Forum Replies Created
208 miles on 22 running days.
Not as good as I had hoped, but March is off to a good start…
I feel celebrity runners are neither good nor bad for the sport. People interested in the sport will have little to no interest in celebrity runners. They will continue to focus on the race and runners. Those who only notice a race due to a celebrity are not likely to had a prior interest in the sport.
I agree with Randy.
I think there are two separate issues regarding the media coverage. One is the coverage by the mass media, and the other is the coverage by the running media. Speaking specifically about Lance Armstrong, the NYC Marathon, and the mass media coverage, I think that without Armstrong's participation, the only coverage would have been a quick mention or television shot of the winners' and maybe a graphic showing the top three finishers.
The exception is NBC's coverage of the race. I watched their coverage (an hour overview, not a full race broadcast), and I thought the coverage was okay. They did spend a lot of time showing Armstrong, but I don't recall any point where I didn't know what was happening with the leaders, and they did show the leaders over about the final mile, so the winners were shown breaking the tape. It was basically the same as most marathon broadcasts, except instead of showing the five-hour marathoner with a human interest story, they showed Armstrong.
I'm sure I don't read as much from the running media as many here. From what I did read, the running media had way more Lance Armstrong coverage than was deserved, but they also adequate coverage of the elites and the race results.
I'm also looking to go sub-3 in 2007. I'm planning to run the Rock 'n Roll Marathon in June and then a second marathon in the fall, probably either Bizz Johnson or CIM. I'd also like to break 1:25:00 for the half and 19 minutes for the 5k, but sub-3 is the primary focus for this year.
In 2006, I ran 3:06:39 in the rain at the Napa Valley Marathon, set a half marathon PR (1:26:46) and I also finally broke 40 minutes for the 10k (39:40).
Thanks, Ryan, and happy holidays to you and your family also.
I'm sure I speak for many people when I say that we appreciate the effort you put forth to keep this page running.
I know what you mean. Our high temperatures have only reached the 50s for much of this week. It's enough to make you want to stay home next to the fire.
I love California! ;D
215 miles for me.
The highlight was a 1:26:46 half marathon, which is 56 second PR. Like many others I went out too fast and died at the end.
My goal is 3000 miles for the year. I'm now at 2566 miles, so reaching 3000 shouldn't be too difficult.
Kevin, congrats on the PR. Even though you didn't meet your sub3 goal, a 5.5 minute PR shows that your hard work is definitely paying off
I made the cardinal sin in running some of my earlier miles too fast, didn't mean to, but I was looking for packs to get in, to help with the wind, and most of the packs were running just a little faster than I liked but I really had no choice.
This sounds like a smart move to me. It didn't work for you as shown by your slower miles after the 20-mile mark, but running 6:50 pace alone into the wind may have cost you just as much as running faster within a group did.
I still am impressed with the logistics it takes to go around the country & run/race…
Rita, why do you find this impressive? He has a motorhome with a driver, so he can sleep while they travel. Plus he has a sponsor and assistants to ensure that everything is taken care of. I've seen pictures of him running on the days when he's running the distance but is not participating in an actual marathon, and he has police support to get him through traffic. It seems to me that his only role is to smile for the cameras and run.
I'm 6'3″, 200+ pounds. People draft behind me all the time. I usually ignore it and just run my own race. As far as my drafting off others, I do it if the situation presents itself. My rule of thumb is that if I draft for over a mile, I offer to take the lead.
the leader stopped in his tracks and stood there until the “stalker” got the idea.
I saw something similar to this in the Olympics during a cross country ski race (in 2002 I believe). The leader had slowed a number of times and the second place skier wouldn't pass him. Finally the leader stopped and made a gesture for the other guy to pass. The second place skier still didn't pass. The leader just took off and tried to open a gap. Sadly I don't remember which of them won the race.
So, if those who favor medals over a prize purse are correct, has running devolved so far that purely narcissistic motivations drive the masses and the race directors who cater chiefly, if not solely, to them and none give a toss about the sport?
I don't think there is a correct or incorrect answer to the question. Each race director making this decision would have to decide what the goal of the race is. Do they want the best of best from the local area even if only a hundred people show up? Do they want as many people entered as they can possibly get, including walkers, people pushing baby carriages, etc.
Anyone living in a metropolitan area has choices of which races to run. You can choose to run with the masses at races that have bands on the course, participation medals, jogglers, and clowns for the kids; you can run small, low key races where you pay a couple of bucks, the RD says here's the start, there's the finish, ready, set, go; or you can find something in the middle. I would guess that if you live, run and race in an area for a few years, you'll learn where to find the best competition and can wisely choose which races to run.
Personally I don't think making the choice to offer medals makes the RD a bad person or is dumbing down the sport in any way. I won't argue that races that cater to the masses, rather then encourage competition add to the sport of running, but I don't think they take away from the sport either.
So, why would finisher's medals necessarily keep a full field coming back year after year while prize money of that magnitude would not?
I'm not saying that finisher's medals are the key to keeping a full field coming back each year, but our only choices were finishers medals or prize money.
When I enter a race, I don't even consider whether or not prize money is available. I know if there are cash prizes, the chances of me collecting one is nil, and I'm probably finishing in the top 10% or so. The 90% of the people who finish behind me are in the same boat as me.
On the other hand, many of the “waddlers” like the medals. For many completing the race gives them a feeling of accomplishment, and the medal is a nice souvenir of their efforts. Plus I believe for many it makes them feel that the race organizers value their participation.
Approximately a month ago, I put a monitor next to my bed so that I could check my HR first thing in the morning. I have not remembered to use it even one time.
I'm going against the grain. If I'm the race director and my goal is to maximize profits for some charity, I'd go with the stinking medal :-.
How on earth would spending the exact same monetary value on everyone-gets-one trinkets rather than on rewarding performance serve to maximize charitable proceeds? The question, as posed, proposes that the $2500 be spent for one or the other and in no other fashion.
if they don't get their stinky medal, they complain and don't come back next year. I guess I wrongly assumed the goal was over the period of years, not one year.
I agree with Sueruns. I think offering $2500 for prize money will attract faster runners, but offering finishers medals to all will attract more runners.
26 Running Days/5 Days off
Ran a 10K PR (39:40) on August 27, finally breaking the 40 minute mark.
That's wild. Can you imagine what it must have been like in one of those houses? You sitting down reading the paper or eating breakfast or whatever and suddenly a train derails basically in your backyard?