ESPN's coverage of Boston

b0B wrote:

You've never qualified.

You never will.

You don't know shit untill you've done it.

Now f*** off.

b0B

Fuck you you worthless piece of shit.

My best in the marathon is 2:24, I have never done Boston but hope to someday. I know how hard a marathon is and anyone who finishes one (you probably can't) deserves to be commended. However, there is a huge difference between running it and racing it. Culpepper put has put in 130 miles a week or more for a decade and deserves some recognition for his devotion. He is a bad ass and no one outside of the running world knows it.

Would it really have been so hard for ESPN do spend a few minutes talking about Alan since they did it for Mrs. Schilling.

They spent way more time talking about Curt Schillings wife running it in 5+ hours than on the people who actually raced it. Culpepper's 4th was a side note at the end of the story kind of an: "oh, by the way..." type thing. It's sad that yesterday was the best Americans have done in years at the most famous race in America and none of the American public knows. They do however know a lot about Mrs. Schilling.

ESPN wrote:

They do however know a lot about Mrs. Schilling.

...who runs these things to raise money to support her charity that helps raise awareness for early detection of skin cancer, which eventually helps to save lives. I would have liked to have seen more coverage on the elites as well but stop and think about what you're doing. You're upset because they focused on someone doing charity work.

4th place - while an improvement on what americans have done - means nothing to the average watcher of ESPN. i'm a huge fan of running and i can't say i really care that much either. boston is a second-tier race in a fourth-tier sport. mrs. schilling and her run to raise money - while not a sports story per se - is far more interesting to america than culpepper. and i can't say i blame them.

Got home early yesterday and watched Around The Horn. Marriotti did his final word (30 seconds worth) praising her. He said she was the real champion of the race, not the ones who won it.

Makes sense.

Wait, she did win the race, right?

Melanoma is not just Skin Cancer. Good for her and I hope that her efforts will prevent you or some one close to you from ever being dx with Melanoma.

ESPN wrote:

They do however know a lot about Mrs. Schilling.

yes, she's famous and has huge boobs. why WOULDN'T she get press coverage?

If you complete a marathon in 5+ hours, do you actually run at all during the race...or is it a walk-athon?

Just so you know, ESPN did not televise Boston; OLN did.

I hope you did not send a letter.

I only remember Shilling's wife being mentioned twice.

luv2run wrote:

Just so you know, ESPN did not televise Boston; OLN did.

I hope you did not send a letter.

I only remember Shilling's wife being mentioned twice.

You amuse me

I'm not the biggest fan of the "human interest" stories. I found it interesting the announcers noted several times that Boston is the only marathon you have to qualify to run, yet they do a story on a runner who obviously never qualified, just wanted to raise money. If I were a runner who'd busted ass for years but never was able to do the qualifying time when it was much more strict, I'd be bummed now to see all these charity runners sucking up Boston spots and running sans qualifying time. I know, she's raising money for charity, but you're suppose to earn the right to run the race. Something there just doesn't sit right with me.

A "second tier race". Perhaps for the pros who want to win as much money as they can it is "second tier". Boston is first class all the way. For us normal people, Boston has the deepest competition (everyone there is "relatively" good), great crowd support, excellent organization, tradition, prestige and a tough course. Tell us you have qualified for, and raced, Boston (especially on a hot day like yesterday or even worse, last year) and then tell us you think it is second tier.

I don't think it's quite right to call Boston "second tier," but I would agree that it's not quite on the level of Chicago and London right now. (And, yes, I ran it in 2000. And yes, I qualified for it, had a number, etc.)

What are the elements of a high-quality marathon? Boston has all of them except for the really fast winning times. In a few years, when men start running 2:07 there again (and I think they will now that Boston has started offering big money prizes), it has the potential to be the best marathon in the world again. I look forward to that because it's a great--and special--race.

On another note, SportsCenter would ideally make time for both the winners and the Ms. Schillings. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

On yet another related note, I agree that most Americans don't appreciate the subtle magnificience of finishing fourth at Boston. We tend to see things in dualisms: win/lose, us/them, good/evil, etc. Most things--including a fourth place finish at Boston--require an appreciation of nuance.

swamprunner wrote:

A "second tier race". Perhaps for the pros who want to win as much money as they can it is "second tier". Boston is first class all the way. For us normal people, Boston has the deepest competition (everyone there is "relatively" good), great crowd support, excellent organization, tradition, prestige and a tough course. Tell us you have qualified for, and raced, Boston (especially on a hot day like yesterday or even worse, last year) and then tell us you think it is second tier.

no, it's second-tier if you want to see high-level competition. people watching ESPN don't care about all that stuff you mentioned, the people running it care about that.

Yeah, and they're job is to report on sports, not on charity. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that anyone does that sort of fundraising for any event, but it is ESPN, it's not PBS. The focus should be elite athletes, not their spouses.

it's all that human interest crap that is so popular in sports coverage. how much of that are we subjected to during track meet coverage/Olympics?