The San Francisco marathon is 300 bucks to enter!

This seems like a really weird race. For the half, you can choose either the “first half” or the “second half”. There’s also a Saturday 5k and a Sunday 5k. Why have two separate races? Wouldn’t it be better if they had one larger, more competitive race?

How the f*ck does that disprove my point? ?

Yes some Californians have moved to Texas but again the people of SF weren't all sitting around bitching about mid America.

LoneStarXC wrote:

This seems like a really weird race. For the half, you can choose either the “first half” or the “second half”. There’s also a Saturday 5k and a Sunday 5k. Why have two separate races? Wouldn’t it be better if they had one larger, more competitive race?

The first half is scenic (used to go across the Golden Gate Bridge), but hilly and slow. The second half is fast and net downhill.

All the leftists in this thread defending the entry fee are part of the problem. Enjoy Trump's reelection you A-holes. No one should have to pay this exorbitant entry fee, shouldn't matter if you're elite or sub seeded or a first time marathon runner. You leftists are outing yourselves like the true Morons you are. smh

If you need someone to go measure out a course and install an auto timing system before you can test your long-distance fitness, then you're exactly the kind of sucker they'll try to charge $300 for it. And guess what! They'll win, because most "road racers" are willing to pay.

Sure, it's not an official time on a "certified" course that you can brag about to - who again? Nobody cares. Go to mapmyrun, plot out a course and tell us about your 2:55 later. Don't make a big fuss about the equivalent of a 2:25 800m.

Bad Wigins wrote:

If you need someone to go measure out a course and install an auto timing system before you can test your long-distance fitness, then you're exactly the kind of sucker they'll try to charge $300 for it. And guess what! They'll win, because most "road racers" are willing to pay.

Sure, it's not an official time on a "certified" course that you can brag about to - who again? Nobody cares. Go to mapmyrun, plot out a course and tell us about your 2:55 later. Don't make a big fuss about the equivalent of a 2:25 800m.

Are you a dinosaur? Today it is all about Strava. And you can make a big fuss, if you bust out a solid 2:25 800m, if it is on a hill segment that long.

you can't brag to anyone worth bragging to about a strava time. You can't brag about a slow time to anybody at all, and it's a mistake to use any medium (like strava) geared toward doing that. Just map out your 42.2k, run it, report back here with your time as humbly as possible, and then say no more about it ever.

I did.

Here's the thing- not a single person HAS to. I've never been able to wrap my head around conservatives getting angry at the results of capitalism doing it's thing. Aren't free markets a core tenet of the conservative philosophy?

Lol why is this about parties? Its about american capitalism you like so much. Everyone tries to make as much money as possible. I see nothing wrong with that. They should make it 500$ if they find enough people to pay it. If you want a life not only revolving around greed come to europe

You’re right wrote:

HateandDiscontent wrote:

F these people! at some point you have to say no to these ridiculous entry fees, if you don't, you're part of the problem. smh

This race is now primarily for the cancerous social media normies. Its crap like this is the reason why Trump won.

Yeah race fees are getting out of hand. Local race $150 for what?

A few free gels and orange slices?

I hate race directors. What an easy job. Last race I only signed up because there was supposedly beer afterwards and coffee mugs at the finish. They had neither . One of those tiny cups the restaurants put salsa in was filled with pasta at the end. That’s all they had. Fukkk you Chino Hills!!!

Races have to pay the city for various things. Policing and closing down the streets and intersections is a major cost usually partially compensated by the race. Can you imagine the additional cost of that and trying to keep the streets clean and safe in SF? Homeless, poop, needles, insane street people. Runners and the race director are offsetting the social welfare costs of this sanctuary city for a couple of days and bringing in sales tax based revenue by staying. I am all for the monies the runners will spend at hotels and restaurants. The owners and workers at these establishments need a shot of revenue. The owners of these establishments have been taking a hit due to the left leaning and sanctuary policies of the city and state that have been causing people to stay away from SF. It’s a real shame and a glowing example of what can happen due to repetitive bad political decisions and no accountability on those who make the bad decisions.

I avoid going into SF and so do my dollars.

doesntmakesense wrote:

Here's the thing- not a single person HAS to. I've never been able to wrap my head around conservatives getting angry at the results of capitalism doing it's thing. Aren't free markets a core tenet of the conservative philosophy?

Amen. The only reason to b!tch about the entry fee is if you wanted to run the race but are being put off of the price.

I doubt all the people complaining actually want to run it (seeing as how much they adamantly hate SF (and it's true... the city smells like pee) so they're complaining just for fun. What a stupid use of one's time and energy.

David S wrote:

It's cheaper if you've run a 2:55 marathon or a 1:28 half (if you're a young guy). Stop whining and run the times.

Honestly I agree with you though, it's a bad race. Not very competitive at the front. Not a fast course. Starts absurdly early in the morning (5:30AM!) which ensures zero crowd support for the competitive runners. The last five miles aren't especially nice and have lots of short hills until the very end.

Had to look this up because it sounded too ridiculous, but you're right! Apparently they've got some new math over there in SF since of course two 1:28 halfs back to back would be a 2:56 marathon, which doesn't qualify for their sub seeded corral. Who wrote these standards? For the women it's 3:20 and 1:40, which of course is the same exact pace.

Also the elite standards are a mess - Men: Full Marathon: Sub 2:40 / Half Marathon: Sub 1:18

Women: Full Marathon: Sub 3:00 / Half Marathon: Sub 1:28

The halfs are quite easy for anyone that's been running a few years while the fulls are relatively challenging. Makes no sense. Elite standards get you free entry too.

Ciro wrote:

18 of the 19 poorest states have legislators where both chambers are Republican controlled. New Mexico is the exception.

Yes, we know it is much more profitable to be a Democrat. Relevance?

Ciro wrote:

Very true. I've never so much anger.

People living in places like West Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Idaho and Mississippi furious that cities like SF and NY lean liberal.

No irony in that post. Nope

doesntmakesense wrote:

Here's the thing- not a single person HAS to. I've never been able to wrap my head around conservatives getting angry at the results of capitalism doing it's thing. Aren't free markets a core tenet of the conservative philosophy?

This is 100% right.

This is the free market at work and this is the cornerstone of the conservative philosophy. Don’t enter the race if the fee is too high. And don’t tell the race promoter what rate he can charge. Free exchange. Free choice.

Don’t act like libs who are hypocritical, uneducated and confused 99% of the time.

We Built This City wrote:

LoneStarXC wrote:

This seems like a really weird race. For the half, you can choose either the “first half” or the “second half”. There’s also a Saturday 5k and a Sunday 5k. Why have two separate races? Wouldn’t it be better if they had one larger, more competitive race?

The first half is scenic (used to go across the Golden Gate Bridge), but hilly and slow. The second half is fast and net downhill.

I ran it a couple of years ago when we were on the West Coast for a family wedding. It still goes across the Golden Gate Bridge (and back) which is cool and about the only positive thing about the race. Tough hills in the first half. I recall it still being kind of hilly until about mile 20ish and then there is one HUGE downhill that gets you back to sea level.

There was zero crowd support and the sports drink at the aid stations had no carbs. I did not mind the early start because I had just flown in from the East Coast.

As a slow old lady who barely squeaked into the "sub-seeded" category based on a half-marathon time, I agree with both posters. My "sub-seeded" status only got me a $50 discount on my entry fee, still leaving it a very expensive race. I live about a 2.5 hour drive from SF so it doesn't cost me much to get there, but the 5:30 am start does require an overnight stay in an exorbitantly expensive hotel.

The "sub-seeded" age categories are pretty odd: 40+, 55+, and 75+. A 54-year-old has to make the same standard as a 40-year-old, and worse yet, a 74-year-old has to make the same standard as a 55-year-old.

I've done both the full and the half before, and even with the expense and hassle, I'm still thinking about doing the full marathon this year. It's the only summer marathon within driving distance that has such a high probability of good weather.

Those “sub-seeded” entry standards are such a mess, lol. Can we give the SF Marathon the official LRC award for the most disorganized race ever?