walk and thus we can act to cut off those peoples' interest in our sport. keep them out. if and when they can qualify for boston they can come back. until then, if they show any interest in getting fit, starting a running program or even watching any part of the olympics other than gymnastics they must be stopped and made fun of till the realize their place.

        b/c we all KNOW that none of those that walked will be inspired to RUN it next time out.
    • 6packjack
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:37AM - in reply to Pete
      • 6packjack
      • Pete wrote:
        Um.... how did the "runners" get themselves stuck behind the "walkers" in the first place?
        i always wondered this too. i agree its bad and one can get stuck behind walkers who have no business starting up front at a 5k (they should not start up front in any race) but in a marathon how is a runner getting behind those people?

        i have never had that problem.
    • Real Portland Runner
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:39AM - in reply to Pete
      • Real Portland Runner
      • Pete,

        Many marathons that cater to walkers have instituted early starts (1-2 hours) for walkers before the gun for runners. In some cases, you might have several hundred walkers that the leaders and better age group runners are having to navigate through anywhere between 6-12 miles into the race. It can make tangent cutting impossible and getting water very difficult once you hit that traffic jam.
    • 2:18*
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:40AM - in reply to 6packjack
      • 2:18*
      • I'm just sick of penguins that should not be in this distance. Let them run or wak a 5 or 10 k. Have you ever seen an 8 hour marathon walker at mile 22. Idiots with knee bandages wrap around the legs. Its so stupid of these people. One had a solar suit on during a 70 degree day.
    • 6packjack
      • RE: Disgraceful article in Runners World 9/13/2004 8:43AM - in reply to Real Portland Runner
      • 6packjack
      • Real Portland Runner wrote:
        Pete,

        Many marathons that cater to walkers have instituted early starts (1-2 hours) for walkers before the gun for runners. In some cases, you might have several hundred walkers that the leaders and better age group runners are having to navigate through anywhere between 6-12 miles into the race. It can make tangent cutting impossible and getting water very difficult once you hit that traffic jam.
        i did not know this. i could see how that could be a problem - i would tend to blame the rd for it, not the walkers, unless the walker in question was obstructing in some manner that he should not have been.

        all marathons that i am familiar with all state no early starts so i had not heard of this.