Interesting, potentially controversial, article on marathoners

[Ryan]

I saw elsewhere a discussion of this Slate article about marathoners. If you just read the article, it's needless to say that some people have very strong opinions about the article.

While I agree with some of the criticism of the article I've seen, I have to say I don't think it's totally off base. The thing I most agree with is something that should be no secret, the injury concern. This is something I've preached for as long as I can remember discussing marathons. To put it bluntly, people who rush into a marathon with little or no prior running experience are greatly increasing their risk of injuries due to the fact that they haven't taken the needed time to build up their musculoskeletal strength, something that can't be rushed. They get hurt, they decide running is nothing but a pain filled pursuit, they quit running right after the marathon and tell all their friends how painful and unpleasant running is. This, of course, isn't true universally but it's true more frequently than some people realize. If these people set smaller goals like a 5k, 10k or even half marathon to start and saved the marathon for when they were more adequately prepared, I have no doubt that more would find the joy in running and would stick to it, whether they did so as fitness runners or developed into competitive runners.

[GTF]

I doubt the criticisms you cite could be terribly valid.  The author is essentially spot-on throughout the entire piece.  This happens with anything which has inherent original qualities that find growing popularity among the unversed masses, the mainstream basically waddles in and tramples down the intrinsic qualities and leaves it a watered-down gimpy ghost of its former self.  The article may amount to so much (unconstructive) kvetching, though, as there seems to be nothing that can really done to reverse the on-going slump in the sport -- only a societal or significant underground shift in the right direction can restore the luster than has been lost.

[snowski12000]

 After reading the article on marathoning I understand the concern about the here today gone tomorrow runner. I've worked hard for the past 3 years  to get to where I am today, not that I'm in a class with many of the runners on this forum, never ran xc in HS or college. I just run because I want to. If you really love to run then why be concerned about those who come and go. I don't concern myself with those walkers or those that are to slow to keep the pace, I worry about how to improve and catch someone better then me. Set some goals and leave the rest behind. As we get older I think we should try to move up the ladder in our age group then try to maintain that position because there is aways someone out there trying to catch you. You have to continually work hard to gain the rewards and keep them. Ski

[GTF]

If you really love to run then why be concerned about those who come and go.

Perhaps you do not understand.  For quite a few of us, our interest in and enjoyment of running goes well beyond merely our own participation as athletes.  How rare is it for people to consider things greater than themselves?

[r-at-work]

the author of the article had some valid points  that have been beat into the ground and that I agree with... however, he makes a big deal about having run 6 marathons, if you check out marathonguide.com, none of them recently...he just seemed mighty full of "whine" to me... like HE misses being able to run his sub-3 races and therefore it's the slowpokes fault...

the other thing he talks about are those glorious '80s as if Shorter & Rodgers were rock stars, I'll bet they were almost as anonymous as Deena & Meb... that's just the nature of marathon running in America...yeah, it would be nice to be the world power in marathoning (again) but I think we have to be gracious to those at the top who ARE rock stars in their country, where running is more recognized...

-R

[GTF]

he makes a big deal about having run 6 marathons

He does not.  It is extremely evident that he mentioned his background in marathons in a single, short line to give context for his views.

if you check out marathonguide.com, none of them recently

So?  It seems sadder that someone would bother searching to find out how fast the author has run his marathons and when, seemingly as if the reader wants to take it to a personal level that has nothing at all to do with the main idea. 

...he just seemed mighty full of "whine" to me... like HE misses being able to run his sub-3 races and therefore it's the slowpokes fault...

What passages implied that even the slightest bit?

the other thing he talks about are those glorious '80s as if Shorter & Rodgers were rock stars, I'll bet they were almost as anonymous as Deena & Meb...

How many SI covers have either Deena or Meb been on?  Just realize this: Shorter and Rodgers were NOT overrated, and incidentally the same goes for Joan Benoit Samuelson.

that's just the nature of marathon running in America...yeah, it would be nice to be the world power in marathoning (again) but I think we have to be gracious to those at the top who ARE rock stars in their country, where running is more recognized...

Nice non sequitur. 

[rehammes]

I guess I personally don't care if 9 of 10 first time marathoners never run again.  If that one decides running is something he can no longer live without, wouldn't that be a victory?  I ran my first marathon on a crash course, half-a**** three week program and it hurt quite badly.  I did not check any list when done but rather figured that with some actual training this might be fun. 
With the exception of those who set out to walk a marathon, I think anyone should feel a sense of accomplishment after completing 26.2 miles, fast or slow.  I don't hold it against them if they chose not to run again as I don't think it affects me.
However, if the increase in inexperienced runners causes a surge in the registration fees for marathons (which maybe it has now that I think about it) that might change my opinion somewhat.  I have not personally experienced this surge in fees as I have only been running road races for four or five years.
Good topic though.

[r-at-work]

How many SI covers have either Deena or Meb been on?  Just realize this: Shorter and Rodgers were NOT overrated, and incidentally the same goes for Joan Benoit Samuelson.

true... they got SI covers... so did Secretariat & Funny Cide, but they probably would still not be recognized by the average person in this country, or even the average sports minded person, maybe not even the average (horse)racing enthusiast...

while you were right to bring me to task for considering that marathon runners are like rock stars in other countries I'm not sure that just because an athlete gets their picture on the cover of SI it means they are recognized by many in this country... I really do agree with what the author said about celebrity marathon pariticipants getting more "media buzz" for just finishing as opposed to the winners/top places...

and yeah, it's sad that I look up peoples times... but I have found that occasionally it can give some insight into their point of view...
-R

[Ryan]

Out of curiosity, what does being gracious to those who are succeeding at a high level have to do with being disappointed with the precipitous drop in performances by those from our country? Heck, if we had done nothing but maintained the performance level Americans were running at in the early to mid 1980s, we would still have nearly the same number of sub-2:20 marathoners right here from this country as you see from Kenya and more than any country but Kenya.

[r-at-work]

Out of curiosity, what does being gracious to those who are succeeding at a high level have to do with being disappointed with the precipitous drop in performances by those from our country? Heck, if we had done nothing but maintained the performance level Americans were running at in the early to mid 1980s, we would still have nearly the same number of sub-2:20 marathoners right here from this country as you see from Kenya and more than any country but Kenya.

being gracious has nothing to do with being disppointed with the precipitous drop in American performances... but possibly realizing that trends in performances hold for America just as for the rest of the world... other factors, like the money an athlete can make at another sport, wars, boycotts of events can make it appear that this country has lost it's 2:20 runners... we do have a huge & diverse gene pool in this country... I am saddened by the lowering of standards from fast to finish...

I do think that we need to separate the race & event/walk for fitness/celebrity issue... It's a shame that Volksmarches couldn't get the media attention that races do... then at least all those 'slowpokes' would stop annoying those who want to race...
-Rita

[sueruns]

I guess my complaint and how it affects me, is that marathons are filling up way too quick.  I'm registering for fall marathons before I've run my spring marathon.  It's hard to know if I'll be non-injured and peaked 8 months down the line.   Some of the faster marathons are lottery or closing within days.  It would be nice if some of the "fast" courses would leave an open door for late entrants that meet some type of time standard.  It doesn't affect the elites because a race will gladly take them at any point.  I think it affects competitive age-groupers that hit a "snag" and need to find a marathon a month or two after their goal marathon and can't find any open.   

[GTF]

true... they got SI covers... so did Secretariat & Funny Cide, but they probably would still not be recognized by the average person in this country, or even the average sports minded person, maybe not even the average (horse)racing enthusiast...

Yet another non sequitur.   

[GTF]

I guess my complaint and how it affects me, is that marathons are filling up way too quick.  I'm registering for fall marathons before I've run my spring marathon.  It's hard to know if I'll be non-injured and peaked 8 months down the line.   Some of the faster marathons are lottery or closing within days.  It would be nice if some of the "fast" courses would leave an open door for late entrants that meet some type of time standard.  It doesn't affect the elites because a race will gladly take them at any point.  I think it affects competitive age-groupers that hit a "snag" and need to find a marathon a month or two after their goal marathon and can't find any open.   

No, it also affects 'elites' as well, not all races welcome them with open arms at all times.  It certainly is an issue among better runners, there have been cases where OT qualifier chasers got shut out of one favorable marathon or another because the TiT penguin crowd went in and gobbled up a huge chunk of entries.  In one particular instance, a fellow who was in the top 5 (2nd, IIRC) in a certain marathon tried the next year to get a comp'ed entry for just the half-marathon the following year and the obtuse organizers of the shufflefest in question quickly dismissed the query.  It may be time for faster runners, many of those who actually care about performance, to quasi-unionize (perhaps on a regional level) and target smaller races on favorable courses with their support rather than continually acquiesce to the ostensibly greedier event organizers.

[Ryan]

Sue, that's actually an idea I raised when the topic of rapidly filling up marathons came up before. I suggested the idea that they could allow open entry for everyone that would close once filled up. Then, keep a certain number of entries open for a longer period of time.

For example, Chicago gets roughly the same number of people entering with competitive or faster seeds every year. Let's say they get roughly 5000 people every year qualifying as competitive or faster. They could then open up registration for 35,000 slower than competitive entries that would still be first come, first serve. In addition, they could say anyone who qualifies for a competitive or faster seed can register up until a certain date, say 1-2 months before race day. This would reward those who have reached higher standards of performance, lead to less no shows on race day, and probably over time increase the number of faster runners they get because people would choose to enter Chicago rather than a marathon they had to register for several months in advance.

[flightless]

This topic is always dangerous to wade into, but I will. If I had to be concise I'd say it's not about speed, it's about sport. We shouldn't criticize individual people for the speed they run, but it is completely OK to worry that in the aggregate the sport is being depleted by not enough individuals treating running as a sport.

We have to acknowledge that running is both a recreation, and a competitive sport. One of the great things about the activity is that it is open to everyone, it is easy to start, and you can continually choose how much you make running a recreation or a competitive activity.

I think it is great that lots of people are participating in running as a recreation. For the most part so long as they enjoy it that's all for the best. It's also mostly true that individually the people chasing times and places are not that put out by the rise in recreational non-competitive entries (though the complaint about races filling up early is legitimate).

But for running to be a competitive sport you have to have sufficient numbers that are taking it seriously as a sport. There is abundant evidence of the drop-off in competitive depth in western countries (this is not unique to America) even though at the absolute top end of the sport internationally competition is deep and wide.

I don't think it's totally unreasonable to connect the promotion of running as recreation only to the fall in competitive depth (below the international level). People who come through the sport as high school and college runners know that it's a competitive sport. But there are lots of people who take up running later in life, and if what they see in race promotion and the media is the message that running is just a recreation it's not surprising that people don't take it seriously as a sport. For example, the Star Tribune yesterday had a full-page spread on 5 people running Twin Cities next weekend. Only one had a time goal. Perhaps they'll have more on the top end of the field later, so I will reserve some criticism. But this was the public face of our sport.

Sometimes analogies are useful. I don't think that cycling, swimming, triathlon or cross-country ski-ing (which are comparable sports to running) have been as diluted as running by recreational runners who aren't interested in the competitive side. Certainly they have proportionately more races in those sports which are races for the sake of races, and not vehicles for charity fundraising.   

If we were to make analogies to other sports, one could compare the numbers of sub 2:X0 marathoners in the 80s with now, and make some comparison with the number of minor league ball players hitting some decent average. That's how other sports fans will understand our concern. If the number of players hitting 0.300 in the minor leagues had more than halved in twenty years that would be a huge decline in baseball standards. That's what has happened with America's sub 2:20 male marathoners if we take that as an imperfect index of competitive depth. Its quite likely the decline has been even worse between 2:20 and 3:00 since people around 2:20 have some financial incentive to keep going.

I think that people would enjoy running more as a recreation if they built up to marathons slowly, and that more would become competitive runners if they slowly increased their race distances. If you're going from 0 to 26.2 in 6-12 months it's difficult for most people to also learn to race.

There's a lot of money invested in, and to be made from, the current focus on recreational marathoning. It ain't changing anytime soon unfortunately.