Fast Running Blog

"Kara Goucher Outruns Everyone, Male and Female, at Chicago Half-Marathon"

http://dailynews.runnersworld.com/2009/08/august-3.html

I saw that- very awesome and impressive.  Good for her. 

There was a guy that was ahead of her without a number that they had to pull off the course, though. Aside from him the field was just plain weak. Truth of the matter, Sean, Paul, and Jeff would not have gotten chicked. But they, and runners of their caliber were not offered enough incentive to be there. I wonder why that guy was running without a number. If they were offering elite entries he would not have had the need. So the moral of the story - if you want to have a politically correct race, go ahead and have no elite program for the men!

No need to discount what Kara did in this race. She was the first out of 17,000 runners. I don't think anybody would suggest she could have done the same against the world's best men. But she ran a fantastic race after two 120-mile training weeks. She deserves respect for a great effort.

The guy without a number didn't finish the race, so what he did is irrelevant. Sean, Paul, and Jeff didn't run the race either, so we don't know who would have won if they had.

Good for her. Hopefully she can break 2:20 in her next marathon.

I am not discounting what she did. I am just saying the field chicking was pretty much set up with the race organization. When this happens in a race with 17,000 people the race director should feel embarrassed for failing to recruit the depth on the men's side to the point where a training run by a randomly appearing world-class lady creates this situation.

Why would they be embarrassed? They got good publicity out of it. What's the point in bringing in some 3rd tier men to run 1:05, when they can spend all of their elite budget on the most well-known female American runner? I literally have no idea who won the RnR Seattle Half, because I've never heard of the guy (and I was in the race!). At least people have heard of Kara Goucher, and she could very well be the American record holder in the marathon within a year or two.

From a "chick's" point of view - I think it is awesome.  I love reading about the races where the Women get an equivalent head start on the men and the race prizes are based upon actual finishing order and not gender.  Some of those races between Deena and Meb have been really great.

Paul - in my book this is a dubious kind of publicity. Equal caliber men racing women with a handicap is great. The field getting chicked because they refused to give sub-1:08 guys comps is an embarrassment. You are right though, many people fail to see it this way. But US distance running will continue to stink, our best runners will continue to get lapped in the Olympics, until something like this is viewed as an embarrassment rather than the moment of glory for women's rights. Unless, of course, we succeed at exporting our perverted values to East Africa.

What are these "perverted values" you're talking about?  We are just talking about running here, aren't we?

Spiritual values or the lack thereof eventually finds its manifestation in running.

1.  Why should Goucher's victory be considered an "embarrassment?"  and for whom?
2.  Please cite an example of someone, ANYONE touting her victory as a "moment of glory for women's rights."
3.  What Jon said.

Sasha, I also fail to understand which poor values (specificially) you believe are being exhibited.

By the way, I don't know that we have any evidence that Kara was given a financial incentive to race. From her description, it sounds like she ran this race because she felt it would best help her prepare for the World Championships. It sounds like that's what 17,000 other runners did (ran a race that suited their goals), and she just happened to beat all of them.



See http://running-advice.com/blog/?p=2679 (http://running-advice.com/blog/?p=2679).

No, she probably was not. She was just out for a hard training run. But the fact that she could randomly jump in a race and win it outright reflects how weak the male competition was relative to the size of the field.  You bring in 17,000 people, and among them there are no men that can match a female world-class performance that is not even a US record. That is an embarrassment. And failure to see that this is an embarrassment is perhaps another embarrassment.

There is an art of getting embarrassed and understanding why somebody should be embarrassed in certain situation. It reflects certain qualities that are perhaps a little hard to define, but nevertheless they are real and essential to success in running. Colleen De Reuck when asked how she felt when she took the lead in the Boston Marathon 2009 responded that she felt embarrassed. I have a feeling many people have struggled to understand why. Do you understand why she was embarrassed? Can you feel it? If not, there is only one cure - train harder, feel the pain, feel the joy of running fast, learn to feel the worth of your performance. Then maybe you will be embarrassed to get the attention at the wrong time and in the wrong context, and you will understand why she was embarrassed.

Regarding spiritual values and performance. It is very similar to the performance of the economy. It is possible for few individuals to have low values and experience financial success. But when low values become dominant in the population the economy collapses. Because there is nobody left that you can cheat, nobody left that you can steal from. Success in running requires humility and hard work. When those values are not present anymore, running performances decline. It becomes statistically improbable for a runner to be  gifted and have proper work ethic and a healthy approach to the sport at the same time. Not to mention the reduction in the number of women that will stay sober and meth-free during pregnancy, which in turn reduces the count of runners born with a gift.

I say it was a smart move getting Kara and good publicity for her to win.

There is a nice sized group of guys in Chicago that could have beat here. I doubt that thery didn't show up because of not being comped the $50 entry fee. There are plenty of races there and this is just a big crowded mess on a hot Sunday morning. It's a race that focuses on a good time for 17,000 people rather than a little money for a few fast guys. 

This is an exaggeration, but nobody in Chicago is running races for the prize money. There are too many good local runners. No single guy would ever have good odds at a guartanteed payday. Very different from Utah where a few guys/girls know that they can show up and be guaranteed a small check.

I've stayed out of this discussion thus far, but want to weigh in, based primarily on what Dallen said. 

Some races aim towards elite, with travel benefits and big awards.  Some races aim towards the masses, with little/no awards and no comps.  Some races aim towards charities (i.e. breast cancer).  Why should we be critical of a race if their focus is something other than an elite race, yet a good runner shows up and blows everyone away?  I don't see anything wrong with that.  Not every race has to have prize money and fast times.  It's not a shame or an embarassment, any more than an embarassment when comparing little league baseball games to high school games to the pros.  Each one has a different focus/purpose.  We shouldn't try to impose our own views and requirements on a race to turn it into something other that what it was.

On a related note, I thought there was some irony that the Mark the Great FUN RUN had prize money with minimum standard qualifying times plus comps for elites.  Most fun runs I've ever seen were laid back, time-doesn't-matter, no prize races.  It's fine that Sasha gave prize money with his own qualifications, but it is interesting that the race was labelled a fun run in memorium of Mark yet still had to include some competitiveness.  There is nothing wrong with honoring Mark's memory by running the best we can, but why does it always have to be competitive and prize-driven?  The race description even said that Mark had an "ability to make others feel good around him."  Can we say we have that same attribute if we are criticizing people and saying they should be embarrassed?

Good job, Kara.

My two cents.

It costs about $3 per runner to do chip timing. If a race director spends around $50K just on timing the race instead of donating that money to the charity, obviously it is not just a charity fundraiser.

But as I said earlier some people, or we should say a lot of people, do not get the idea of competitive running. What frustrates me the most is that runners are willing to honor excellence with lip service compliments but will not put their money anywhere close to where their mouth is. When I have run a good race I do not want to hear from a fellow runner that I am "amazing" and that he "wishes he could run like this" when I know that he grumbles about $1 of his $30 entry fee going towards the prize money to support the "amazement", but is perfectly happy for that $1 or more to go just about anywhere else.  Not that I need that  money to feed my family. Fortunately I have other means, although some other much more gifted runners are not as fortunate, and could really use the money. It is painful to see how little somebody values what you work so hard to develop, and no, I am not talking about how little a volleyball player values running, I do not expect him to value running any more than I value volleyball. I am talking about runners, the ones that spend $400 on the latest Garmin to find out how fast they are running (even though it is inaccurate), that just plain deep down do not care.

When and if I manage to  run 14:59 5 K I do not want a trophy honoring the "amazing performance". I'd rather take a $100 check with a note "Dibaba now needs a 200 meter track to lap you".

Sasha- I'm not saying that elite runners shouldn't be able to financially support themselves or win lots of money by running.  I hope lots of them can.  I'm just saying that we need to adjust our expectations based on the race- Chicago marathon with its huge prize money should be competitive.  Chicago half marathon, with no prize money mentioned on its website, may not be.  Therefore, we should not be surprised that Kara beat the field.  Now, if the race had big prize money and had flown out elite males, they should be embarrased if they didn't perform to par.  But, given the lack of those incentives, I don't think it is overly surprising that Kara won.

I guess I'm saying that not all races are "competitive running".  We shouldn't have the same elite time expectations from a "non-competitive" race as from a competitive race.  And non-competitive races have their place and serve their purpose in the running community.  Just like not every daily run has to be a speed workout, not every race has to be competitive.

Jon:

The problem is that 99% of the races belong into what you called a non-competitive category. Which is an oxymoron to me. If an event is chip-timed it is competitive by definition! If it has awards it is competitive! If it posts results online in the finishing order it is competitive! So perhaps a better term is "poorly competitive". The very reason full-time professional runners in the US have to go on welfare unless they are top 10 in the nation is that 99% of our races are poorly competitive. And the sad thing is the money is there to make them properly competitive, the money is already in the race, but 99% of the time it flows just about everywhere except the competitive aspect. The root cause of that is "everyone is a winner" mentality among runners. We want to be faster for ourselves, but we do not appreciate it when somebody is faster than us. The irony of that mentality is that it is impossible to reach excellence when you do not appreciate it. So we end with the average marathon finish of 4:20 among men, and 4:50 among women, when the potential is about an hour faster. And at the top we give most of our talented runners a choice - sell Pepsi 60 hour a week (or do something of similar nature) and perform kind of good, or shine on the roads and live off welfare.

I saw a Pearl Izumi add related to this yesterday.  It talked about how there are more marathoners than ever, but the average finishing time has increased by an hour from a few decades ago.  The basic premise is we need more runners...

The website is www.wearenotjoggers.com.  Funny premise, made me laugh.

I got a perfect x-country runner!  No surprise there!

I got a perfect little trail runner!  Excellent!  Lucky tyke.  Although I was trying to put the things for a marathoner, but trail runner is much, much better.

Jon.. How dare you bring up bushwacking.

I think I mentioned this on the forum before when this came up.  When I was running in the 80's I do not remember seeing too many walkers at larger races.  But when I got back into running in the 2000's I was shocked at how many people showed up just to walk a running race.  I think this is why the finishing times have increased more.  And more power to people who show up to walk.  Its the participation and not the competition that counts for many.

Very true, Scott.  Although I wasn't running in the 70's, they talk about how the only marathoners were all runners, with almost everyone finishing in under 4 hours.  Now, there are lots of walkers and run-walkers, which is great.  But the result is that marathons have turned from running competitions into "finish it so you can say you did it" type of affairs, in general, where everyone has an aunt or friend who has done one.  Good from a public health standpoint, not so good from a high level of competition standpoint.  It is what it is.

I wasn't running in the 70's either but my mom and dad and younger brother [who did Des News Mar in 4:20 at 11 yrs old] ran a few. At that time Des News had the cutoff at 5 hours and I believe the Brigham City Mar had the same thing. I assume that was common at that time.

I am not sure if covering the marathon distance in over 5 hours is good from the public health point of view. At least for myself, I do not see any running effort lasting that long as contributing to my health.

Maybe taking 45 minutes to cover a 5 K is. Even then, I would still be concerned by the average 5 K finish time being 45 minutes. On the surface it sounds all rosy - people are out there to exercise that otherwise would not. Looking deeper into the closet we find ugly skeletons.  If it takes somebody with both legs functional who is younger than 80 that long to cover a 5 K chances are the only time this person exercises is during that 5 K. And if that is the case the contribution to public health from the effort is next to zero.

I think we would greatly benefit from going back to the 5 hour cut off in marathons. Sure, some people's egos will suffer. But finishing a marathon would begin to mean something again. And it is not like your very average even very untalented runner could not break 5:00 if he really put his mind to it. So instead of jumping into a marathon before he is ready to prove a point  he would follow a healthy progression. First break 30:00 in a 5 K. Then 10 K under 1 hour. Then half in 2:10. Then start thinking about the marathon.

For a side benefit the cost of organizing marathons would go down as well. One hour less of police protection. Less food/liquids on the course as well.