"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

- JFK, 1962

Switch "go to the moon" with "run the marathon," and it kind of sums it up.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by laker:
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.<HR>

well said, adding, as runners I would hope we would encourage each other.

Andy,

Our views could not be any different on this topic. Remember that there are about 250million adults in the US. 400,000 marathoners. That's 0.16%. Less than 1/5 of 1 percent. Not like everybody's doing it.

I'm with you in the thought that marathons aren't that big a deal...that's why I'm exploring longer races now. But that's me personally, not a blanket statement for the masses. Ask the overweight beginner runner that was brave enough to hit the streets despite all the bullsh*t from hecklers how impressive a marathon is. Ask the person who never had an ounce of athletic ability in their body, but wanted a challenge in their life, how impressive a marathon is.

Somebody else made a great point earlier about supporting one another as runners regardless of speed or agenda. Makes sense to me.

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by runninlaw:
I appreciate early morning races. I have never never considered it to be for the slow people, but to avoid the heat if it may strike on that race day. If it is going to be 85-90, I'd rather start at 7am than 10am.<HR>

what if the earlier start were only for the slow people? My last marathon allowed slow people a 6 am start...(had to be an over 4 hour person). Everyone (and I mean everyone, half marathoners, relays, etc.) else got an 8 am start. Now if I'm a 3:50 person....a 5:30 hour person not only gets to cross the tape first, they don't have to mess with all the people at the water stops, portojohns, avoid heat, etc....in essence all the perks that normally the very elite get. I wonder how that extra 2 hours of policing traffic is affecting the registration price.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:


The fact is, I'm disappointed that finishing a marathon is the most many people think they can expect of themselves. They sell themselves short when they could do so much more. If you see someone capable of finishing college, but they stop after HS because that's the only finish line they ever envisioned, would you be 100% happy in them and patting them on the back?


<HR>

That's a great comparison Andy.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by AndyHass:
"

What is a big deal to one personally, and what you expect others to find impressive overall, are two different things. I am fully supportive of most people, I just encourage people to seek challenges beyond simply crossing the line at 26.2. Often it would be better for people to set goals other than that, both psychologically and physically.

The fact is, I'm disappointed that finishing a marathon is the most many people think they can expect of themselves. They sell themselves short when they could do so much more. If you see someone capable of finishing college, but they stop after HS because that's the only finish line they ever envisioned, would you be 100% happy in them and patting them on the back?

So while really I just want people to realize how much they can do, go ahead and pigeon-hole me as unsupportive and elitist. That's easier than understanding my point I guess.

<HR>

All right, Andy, and no sarcasm here, really, can I summarize your points from your last post, to make sure I do get them, as follows?

1)There are some who expect others to find having run a marathon as very impressive.

2)There are some who would be wiser in choosing other goals for themselves, who are essentially not fully ready for a marathon.

3)There are some runners who are one and done with their first marathon.

4)There are some who are not realizing their full potential (in running or in life), and you would be happier if they knew fully what they could do.

Fair summary? If so, I hear you and I am not going to contest those points.

Here is where we can agree to disagree: I just don't know very many of these people. I know people who have been bit and can't give it up. I know people who have given it up only when their body just can't take it anymore, and I know people who have run one or two marathons and who have been so positively affected by the experience that it energizes how they live the rest of their life and their potential is expressed through other means. We know marathon times are slowing way down overall, but is that really statistically supportive of the kind of sweeping generalizations of the us/them kind that Sherman made in his article? My opinion, no.

Hey, I ran a 3:38 last year at NYC and was in the TOP 10% -- That is SCARY to me.....I feel like I'm a mid-packer, but now it seems that I'm ELITE LEVEL with my scorching 8 minute miles.....yawn. It has turned into a parade hasn't it? At least Boston keeps is more or less honest and I need to work harder to just get into it, which keeps "the" marathon fresh for me.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sightseer66:
All right, Andy, and no sarcasm here, really, can I summarize your points from your last post, to make sure I do get them, as follows?

1)There are some who expect others to find having run a marathon as very impressive.

2)There are some who would be wiser in choosing other goals for themselves, who are essentially not fully ready for a marathon.

3)There are some runners who are one and done with their first marathon.

4)There are some who are not realizing their full potential (in running or in life), and you would be happier if they knew fully what they could do.

Fair summary? If so, I hear you and I am not going to contest those points.

Here is where we can agree to disagree: I just don't know very many of these people. I know people who have been bit and can't give it up. I know people who have given it up only when their body just can't take it anymore, and I know people who have run one or two marathons and who have been so positively affected by the experience that it energizes how they live the rest of their life and their potential is expressed through other means. We know marathon times are slowing way down overall, but is that really statistically supportive of the kind of sweeping generalizations of the us/them kind that Sherman made in his article? My opinion, no.<HR>

Sightseer66:I would go even further from my experiences.

1) The newbies I know who have run a first marathon run them for a variety of reasons, but NOT primarily because they expect others to find having run a marathon very impressive. On the contrary, the people who seem overly concerned with what denton called the extrinsic awards, and overly concerned what others think and what, or more to the point, whom others find impressive, are the people who complain about the newbies ruining the sport because the newbies get as much recognition as they, the more "serious" runners, get.

2) Who is Andy or anyone else to judge what goals people set for themselves? If someone really hasn't trainied enough to complete a marathon without a good possibility of injuring themselves, that's a real concern. However, I don't think that's what Sherman (the article author) or Andy are really concerned about. If someone has trained sufficiently to finish with minimal risk of injury by running very slowly or adding in walk breaks rather than training for more years to really race, what's it to Andy or anyone else?

3} If some runners are done with their one and only marathon, again, so what? But, like sightseer66, that's not what I have seen either. I know people who have given it up because they prefer shorter distances and people who have gotten the bug, many fewer who have given up running altogether.

4) It's #4 that really takes the cake. Sure, there are some who are not realizing their full potential in running, but to make the huge jump to not realizing their full potential in life is way out of line. We aren't talking about going to college vs stopping at high school. We're talking about what people do for recreation. I know a lot of recreational runners who have very competitive or otherwise stressful jobs and put their energy and concentration into work and family and run marathons precisely because they want something that is noncompetitive. If someone wants to cross something off a life list, or run a marathon for charity, or for fun to enjoy the bands, or even stop to take pictures along the way (I remember seeing a bunch of Japanese runners - qualified, not charity, by their bib numbers - doing just that at Boston a few years back), why should that matter to anyone else? Poeple like Sherman and Andy and everyone else, should look to their own goals and let other people worry about themselves.

If they are really concerned about the health of others, I would even go further and say, instead of worring about other participants getting as much praise as you, or the motivations of people you don't know squat about, why not get a little closer to home, and encourage you mother and father and aunts and uncles and friends and even grandparents to get on the bandwagon, join a group, maybe a Galloway group for the older folks, and join in on the fun!