Did Phidippedes die in vain?
There’s a curious story on page 1 of today’s News & Observer about long-time marathoners who aren’t happy with the growing number of slower runners in their events. Some of these newbies, say the vets, even have the audacity to walk the 26.2-mile course.
The story is curious for a number of reasons, not the least of which is why the piece, which originally appeared in The New York Times and isn’t about the local running scene, appears on page one in the first place. I’ll get back to that in a minute.
The complaint raised by these veterans is that the mystique of the marathon is no more, that the notion of modern-day Phidipiddes (sorry, no idea how to pluralize that) resorting to walking is anathema to this nobel pursuit. That people who walk some, most or all of a marathon — and take six or seven hours to do it — get the same credit as someone who runs the whole thing. That caused my wife, a non-runner, to comment, “I thought it was all about times, anyway.”
Exactly. How often have you heard someone mention running a marathon and not get asked their time? “I did it in two hours and fifty-eight minutes,” will get a much different response than, “I did it in six hours. Or was it seven?” People, even non-runners, know that a sub-three hour marathon is pretty dang good. Conversely, they’ve got a good idea that someone who required the equivalent of a workday to finish likely took their time.
Which makes you wonder why some of these runners run. Unless you are an elite athlete and your sponsorship is on the line, you are not running against other runners, you aren’t running for a podium spot. You’re running against yourself, to set a new PR. Why the fact that the back of the pack is walking is bothersome baffles me.
Maybe I’m sensitive to the issue because in my world of mountain bike racing, I’m often mistaken for the sweep. Yet never has a fellow racer suggested I don’t belong on the same course. For one, they love having someone to pass. But these guys also realize that without roadkill like me, there might not be enough entrants to have a race. They need me and my entrance fee, they know it, and they appreciate the fact that I’m out there despite the fact I don’t have a snowball’s chance.
That’s a realization that appears to have escaped some runners of marathons, where the situation is similar. Quoting figures from Running USA, the story notes that the number of marathon finishers has risen from 143,000 in 1980 to 425,000 last year year. And it’s the slowpokes driving that boom, as witnessed by the fact the average finishing time has jumped from 3 hours, 32 minutes and 17 seconds to 4 hours and 16 minutes.
Perhaps the greatest curiosity of this phenomenon is why people who obviously appreciate the merits of running 26.2 miles are disdainful of people who are walking that distance. There’s a health crisis in this country: If more people were fit enough to walk 26.2 miles — if more people were even able to walk 2.62 miles — we’d be a far healthier nation. Yet instead of the sub-3 hour crowd sticking around to applaud those who finish in twice the time, they’re heckling them in print.
Or are they, at least locally? As I mentioned at the top, this is from a New York Times story. While it does include a national perspective, it’s focus is on the New York area. I have to wonder what the sentiment is locally. In last year’s City of Oaks Marathon, for instance, only 20 of 728 finishers broke 3 hours, while 37 percent took 4 hours and 30 seconds or longer. Cop an attitude toward the back of the pack and those 20 speedsters can plan on organizing their own marathon. Kvetching about the masses doesn’t make sense.
Which makes me wonder whether the local running community was likewise baffled by the story. Tell us what you think about the back-of-the-pack. Are they the bedrock of today’s distance running scene or are they somehow besmirching the image of marathons?
Share, fast and slow alike.
