Talk About Getting "Chicked"...

[Jon Allen]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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".

[Jon Allen]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.

[Jon Allen]

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.

[Dave Holt]

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

[Jon Allen]

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.

[Dustin Ence]

Jon.. How dare you bring up bushwacking.

[Scott Zincone]

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...

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.

[Jon Allen]

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.

[Dave Scott]

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.

[Sasha Pachev]

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.