NYCRUNS Better wrote:
I know you live in your own myopic world but it might be beneficial to open your eyes up and see what is going on around you. You actually might learn something.
That article does not say how much NYRR charges. It says that the price went up $60 that year. Even if they charge the equivalent of $60/runner, how does that justify a $221/260ish fee, plus $11 for entry? Huntsville charges $60 total. It's obvious that security is not behind more than a quarter of the race fee, and who says it is even that much?
jjjjjj wrote:
That article does not say how much NYRR charges. It says that the price went up $60 that year. Even if they charge the equivalent of $60/runner, how does that justify a $221/260ish fee, plus $11 for entry? Huntsville charges $60 total. It's obvious that security is not behind more than a quarter of the race fee, and who says it is even that much?
I'll be much more direct than others here. Local competitive running has been completely hijacked by hobby joggers who are willing to pay vast sums of money to complete a marathon in 5hrs+ with zero to no training. They then flash their race photos on Facebook and slap the 26.2 sticker on their cars for the "look at me" effect. So if you're suggesting in any way I should not only resign to that but actually be happy about this "growth" you are very out of touch.
Most of us here don't want to see meatheads and tutu-wearers flooding our local races. I run because I love to run and I encourage anyone to take up running to stay in shape and challenge themselves. Most of all it's a sport one can hopefully be active in for their whole lives. So if you can't understand why we feel the local running scene is hurt by all the commoditization and consumerism then you are plain and simple brain washed. Given you do tris, I really don't expect you to understand though.
Tracktruther wrote:
I'll be much more direct than others here. Local competitive running has been completely hijacked by hobby joggers who are willing to pay vast sums of money to complete a marathon in 5hrs+ with zero to no training. They then flash their race photos on Facebook and slap the 26.2 sticker on their cars for the "look at me" effect. So if you're suggesting in any way I should not only resign to that but actually be happy about this "growth" you are very out of touch.
Most of us here don't want to see meatheads and tutu-wearers flooding our local races. I run because I love to run and I encourage anyone to take up running to stay in shape and challenge themselves. Most of all it's a sport one can hopefully be active in for their whole lives. So if you can't understand why we feel the local running scene is hurt by all the commoditization and consumerism then you are plain and simple brain washed. Given you do tris, I really don't expect you to understand though.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
NYCRUNS Better wrote:
The fitness options in NYC today are nearly limitless with fancy gyms all over the place that offer class after class. SoulCycle, Bikram, CrossFit,
What does Spinning or yoga have to do with fitness?
Ever seen a BUFF yoga athlete? A soulcyclist with a nice V-shaped PHYSIQUE that women lust after? No?
Guess why!
Answer: Steroids haven't hit those sports yet?
alapaha wrote:
http://www.outsideonline.com/1980406/why-richard-branson-would-hire-smartest-woman-running?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebookpost
some speculation on what Mary will be doing
Should be interesting - she seems to care about both grass roots/youth and elite - with Branson behind her it could be very good.
(of course sticks in the mud will commence mass grumbling at this point)
Unfortunately, I am not fast enough to quality for NYC, nor am I wealthy enough to raise thousands of dollars for a select charity (my friends are poor, too). I'm told that my proximity to the race (I live an hour away) means my chances in the lottery would be practically nil. The 9+ program is out of reach for me because the cost involved in getting in and out of the City nine times in one year is not within my time or money budget right now.
I can live without ever doing the NYC marathon. However, I can see why long-time NYRR members and other local runners would get annoyed.
You say that the NYC marathon is promoting the sport of running in the U.S. And yet, organizers seem hellbent on using the event to sell lavish tourist packages to folks outside of the U.S., so that they can then crow about what an "international" event it has become. It has become less a race and more a parade of nations--NYC's version of Disney's "It's a Small World"--at the expense of local runners and NYRR members. Mary's "fellow citizens of the world" speeches and the "sob stories" of runners they profile when promoting it are good examples of how self-important the event has become. That tone permeates the local TV coverage--and it detracts from coverage of the elite race.
I understand there's a financial side to it--promising local businesses an influx of tourists who will stick around for a week or more and spend money is a necessary tradeoff for shutting down the roads for a day or so. But it seems to me that, when it comes to NYRR's flagship race, the next leader should strive to strike a better balance between money and members.
pop_pop! wrote:
alapaha wrote:
http://www.outsideonline.com/1980406/why-richard-branson-would-hire-smartest-woman-running?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebookpost
some speculation on what Mary will be doing
Should be interesting - she seems to care about both grass roots/youth and elite - with Branson behind her it could be very good.
(of course sticks in the mud will commence mass grumbling at this point)
This bit of speculation nicely illustrates the growth is not running but physical activity events. It's about people with lots of extra time and money to do an event.
Promoters are very, very quiet about their business. All the hubub and private equity interest suggests the profits are very big.
Not a NYRR member wrote:
Unfortunately, I am not fast enough to quality for NYC, nor am I wealthy enough to raise thousands of dollars for a select charity (my friends are poor, too). I'm told that my proximity to the race (I live an hour away) means my chances in the lottery would be practically nil. The 9+ program is out of reach for me because the cost involved in getting in and out of the City nine times in one year is not within my time or money budget right now.
I can live without ever doing the NYC marathon. However, I can see why long-time NYRR members and other local runners would get annoyed.
You say that the NYC marathon is promoting the sport of running in the U.S. And yet, organizers seem hellbent on using the event to sell lavish tourist packages to folks outside of the U.S., so that they can then crow about what an "international" event it has become. It has become less a race and more a parade of nations--NYC's version of Disney's "It's a Small World"--at the expense of local runners and NYRR members. Mary's "fellow citizens of the world" speeches and the "sob stories" of runners they profile when promoting it are good examples of how self-important the event has become. That tone permeates the local TV coverage--and it detracts from coverage of the elite race.
I understand there's a financial side to it--promising local businesses an influx of tourists who will stick around for a week or more and spend money is a necessary tradeoff for shutting down the roads for a day or so. But it seems to me that, when it comes to NYRR's flagship race, the next leader should strive to strike a better balance between money and members.
Not a NYRR member wrote:
organizers seem hellbent on using the event to sell lavish tourist packages to folks outside of the U.S....
I understand there's a financial side to it--promising local businesses...
This thread is classic LRC. You've got the disgruntled hobbyjogger-hating hardcore runners, brojos chiming in with crappy responses, a NYC elitist who is being trolled to hell, and of course, last but not least X_fit_the_real_douche.
Don't you people work?
Meluvsit wrote:
.
Don't you people work?
I really hate the snobbism (unwarranted and certainly unearned) directed by people here at "hobbyjoggers," but as a New Yorker, let me mention two incidents that lead me to believe that no, there is NOT another running boom, there is just a boom of people entering alleged "running" events, which is not the same thing.
The MORE/Fitness Half Marathon for Women, which the NYRR puts on, has ninety percent of its entrants barely moving before the first half-mile is over. Barely even walking. I wish that was hyperbole.
I contributed to the NYC Marathon charity effort of a neighbor, a woman in her 30s. As the weeks leading to the race passed, I was wondering why someone supposedly training for a marathon was actually gaining weight (no, she was not pregnant). She ended up doing the marathon in about 6:20. Haven't seen her run since.
So yeah, it's not a running boom. It's an "entering races" boom.
Not a NYRR member wrote:
You say that the NYC marathon is promoting the sport of running in the U.S. And yet, organizers seem hellbent on using the event to sell lavish tourist packages to folks outside of the U.S,
and people are more obese than ever. all these fads are accomplishing nothing other than putting money into hedge fund managers operating fake charities.
jjjjjj wrote:
That article does not say how much NYRR charges. It says that the price went up $60 that year. Even if they charge the equivalent of $60/runner, how does that justify a $221/260ish fee, plus $11 for entry? Huntsville charges $60 total. It's obvious that security is not behind more than a quarter of the race fee, and who says it is even that much?
I read the NY Times story about Peter Ciaccia today, which gives me some skepticism about him that I didn't have from seeing him start the races. I'll wait and see, but the article made it pretty clear that he embraces the entertainment and world runner sides of the race, as an ex-music promoter.
If you want to see the hockey stick growth in running, you need to look more broadly to middle distance races and you need to specifically look at the segmentation of masters age runners and women.
Your attempt to show that Crossfit is growing at a uniquely fast pace among fitness activites because its open went from 0 to 209,000 in a handful of years is sort of silly because the numbers are basically rounding errors. And crossfit growth is already plateauing -- I'll put money down that there wont be a open with half a million participants before 2020.
Female race finishers grew from 1,199,200 in 1990 to 10,844,200 in 2013. That's 18+% annualized growth on top of a respectable base. And while crossfit boxes push heavily to encourage their members to participate in the "games", growth in competitive running is largely driven by participant self-motivation and not contingent on membership in a related paid program or in response nationally coordinated marketing campaign.
http://www.runningusa.org/2014-state-of-the-sport-part-III-us-race-trends
The reality is that running dwarfs other fitness activities in size and is itself growing at a tremendous pace. As compared with other sporting activities, its also a relatively low-cost endeavor which means that there is a huge amount of room to capture additional revenue from lifestyle participants and that customers are less likely to be highly price sensitive. This is big business and the sad thing is that before being sold down a river by the likes of George Hirsch and Mary Wittenberg, NYRR was a great community based organization that facilitated runner access to city streets and parks. Now its a proxy for corporations who want to sell back to us what we used to own outright.
I think his post was a little tongue in cheek
