quote:<HR>Originally posted by rbbmoose:
Since this forum is "Mainstream Racing" and on a "Running" website, I don't think this guy is talking about anyone here. I'm with this guy (and Andy).... The marathon should be treated with respect and proper training... Its not a 26.2 mile hike or something to be checked off your list like running with the bulls... Its an athletic event that required dedication and training. - nobody can run a decent marathon on several weeks of training.

The guy goes overboard on some points, but the basic assertion is one I agree with. And yes, I do avoid the big marathon events like NY and run the smaller, faster races - and also think that the whole aura of Boston has been cheapened by the plethora of charity runners.... so I guess that makes me another elitist jerk.

Ray

<HR>

See, I agree with you and I think you make a well articulated point. But I think you (and AndyHass) are reading your own interpretations into his article rather than reading his blatent opinions. He is not saying the same things you are. He doesn't discuss undertained, etc. He doesn't like slow newbies. If he had a more intelligent comment, he should have made it. This does nothing for me and I will not extrapolate anything from it to save him from his rude remarks. Many people have embarked on the marathon (and running) and have done great things for themselves (speed aside). And BTW, the charity runners at Boston drive me nuts too. But I have no problem with the average, well trained joe to enter any other marathon.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by bigapplepie:
The guy who wrote the article has a 1:22 half-marathon PR (72.1% AG rating), so he is hardly gifted or elite.<HR>

So, it seems like this guy is not fast enough to be an elite and is probably not rich enough to buy those gadgets. So, he's just a poor arrogant jerk.

Seriously, what is being ruined? Do those slow runners make the fast runners running slower? Do the slow runners prevent the faster runners to run in races? That doesn't make sense to me. It is just a stupid article.

I think the faster runners should thank the slower runners so a guy who finished in the 10,000 th place in NYC or Boston Marathon can tell people that he/she beat another 50k people. Otherwise, he/she may just be dead last in the race, which is no fun.

We all have our place in the running world. I do think most newbies and lower mileage runners would be better off concentrating on improving their times at shorter distances than slogging their way through a 5 hour marathon, but that's their decision to make, not mine and doesn't diminish my efforts in any way, shape or form. Plenty of runners would justifiably consider me to be pretty **** slow too, so I'm not about to slag anyone else for their ability or lack thereof.

What really makes me mad sometimes though, are publications like Runner's World or The Running Room store and others who spread so much misinformation that less experienced runners have no way of seeing through.

I realize why they do it from a marketing perspective, but if they are going to put themselves out there as an authoritative voice on running, I feel they have an obligation to be honest about the fact that you really can't run your best marathon on 3 days a week or 25 miles a week of training, or that you don't need the latest GPS/HR monitor/pedometer gizmo to make the best of your training. The blatant dishonesty for the sake of making a buck is what really bugs me.

I can see where the guy is coming from ... Aside from Olympic Trials and other international competitions where else can the best runners compete among their peers without the chaos of the masses being mixed in? The SPORT of running, not the hobby/activity of running ...


I play basketball a lot ... at parks and local gyms ... pick up games ... it's an activity I really enjoy ... but I am not showing up to play at an NBA game with the pros ... and the pros in the sport of basketball have places to compete among their peers readily and frequently available to them ...

I think it's sad, for the top athletes (let's say top 5% per gender) that there aren't more opportunities for them to SHINE and be the ones getting recognition for both their hard work and genetic gifts, just like athletes in other sports ... the part of the article that jumped out at me was this:

***American record-holder Deena Kastor, who won the 2005 Chicago Marathon in 2:21, is completely anonymous***


P.Diddy and Oprah inspired the masses but it seems not many know or care about the top Athletes in the Sport of running ... I think that really stinks ... I barely know any top runners' names, btw ...

I'm thankful that there are many marathons for the masses to join in and finish however they can manage ... if it weren't for 'normal folks' I've met that have run or know somebody that ran in a marathon I probably wouldn't have believed in myself enough to decide to train for this myself ... but I think it'd be great if there was a more separate place or design to the Sport of Marathon Running for those at the top to have the recognition and spotlight they deserve ... I cannot fathom running an entire marathon at the paces these athletes reach ... my fastest mile in HS was 5:28 and there are many female marathoners running the entire race faster than that! I'd be ecstatic to be able to run one mile that fast again ...

anyways .... I don't think such athletes should have to be clumped in with the masses as marathon finishers ... even if they placed 15th-20th or whatever ... those kinds of times and being in that percentile of the running population should set those ATHLETES apart, imho ...

Running is a wholly individual pursuit. We all run for our own reasons. There is no connection between the 2:10 marathoner and the 4:30 marathoner except both are runners. The 2:10 marathoner knows very little of what happens behind them, and the 4:30 marathoner knows nothing of what is happening ahead. My question is, how then could "slow" runners be hurting the sport? I'm certainly not going to run slower whether there are 5 people behind me or 50,000. And I don't really care how much they payed for their gear.If you call yourself a runner, good for you, what that means to anyone else is irrelevant.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by GreenMan:
I disagree on both these points. The NYCM would still be quite a big deal with half the field it has now. I don't have the numbers handy, but its first five-borough running was in 1976, and it was smaller than today then and for years afterward but was still a big deal.

Before that, it was run in Central Park, in Manhattan, not the Bronx.

<HR>

It was moved to Central Park from the Bronx in 1970.

Before that it was known as the Cherry Tree marathon, starting at Yankee stadium, wnet across the MacCombs Dam Park and four times up and down Sedgewick Avenue. The turn around point was a cherry tree on Ogden Avenue. It was basically a warm up for Boston.

Its all in here


Fred Lebow finished second last in 4:09. The book suggests that had he had finished last, there would not be a NYC marathon.

http://This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Sep-23-2006).

LeBow moved it to Central Park and changed to name.

http://This message has been edited by bigapplepie (edited Sep-23-2006).