Interesting, potentially controversial, article on marathoners

[rehammes]

     Everytime I read this article I get a somewhat different impression of what Mr. Sherman is trying to say.  I agree with Rita to a point in that he touts his six marathons as evidence of his membership in a club for 'real' runners.  By saying 'this growing army of giddy marathon rookies is irksome to me' tells me that it is not the speed of the first-timer, rather his mere presense at the event that is bothersome.  I think a person running his first marathon will be 100% excited/giddy/nervous etc. regardless of whether he intends to run 100 or 0 marathons after that one. 
     Also, what exactly is the problem with not checking out your time as you cross the finish line.  You can participate in any number of sports for the enjoyment rather than for some validation of athletic ability.  I play football with friends, but after a complted pass I don't stop to measure how far the ball was thrown, or how many yards after catch I ran for.  If I'm playing one-on-one in my driveway, I don't keep track of how close I am to dropping a triple-double on my opponent.  Clearly, many people participate in different sports for different reasons.  To criticize new runners for not wanting to improve themselves at the sport is very arrogant.  I may not understand why my neighbor runs the same 20 minute loop through our neighborhood four times a week, but I do not fault him for it, at least he's out there doing it.  My goals differ from his and that is fine.  I considered the point that it is annoying to serious marathoners to have to plan for a race many months in advance because they have been filling up so fast.  I am not however, prepared to fault new runners for this.  In a free market such as ours, the consumer will ultimately dictate the rules of the marketplace, with the marketplace being the available marathons to enter.  Meaning, if the problem persists, we will see more and more marathons with qualifying times, or garuanteed spots to competitive runners.  While that may lead to a greater likelihood for me to get into a particular race, it will likely be a different atmosphere than is currently taking place at major marathons, or 'circuses'.  I, for one, enjoy seeing bands and throngs of supporters and college girls willing to marry marathon runners on the side of the course.  It is entertaining to me.  Not that I would be bored otherwise.  It's fun, it keeps me motivated.  I find that I perform best at the races where there are the most entrants, regardless of the skill level of the event as a whole.
    His mere mention of heart-rate monitors and space-age clothing just seems ridiculous to me.  I have both, I love both, and I am glad that both exist because I believe they help me train at a higher level.  Might I suggest that both are important to first-timers even more-so.  Consider someone who has never run a marathon.  Would it not be benefitial to use his heart-rate as a gauge of health during the race.  A new runner would probably not be able to understand what his body was trying to tell him after 15 miles.  I can't even imagine running 26 in old basketball shorts and a cotton t-shirt, wait, yes I can.  I ran my first marathon in that exact outfit and my nipples, legs and underarms were chaffed to the point of bleeding.  I don't know this to be true, but I can only imagine the best runners in the world use these same advancements to aid their training.  Now, if a new runner, or any runner for that manner, buys the latest technology for the sake of vanity, well that's another story.
     If you were to apply his beliefs on first-time marathoners to any other sport, I don't think the argument holds water.  Unless, that is, that person's existence affects my enjoyment or performance.  For instance; I golf, but I am not a golfer.  If I were continually hitting my ball into a group of scratch golfers or holding up their pace of play, I would be out of line.  Much like a first time marathoner jockeying for position at the front before the gun only to run 10 minute miles, or sporting the ipod and paying no mind to the conditions or runners around him.  If my golfing had no affect on those same scratch golfers they would way out of line as to say that I shouldn't be out there.  And let's say that I got a whole in one and vowed never to play the game again, would that be wrong?   Why should anyone else care?
    Towards the end of his rant, he gets to the motivation for writing this piece, 'running was once a purists sport....' based on the assertion that all you needed was shoes.  Well, again, I believe the same could be said for any other sport.  Kids used to play baseball with broomsticks, NFLers and NHLers used to wear leather helmets with no face protection and golf clubs from only ten years ago are almost unfathomable compared to today's.  So what is the point?  If he doesn't want to participate in this wave of new technology or chooses not to benefit from it, so be it, but why condemn those who do.  Does that make us non-purists?  The beauty of running is that you can toe the line at any race you like wearing as much or as little technology as you like and still compete.  To assert that one manner is better than another is arrogant.

[Wilson]

I'm glad to see this discussion on a running forum. I've been slumming at Coolrunning, where the topic was met with a lot of whining and call outs to "elitist" runners. It was fun to taunt them with some Galloway and Penguin are tools of the devil rhetoric, but they took it far too seriously and started putting words in my mouth that I didn't even say, like I was personally offended by having slower people in the race.

My sincere thoughts are pretty close to what people have been saying here. That everybody who wants to run a marathon should, and that slower folks shouldn't be disparged per se, but the marketing of quick marathon training regime, the filling up of races, and extended time on the course were legitimate concerns. So I suggested that we could have a multi-tiered marathon option. A few "elite" races, with qualifying standards and cutoff times. Something for the more serious runners to aim for. We already have Boston, so how about a regional circuit that could include established marathons, say Grandmas or Twin Cities (which always fill up quickly), a west coast marathon (mabe the new one in Eugene) and something in the south or southeast? In addition, a portion of marathons could have medals or shirts for incentive (sub 3, sub 4, sub 5 etc.). Anyway, this was met with predictable scorn, with people saying that the slow runners are the ones that bring sponsorship and interest, "good luck having a couple hundred people in your twiddly marathon..."

[r-at-work]

... So I suggested that we could have a multi-tiered marathon option. A few "elite" races, with qualifying standards and cutoff times. Something for the more serious runners to aim for. We already have Boston,...  something in the south or southeast?

Th National Marathon in Washington DC has qualifying standards, not that big a deal unless you have never run a race... so even for the half marathon you have to have at least one race... Keith Dowling is the RD (elite runner credentials & a truly nice guy)...but it takes time to build a following...it was a nice 'little' race last year, I hope it catches on...
-R

Qualification:
You must have previously completed:

a marathon in 5:00 or
a half-marathon in 2:30 or
a ten-miler in 1:50 or
a 10k in 1:05 or
a 5k in 31 minutes or better (half-marathon only)

[Ryan]

Wilson, I think your proposal could be an interesting idea. The first thing people have to realize is that the slow runners are not the ones bring in the sponsorship and interest. LaSalle Bank would not sponsor Chicago, ING would not sponsor New York, Hancock would not sponsor Boston if these races consisted of 40,000 slow runners. Sponsors are looking for international media attention, which comes from world leading, if not world record, performances.

Maybe a few small sponsors are brought in because their names will be on 40,000 t-shirts or seen by a couple hundred thousand people on race day but the big sponsors are brought in by the draw of having your name or logo seen around the world by millions of people.

I do like the idea of a circuit of qualify-only races. Actually, from what I've heard of Boston, they would have to change things there. I've heard a lot of slower people still get in there through charity groups. However, a circuit like Boston, Grandma's, Houston, and a fall marathon on the west coast would give you a national circuit of four marathons, one during each season of the year, that could be focused on the competitive aspect.

Actually, I found out after Chicago that they do give out calendars to sub-3 runners as an incentive. I think it's a great idea. New Balance slaps their logo on the calendar, includes a few promotional lines for some of their shoes, and all sub-3 runners get free "personalized" calendars on New Balance's dime.

[Mark]

My son recently started running in cross-country at school. When I attended his first meet, I was shocked by the fact that there were only 3 parents there to watch. Over 60 kids were running and only 3 parents. In contrast, the next week there was an early S/F football game and there were over 100 people in the stands to watch. Many more later when the varsity teams played.

I do not think that newbie’s have ruined anything. Yes, they get in the way at races. Yes, they are probably causing cost to go up. But not ruined it.

I think that the problem is that too few people want to watch running races. People are just not interested in the sport of running. Running has a very small fan base, there are a lot of runners, but not many fans. If more people attended races and got enthusiastic about running & runners, then we would have a higher caliber athletes competing. Although many great athletes complete in running, the majority of athletes are involved in other sports. Where there is greater fan participation and more money to be made.

We need to do what the sport of soccer did. They started getting kids involved in soccer when the USA soccer teams were some of the worst in the world. By getting kids and parents involved the level of ability grew. It took years but now we are truly competitive in the international community.

Mark

[r-at-work]

Over 60 kids were running and only 3 parents. In contrast, the next week there was an early S/F football game and there were over 100 people in the stands to watch. Many more later when the varsity teams played.

I do not think that newbie’s have ruined anything. Yes, they get in the way at races. Yes, they are probably causing cost to go up. But not ruined it.
Mark

this is a GREAT point... though I love to watch cross country and probably will continue to go to meets after my kid graduates...

and Ryan...I really hate to differ with you about LaSalle, ING  or any other big sponsor... I think that they really don't care how fast the majority of runner finish, I would venture to say they might A-like a WR so they do invite some elites (and give prize money to tempt the best) and B-want a HUGE race so lots of people(including the media) talk it up... that's why the Super Bowl commercials are so expensive/important... lots of people watch, the sponsors don't care who wins... but that's just MHO...
-R

[Ryan]

Rita, I don't know who's misreading whom but I think you're saying the same thing as me. The likes of ING and LaSalle are more concerned about getting world records and big names so they can get millions of people around the world checking in on their results. Sure, they like a big race but the world media doesn't talk up 40,000 slow finishers. The world media talks up fast times and big names. That's why the Super Bowl commercials are so expensive and pick-up football games all over the country don't have any sponsorship. Lots of people will check in to see what Paula Radcliffe or Paul Tergat do, only family and friends will check in on 40,000 slow runners.

[GTF]

Looking back and pausing to consider it further, I have to disagree with you, Ryan: the article is not really interesting.