Op/Ed on Slate about Marathoners - Jeez! - JP Fitness Forums

BamaDave · 09-24-2006, 10:01 AM

Running With Slowpokes...How sluggish newbies ruined the marathon

I saw this on Slate on Friday and then noticed this morning that someone had posted a thread about it on the Running Times Forum.

This guy seems like an asshole to me. Unless he's an elite (and not an elitist, which is more likely), doesn't he realize that the really fast people probably consider him to be a slowpoke?? Why does he care what the people behind him in a marathon are doing or why they are engaging in the sport?? He seems to think his personal accolades for being a marathoner are cheapened by so many more people finishing marathons these days versus decades in the past.

ODB · 09-24-2006, 07:46 PM

Time for him to move on to ultras and Ironmans. I hope he trips in his next, "race".

gobbla · 09-25-2006, 04:23 AM

seemed to be nothing more than a rant against new people. how sad is that? he gets mad because oprah gets more coverage than the olympian. running is supposed to be "pure", about "running", whatever. people give a hoot about oprah and the olympian isn't doing it for the fame.

UpNorth · 09-25-2006, 06:25 AM

I don't know. There is something inspiring about the guy that put in a 5 hour run giving it his all, and in a way it is more impressive than the guy that can do the same in 3 hours.

BamaDave · 09-25-2006, 12:50 PM

Yeah, he acts like anybody can walk in off the street with no training and run a 5 hour marathon. Give me a break. Most people can't run a block without training.

GG300 · 09-25-2006, 12:55 PM

What an ass comparing finishing a marathon with joining a gym and putzing around. The time invested in the training alone is like having a 20 hour a week part time job. I am tossing around the idea of trying a half marathon next year with no wishes of ever running a full but if I knew I would run into this dufus on the course I would start training for the New York Marathon this afternoon just to piss him off. I also noticed he didn't post up any of his blazing times. Unless you are the guys picking up the barricades on the route who cares if the average time of the race is slower. I reiterate what an ass.

Jimbo · 09-25-2006, 03:25 PM

That guy was never a beginner I guess. Wow.

twinsavsvikingsfan · 09-25-2006, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbo

That guy was never a beginner I guess. Wow.

You know, this was the first thing I thought of when I read the article.

What a dillhole.

T-Runner · 09-26-2006, 01:55 PM

All right, I'll play devil's advocate for a while.

I live in a major metropolitan area that hosts a modest-sized marathon. I have run Chicago and Boston but much prefer this race (about 5,000 entrants) because most of the runners are in it on some level to win it.

What I mean is that there are few charity runners or racewalkers who have tried to slide by on minimal training. Before anyone tries to claim that even minimal training is a lot, let me assure you that I have been approached on more than one occasion by coworkers and acquaintances asking if I can give them a training program that will help them run a marathon training three days a week. When I tell them no, they find something online or elsewhere and go ahead. I know several folks who have finished a marathon under 5 hours without ever running more than 13 miles at a time during training and without breaking 25 miles/week. Hardly the equivalent of a part-time job (unless they run 1 mile/hr).

I am not an elite, nor am I an elitist. My PR for a marathon is 3:02:20, and in my first race, I ran 3:39. In other words, 20 years ago, I wouldn't have even been in a marathon. I think it's great that middle and back-of-the-packers who are new to the sport have a place they can compete. The problem is that many runners are perpetual beginners who enter a race a year for charity w/minimal training, or they complete a marathon as a one-off (something on the "to-do before I'm 40" list). It's great that they're doing something, anything, active, but they suck up thousands of dollars worth of resources to do it, and their accomplishments are honored far more than those of Khalid Khannouchi or any of the other mostly-unknown marathon champs of recent years. Frank Shorter et al. were the heroes of eras gone by, and we know their names at least in part because the 5-hour marathoners didn't exist.

Now, I understand the event marathon isn't going anywhere. Chicago, New York, Marine Corps, etc. are cash cows. But it would be nice if there were a few races reserved for the elite (besides the Olympic marathon). I realize I wouldn't be in them, but then again, I don't get to play in the World Series just because I'm on a church softball team, either. I do appreciate that I run in the same race as a world champion now and then, but I certainly don't feel like it's a right.

And while it may be very inspiring that someone goes out and runs for 5 hours, it's not as impressive as someone who completes a marathon in 2 hours. Just as it would not be impressive to watch Joe Schmoe swing and miss 52 consecutive Randy Johnson fastballs before connecting with one and bouncing it through the infield. Impressive is David Ortiz hitting the first or second one he sees out of the park. Elite ability is elite ability, and it's impressive.

At any rate, I'm not saying the guy's right, but he does seem to be pointing out what's at least partially obvious: the more people who participate in a sport, the more it gets watered down with subpar athletes. Depending on your perspective, that's horrifying, very cool, or (as I see it) just the way things are. It's both a benefit and an annoyance to a mid-level runner, which is what the guy probably is. But he certainly does seem focused on the annoying part.

gobbla · 09-26-2006, 03:12 PM

I could see elite runners wanting more opprotunites, just in general. The author just comes off like sucky runners suck because they suck. Mabey they (we\I) do! It just seems like a very tasteless article to me though. Damn you people for being sucky, you don't deserve to feel good about yourself because I'm better than you. *ick*

BamaDave · 09-26-2006, 04:29 PM

Hey T-Runner, good to see you posting here again. I was wondering what happened to you!

I think it's hard to interpret someone's effort based on marathon completion time. There are people who train very hard for 5-hour marathons. They just don't have the same abilities, they may be older... their body structure may not be conducive to running, etc. Then there are those who can bust out a 3:XX marathon with minimal training. Where do you draw the line between who worked hard enough not to water down the sport and who didn't??

It would be cool to have more marathons that focus on the elites, but it seems doubtful -- too expensive for communities to stage, etc.

Why other people are running a marathon, how fast they are, etc. seems like a non-issue to me. I don't personally get the concept of half-assed training and having only completion as a goal rather than my best possible time, but if other people want to run marathons for fun, as a life checkoff box, etc... it just doesn't affect or bother me. As long as the slower people don't line up at the race start in front of me and screw up my race launch, and I don't put myself in front of people faster than me, it's all good!!

UpNorth · 09-26-2006, 06:19 PM

I won't rebut all that you said T-Runner but I would like to point out a couple of things...

- All of the major marathons are set up for the elite runners. The big money from those events are from ad revenue and the large sponsors. And the top runners are treated well: They start first, get special treatment before and after the race and are generally followed by escorts. Not to mention the big purse. They NEVER see the thousands of others running the race. They could do smaller venues but why would they?

- I assure you there are a thousand inspiring stories in the charity runners, even those who only train 3 days a week. To a recovering cancer survivor, an amputee, someone running for a loved one, even a recovering smoker a 25 mile per week training might be all they can handle. Not everyone is capable in doing a 5-day/50+ miles per week of training but that doesn't mean the runner's personal struggle isn't difficult.

- Some people run it as a test of themselves and there is nothing wrong with that. I have a neighbor (a women, 40+, 4 kids, full-time job) who is not built for running. She has wide hips, feet pointed out to the side and is heavy set. Last year she decided to run Boston for a charity. She trained hard and ran a 3:17. Who knew she could do that -- not her, nobody probably. She is a success story but it could have just as easily been an ugly 5+ hours, but you don't know unless you try. And those with the courage to try shouldn't be discouraged.

I don't mean this as a personal attack against you. You make some very cogent arguments but I wanted to point out some reasons why that Slate author elicited such a strong reaction. Running is a democratic sport and unlike just about every other sport, everyone is invited to participate. All you really need is shoes. That is what makes it such a wonderful sport. This guy wants to take that away. Well to hell with him!

I should also mention where I'm coming from on this. I've been training for 11 months to run in my first marathon (November 5th). I expect to finish around 3:45 but I'll probably be closer to 4 hours. I'm running it for the experience first and foremost. So maybe that makes me a bit defensive, but I don't believe Paul Tergat (last year's winner) cares if I run or not.

GG300 · 09-27-2006, 07:43 AM

As the biggest turtle that posts here I am happy to see that there are more folks that support the effort rather than just purely the result. Sometimes winning does not mean that you come in first but that your effort brings you back to try harder next time. Hopefully the author isn't teaching kids any team sports because as I remember we used to preach something like "It's not that you win it is how you play the game"

T-Runner · 10-03-2006, 09:59 PM

UpNorth,

Points taken, though I think the guy's argument also applies to non-elites: the guys who do have their racing and/or their training fouled up by others (for instance, the 800-member "training group" that runs together every Saturday on the nine-mile loop course around the lake near my home - just try training out there if you're not in the group - they also run the relatively small Whiterock marathon together. Or, for instance, the slow people in Chicago who lined up with the 7-minute milers only to be passed in the first mile by a thousand folks (like me) lined up where we were supposed to be).

As I said, I am/was just playing devil's advocate. After all, when I signed up for my first marathon, it was just to challenge myself. And I'm still probably getting in somebody faster's way most every time I run. I do think running's democratic nature is a great asset. But so are insanely fast runners who are virtual unknowns because the attention is on P-Diddy and the charity squad at the back of the pack.

BamaDave, not to threadjack here, but thanks for the welcome. I've actually spent the last two years battling injuries: broken toe, then a misaligned hip, then a hernia. Post-surgery for the hernia, I battled inguinal pain that was temporarily resolved by overpriced physical therapy. It has since returned. I started a thread in the injuries forum about what I think is a strained hip flexor. It's kicking my ass. I haven't run more than 2 consecutive months in two years, and I can't run right now.

I just changed jobs, and my new insurance finally kicked in, so I'm gonna try to get to a doc this week or next and get things resolved. I hope to post more here in the near future about my decidedly non-elite attempts at a comeback.

Jimbo · 10-04-2006, 10:10 AM

Sorry to read about your probs there T. I know how you feel. Here's to hoping everything gets straightened out QUICK! Best wishes bro.

UpNorth · 10-04-2006, 11:19 AM

T-Runner... again you make excellent points and you've swayed me -- somewhat. If someone is not serious about running in the marathon, hasn't made a dedicated effort to prepare and isn't aware of their own capabilities they have no business running. Maybe I'll reread the Slate piece with that viewpoint and see if I comeaway feeling differently.

However, as I said running is special because it is democratic and part of the price you pay for a democracy is that even idiots have a right to participate. For an example consider how the the current adminisration and Republican party got into power -- oops, this isn't the CE forum

Thanks for playing devil's advocate!

BamaDave · 10-06-2006, 12:19 PM

T-Runner, I hope your injury recovery gets a good boost from being able to see a doctor. I know that must be way beyond frustrating!

I did think of an aspect of "Marathons for the Masses" that I find detrimental. I think there is so much emphasis on the party atmosphere and fanfare (pre and post-race, etc.), that sometimes really crucial things (for racing) get overlooked due to lack of time or volunteers. This includes misplaced mile markers (the Mile ONE marker at Mercedes was off last year - talk about freaking everybody out!), lack of volunteer staffing at critical turns in the course, poor course markings, etc. Or even a mismeasured course, as kmwest recently reported for the Quantico Half-Marathon (off by 0.35 to 0.4 miles!). I far prefer to an appropriately marked and measured course to being able to scarf down a pizza and 50 cookies at the end of the race.

HOWEVER - there are choices out there. No/low frills races do exist, so there certainly is a "race market" for those who want the big marathon party and those who want a well-prepared course. I know in my region, I have very firm opinions about which running club puts on the best races from my viewpoint. Of course, there's always the Boston Marathon... and I'm sure others like it... where everything is good!