quote:<HR>Originally posted by sue:
8 hours is not a slow runner, no matter how you look at it. <HR>

It's acceptable for 100k, maybe.

I guess I think: more runners probably bumps up the bottom line which can certainly help the more serious athletes. There are plenty of different types of races, so we all benefit a lot by having variety: the large circus-type races and the smaller and either frivolous or serious races or fun runs.

We have a series of "fun runs" around us that I have seen the very slowest of the runners finish 10 miles in 75 minutes. Middle finishers are around 57-58 minutes. $2 entry, no shirt, no nothing. Just a loop course and a guy yelling times. Ribbons with numbers and your 1" x 3" tag adhered to the board. Glorious. These races are out there, too, and they tend to repel the type of runner being discussed.

I don't generaly care why anyone else runs or not, but I'm not in love with claims from people who run the same race as me but in twice the time and claim to have worked 2x as hard for that. "It's not easy for me, like it is for you." Right. Got it. Other than that, it is good when people try to take care of themselves, and it is good that people strive to be the best they can be (those very very few) and it is good that there are still many who can be found that still seek to Compete in this Sport.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by sue:
Having road closures for 7-8 hour marathons for stragglers cost everyone in the way of higher entry fees.
<HR>

Says who? Wouldn't having a much larger number of entrants be just as likely to REDUCE fees as raise them? Since police have to be paid for a full shift even if they aren't required to be there for a full shift, how do you know if it costs anything more to have the finish open for longer to allow a lot more runners to finish? Do you have some figures to back up your claims? Do you know any big event race directors who have said they are losing money on the extra entrants? Wouldn't it depend a lot of how many extra runners there wer IF it made a difference at all? How much more does it cost to have the race open longer vs the number of entry fees gained?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by tigger:
Do you have data on all police forces proving they get a full shift pay? Do you have some figures to back up your claim?

So you're saying now that it IS about money and race directors are not just another name for social convenors? Is this another maryt turnaround?

Didn't you suggest a couple of posts earlier that you were done with this thread? Whatsamatter? Gotta have the last say?<HR>

Can't help myself, I have trouble with people who say stuff that just doesn't make any sense, like Sue's blanket statement:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by sue:
Having road closures for 7-8 hour marathons for stragglers cost everyone in the way of higher entry fees.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so I'm asking her to back it up. I'm not the one who's bringing up money; she is. I have friends who either police officers themselves or married to police officers, that's where I got the information about requiring to be paid a full shift or half shift regardless of how much of that shift was actually worked. I don't know how it varies in other parts of the country or the world, but that's how I was told it works locally and I have no reason to believe I was told lies. I have been involved with road race organizing on a small scale and believe me, a few more police details, IF it really were that, which I doubt, to get a few hundred more entry fees - sounds like it would be a bargain! So, I'm asking Sue again, where she gets the idea that keeping the finishing line open a couple of hours more costs everyone in the way of more entry fees, because I just don't see it. Maybe she has some examples of costs?

Most races that I know don't have full road closures for stragglers, they are expected to run on the sidewalks, so it's no big extra cost. If there are really that many slow runners that they still close the roads for 7-8 hours, like Honolulu, those entry fees really add up So, I'm asking her to back up her statement with more information.

Understand tigger? Maybe you have information to back up Sue's statement?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:

Can't help myself, I have trouble with people who say stuff that just doesn't make any sense, like Sue's blanket statement: <HR>

Ha! With that attitude you must spend a lot of time on message boards! Try this one on for size...


Earlier you said:

quote:<HR>
Marathons have changed. No, the primary purpose is NOT racing, not any longer, not about beating the competition, at least not for the majority of the field.......

......Now it's more about being inclusive, involving many more people, getting fit for the masses, NOT racing for the very few.

The race directors not only know it, they encourage it, so you might say they are a whole lot more respnsible for the changes than the newbies who take advantage of them, or race directors wouldn't allow such huge fields, and they would let in only those who have some possible chance of winning like they do in the Olympics or the trials.
<HR>

So which is it? Are race directors encougaging people to get fit or are they just trying to make a few more bucks?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by lioness1:
Eggactly how I feel.<HR>

I've been scrambling for another egg joke to keep up the sunny side of this thread but it hasn't been overly easy. I guess what it boils down to is I'm going to have to poach one from someone else.

No doubt I'm gonna get fried for this one.


Sorry .....

Tigger,

It looks like the first runner was asking for advice, surely nothing wrong with that, and has decided not to run a marathon undertrained, but to continue training and wait until spring, so that won't fit Sherman's article.

The other runner asking about a taper, again is asking for adivce, and we don't for sure what his training has been like to this point, or his motivations for running, or his speed.

Did you know everything you needed to know when you ran your first marathon? Seems to me you came onto this site looking for advice at one time as well. Do you think your running your first marathon as slowrunner contributed to ruining the sport? Maybe your posts are your penance, like the ex-smoker who denounces smokers??

Just kidding, but sometimes I do wonder about the seeming hostility - doesn't seem like you were all that different from the slow runners Sherman disparages when you first started out, but had tons of enthusiam for running in your posts, and now you seem to be one his biggest "fans" at least in this thread, and your posts in general sure seem don't seem to reflect the former upbeat attitute and and enthusiasm for running. What happened?

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:


It looks like the first runner was asking for advice, surely nothing wrong with that, and has decided not to run a marathon undertrained, but to continue training and wait until spring, so that won't fit Sherman's article.

<HR>

Many people don't ask for advice, or when they do they ignore it. So while this particular runner may wait, the model is correct. As for the second one, I don't think anyone should be running maratons when they don't even understand the need for a taper.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:



Did you know everything you needed to know when you ran your first marathon? Seems to me you came onto this site looking for advice at one time as well. Do you think your running your first marathon as slowrunner contributed to ruining the sport? Maybe your posts are your penance, like the ex-smoker who denounces smokers??

<HR>

No I didn't and it was a mistake for me to run a marathon. It was my first race ever and I used it as motivation to run outdoors through winters that you can only imagine. It worked as a motivator, and afterwards I decided to get more serious to see how much improvement I could achieve. And yes, converted catholics are usually the worst.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by maryt:



Just kidding, but sometimes I do wonder about the seeming hostility - doesn't seem like you were all that different from the slow runners Sherman disparages when you first started out, but had tons of enthusiam for running in your posts, and now you seem to be one his biggest "fans" at least in this thread, and your posts in general sure seem don't seem to reflect the former upbeat attitute and and enthusiasm for running. What happened?<HR>

I see signs that you still don't understand. Sherman doesn't disparage slow runners per se. He complains about runners who do marathons for the wrong reasons, and who are usually underprepared for the task. He merely points to the statistical evidence of slower average times to suggest that a lot of inadequately prepared runners are making a mistake.

What happened? I realized in 2001 that I wasn't going to get better until I learned a lot more about running. I haven't run one since and I don't intend to run one until I feel that I'm ready. Maybe never. It's kind of like writing a final exam. If you don't prepare properly you won't do well. And marathons, like exams expose every weakness.