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.
Well said Joe! As owner and instructor of a small bootcamp,I can tell you how excited the ladies are when as their fitness improves, they begin to notice some of the exercises are easier. Many comment on their how their energy levels are much improved and everyday tasks are better. They only look at themselves.
To quote George Sheehan,writer and physician”Exercise may not add years to my life but life to my years” This sums it up for me.
Exactly, isn’t that the point of a marathon?
Thank you for stating so well what I found objectionable about the article and the elitism.
A back-of-the-packer with the forever goal of moving up in the ranks
Folks run in marathons and participate in other such events for different, personal reasons – and whatever those reasons are is fine by me…good times or not.
One thing this world does not need is ‘exercise snobs’.
OK, so I am a S-L-O-W runner, but I do consider myself a runner. Therefore, I will comment. I finished the Houston Chevron Marathon with a time of 4 hours and 42 minutes. When my orthopedist heard me say that, he responded, “Oh! So you walked it?” I was stupified. I am slow, but I most certainly did not walk. At all!
Maybe what I do is considered “jogging” by the fast people, but I am proud of the hours of training I do. I have to get up at 4:45 AM to squeeze running in before kids awaken and my job begins, and all I have is three days per week to get it done.
So, to anyone who tells me I’m demeaning the sport of marathoning, I say, “Shove it, buster.” I’m a 41-year-old asthmatic mom with the heart of an 18-year-old and the will power to keep going, even if I’m nowhere near qualifiying for Boston. Here’s what I’d like to know: would you dare, if you saw a weak reader struggling through Hamlet in a 10th-grade classroom, say, “What a loser! You’re demeaning classic literature! Go home and let the experts read Shakespeare!” Or would you say, “Way to give it your best shot. Keep working. You’re learning.”
There’s enough room on the road for everyone, literally and metaphorically. Great runners like Hal Higdon and Jeff Galloway understand this and encourage, as well as train, us slow people. Those who judge the tortoises are forgetting that there are plenty of venues for the elite. Let the rest of us have our victories, too. No matter how long they take.
I trust you got a new orthopedist — after getting him to help you extract your foot from his backside.
Ha! I just hate the idea that some people think that if you’re not perfect at something, you should not even try it. What a ridiculous notion! I can’t remember which elite runner it was in Runner’s World who once pointed out that he has never in his entire life run for 4 or 5 hours straight. He acknowledged the courage and persistence that it takes to run that long, no matter how slowly, and he pointed out that there are little “gold medal performances happening all the time” by amateur athletes when they accomplish their marathon goals (I hope I remember his words).
Good bit of discussion on this article on the NYT blog too
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html
Several reactions were in print edition on Sunday too.
I just heard of a study where two groups of students were given a test. When finished, group A students were told “you are exceptionally talented and smart.” Group B was told “you are such hard workers.” Then they gave them a 2nd test that was beyond their ability. On the 2nd test, Group B did better than Group A.
Yes, exactly. Read the book “Classroom Instruction that Really Works” if you want more about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. There’s a whole chapter about how motivation is spurred by certain comments and marred by others.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if the N&O had a reporter who could have brought that kind of context to the marathon story? This post reminds me of all that’s been lost around here.
Now, Kristin …
I was annoyed at the article in the N&O regarding runners that don’t finish it in a certain time frame. I am not a runner ( I hate it. I cuss the whole time) however I have respect and admiration for those that run any length and any time because they are moving their bodies and giving it a try. I have a good friend that has run five marathons and she ran her personal best a couple of weeks ago in the Chicago marathon at 5 hours and 10 mins! Sure there were alot of people that finished before her and there were a ton of people that finished after her. The fact is this person has spent every Saturday for the last six months getting up at 6:30am and training. That is committment and dedication and perseverance. Anybody that attempts to do 26.2 mile of anything should be rewarded and not beat down. I was there at the finish line when my friend finished and loved the energy that was everywhere as others crossed the finish line. It ALMOST made me want to start training for one but…then I saw a guy passed out on the ground and decided I was a better as the ground crew.
I admire, and am amused by, your honesty, Chris. I think it helps to put that marathon distance — 26.2 miles — in perspective: That’s about the distance around Raleigh’s Beltline. I don’t care if you’re running or walking, that is a long, long way.
I agree. With the health crisis in this country just getting out there, no matter the pace, is something that should be rewarded. These athlete snobs really get me riled up. My only gripe about slower runners in a race: So many people lie about their times so they can start at the front, even though they know they will be bringing up the back, leaving the more competitive/faster runners, to play dodge the slowpoke.
I applaud anyone who makes the decision to put down the bag of chips and get up off the couch to run or walk a race.
What seemed to be missing from the perspective of the author of the times article was that the effort required for people to do their best is no less if their best is 6 hours than if it is 3 hours. Most, if not all of those 6 hour marathoners spent many long hours training. They most likely trained at least up to an 18-20 mile “jog” or fast walk. (a 6 hour marathon requires a 13:45 per mile pace…not a stroll in the park, by any means). That implies several weekends with 4-5 hour training efforts. That is a big commitment and an effort that deserves the admiration of others.
Most marathons raise money for charity. I’m glad more people are participating if for that reason alone. Instead of putting down the slower, but none the less hard working runners, why don’t we pay attention to what kind of a difference they are making? Why don’t we give the winner’s medal to the person who raises the most money for the cause? Wouldn’t that be a hoot!
I’ve had the pleasure of volunteering heavily in the past 8 years with the Galloway program as a coach, president and board member of NC Roadrunners Club, and now as the state rep for Road Runners Club of America.
I’ve run alongside people of every speed and ability, and I say if they are running, good for them!
The only thing I will on the other side is that oftentimes slower runners or beginning runners don’t necessarily follow the etiquette of road racing, and it can cause a lot of anger from the other runners when walkers and slower runners line up near the front, walk or run 6-8 abreast blocking the path for people who are trying to pass, etc.
RRCA has a great brochure that is good reading for everyone at http://www.rrca.org/programs/education/etiquette.pdf
That is a legitimate concern, Mike, about slower runners/walkers lining up at the front of the pack and impeding the progress of the faster folks. Interesting that not one of the complainers in the Times article mentioned that; their concerns seemed focused on the image of their event being tainted.
Perhaps it doesn’t occur to the slower runners and walkers that they shouldn’t be starting up front? Years ago, I ran the Bolder Boulder, a 10K that, at the time, had 16,000 entrants. They started us by what we estimated our pace would be and it worked remarkably well. Even though I was running in a mass of people, my pace for that race was about the same as it was in less crowded races.
I completely agree that it is about education Joe. I’ve encouraged the NC RRCA clubs to email that etiquette brochure to all of their race participant in the week before the event, and I know many clubs have. In fact, there is nothing to restrict non-RRCA races from sharing that brochure around – it’s all for the best of the sport!
I have run into people who have said “I paid the same as everybody else, so I’ll line up where I want!”, and I’ve run into people walking 8 abreast that have told faster runners to go around and tough if they don’t like it, but I think for 90% of the people it is just that no one has taken the time to explain the etiquette to them.
As participants in this sport, I think it is on all of us to share the traditions and etiquette of our sport with the new folks coming in.
Good comments Joe. Having been besmirched by reporters who look for negatives about an event rather than all the positives, I often wonder why a reporter would even think about writing an article like that.
I’ve been running races from a mile to 100 miles for over 30 years and never have I heard anyone do anything but cheer for those that are running behind them. Certainly those runners are not doing anything to slow me down so why would anyone want to do anything but encourage them to finish. It’s the basic principle of good sportsmanship.
I got started in running during the first running boom in the late 70’s when it was reported that more than a million marathoners were encouraged by the successes of Frank Shorter and company. Later, when the running boom seemed to lag, the Galloway program encouraged people to get off the couch and gave them a program of running and walking that further enticed people to take on the marathon quest. And in the last decade there has been a bigger boom in female runners getting more involved with races of various distances, even up to 100 miles.
Isn’t that great! The desire to compete is hopefully going to have a big impact on the improved health of many more people. No Limits!!
I trust that not *all* of the reporters you’ve dealt with have had such a negative attitude, right? Right?
No Joe. You truely are an exception. Perhaps being more outdoors oriented and aware of the various sports gives you a different perspective. I would go so far as to say that a question like that would probably not even cross your mind. I would suspect that you would be writing about the tremendous increase in runners who are opting to go out to take the challenge of doing a marathon. Kind of like trying your first Century. Or, maybe a Cross-State Ride. Or even more extreme, how about tackling the Appalachian Trail. Running a mere marathon or even 100 miles pales in challenges to that and yet I know people who have completed the AT, the PCT and the Continental Divide Trail.
A couple of those reporters were TV types.
Take care,
Joe
I live in a great little neighborhood. We’ve formed a group of runners/walkers. On Sunday 20 of us will be running either the half or full marathon in Raleigh. Some of us are experienced marathoners looking to improve our times, some are running for the first time, many somewhere in between. Our slower runners will be rooting for the faster ones to be successful in their time goals, and our faster runners will be waiting at the end for the rest of the group as they complete their first long distance races. Along the long road it takes to get to race day, we’ve all encouraged each other and commiserated about the aches and pains and fatigue we all experience at some point. I have to believe that the runners quoted in that story were the exception by a long shot.
Speaking as someone who used to be a faster marathoner (sub-3, anyway), I think that the premise of the article was a ridiculous, non-issue. Almost all runners admire everyone who gets out and finishes a marathon, whether it is a three hour or a six hour time. I seem to recall this issue of-fast-versus-slow getting a lot of press ten to fifteen years ago – maybe the NY Times writer needed a quick column and was trying to figure out how to have the career accomplishment of getting on the front page of the N&O. All any runner should expect of their compatriots is proper etiquette on race day.
I am impressed with anyone who trains for and completes a marathon – regardless of their time.
Wow,
Not even in my years in the Marine Corps where there is an operational reason to make the slow runners keep up did I hear such snobbish and gaulish trash as comments in the N&O article. Even in the corps, all the screaming, demeaning, and pushing was really to motivate beyond what the runner thought capable of him/her self. It was done out of really wanting to see the person excel and grow. What I read in the article is like saying if you aren’t good enough at basketball to play semi pro, then you should not play at the Y, etc. Those few boorish runners should stick to the elite races and leave the others to the people who know what running is all about. Or they should just quit and just form a little club where they pat themselves on the back and just do that instead!!!
The article about the elite marathoners complaining about the slower ones made me ashamed of the elite marathoners. Everyone who trains to run a marathon should be encouraged and praised for finishing a real activity. Each finisher deserves that medal of accomplishment. Do they think that if you are not the valadictorian of a class that you do not deserve a job? These narrow-minded people need to “have a life.” We all do what we can at our own rate. I appreciate the ones behind me because I know they are working and trying just as hard as I. We slower ones use much more energy completing the marathon than those who run the marathon in under three hours. Maybe we should receive a larger medal for putting forth more effort! Let’s just all get along!
“It used to be that running a marathon was worth something; there used to be a pride saying that you ran a marathon, but not anymore.”
Adrienne Wald, Cross Country coach, College of New Rochelle
Really? The race may go to the swift – those athletes garner numerous awards, including cash for top winners – but the marathon medal belongs to everyone who finishes 26.2 miles, including stragglers. Anyone who has remained at the finish line until the last participant has run, walked, staggered, limped or crawled across the line knows those people deserve their medals as much as the “elite” athletes. They trained for months to develop the stamina to finish a marathon. Why would anyone plod along the course in temperatures ranging from uncomfortably warm to freezing for six, seven or eight hours if they could finish under six.
I was a “straggler” in the recent Chicago Marathon (temperature 29 degrees) and finished in 7:10, my worst marathon performance. But I never felt I wasn’t entitled to a medal because I truly earned it.
I met a young man at the Chicago Marathon who had been a multi-sport college athlete until six years ago when his arms and legs were temporarily paralyzed from Guillian-Barre syndrome. Last year he ran his first marathon since recovering. “Every step I’ve taken to train for previous marathons and for this one feels like a gift,” he said.
Somebody, please tell coach Wald to get a life.
Iris June Vinegar
I wonder out of all the elite runners out there, how many of them really feel this way about the back of the pack runners.
I consider myself a competitive marathoner; Boston qualifier. I honestly don’t care who runs the race as long as they pay the entry fee and follow the rules; written and unwritten. If you’re slow and you know you’re slow, start in the right corral. There is nothing more annoying than an entire group of slow runners lined up in Corral 1 or 2 and chatting away while blocking 3/4 of the road. Slow runners should be commended for their accomplishment…competitive runners should be respected for the starting position they have earned. With that said, there are only a small percentage of slower runners that insist on starting a corral they don’t belong in…rather it be ignorance or arrogance, it stirs discontent among all runners. Common sense and courtesy go along way.
The reality of the surprising comments made by Coach Wald and Juliet Macur of the NYT is that they are what I call running snobs. Apparently, they are of the opinion that only people with the physical capability to complete a marathon in sub 4 hours should be admitted to the races. I guess they have been fortunate enough to not have experienced any injuries. Do they also think that the wheelchair division should be eliminated?
I have completed 5 marathons and walked every one of them. My best time was 5:54. I walked them because I had significant problems with my knee when training (running) for my first marathon. When the pain was bad enough, I stopped running but could walk. Instead of quitting and withdrawing from the race, I altered my training and learned to power walk. Believe me, it is much harder than running as it uses muscles differently and is worse on the feet – not to mention it takes longer! I admit to being annoyed when people hear I did a marathon and get all excited, asking incredulously, “You RAN a marathon?” and I say that I actually walked it and they invariably respond with disappointment “Oh” as if to say that, well, anyone could do that.
I’ve also found the most inspiration from the Achilles athletes – all considerably challenged with various disabilities but who are out there doing marathons – and not finishing with fast times. It takes a lot to keep logging the training miles and accomplish the actual event when you WISH you could run like those people who finish in 3 1/2 hours, but know it’s not possible for you. It does feel just as good when you cross the finish line.
Interesting letter to the editor in today’s N&O from Rene de la Varre: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters/story/195600.html
Over the last couple of weeks since I posted, I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the beliefs that are held by people like Rene de la Varre. And as I’ve thought more, to be fair I don’t think their beliefs are completely without validity.
So, before anyone blasts me, I just want to say that I acknowledge that both sides of this debate have great validity.
What Rene de la Varre describes is certainly the downside of the popularity expansion of running. As NC rep for RRCA every day I see the competitive athletic concept aspect of our sport (and it is indeed a sport) being pushed further and further into the background, and our events do indeed become increasingly a moving party. I can understand how people who have been with the sport for years see this as a negative.
There is certainly some element of cache that is now being lost (imagine if Harvard let in anyone – Harvard wouldn’t have the same cache in 10 years), but I think it is more the material changes we see in the running scene that trouble established runners. And loss of the competitive element, the sometimes obstructive aspects of “participation” entrants, and the endlessly skyrocketing of race fees as the events attract more and more people are certainly negative trends.
I should be announcing my 9 race NC RRCA 2010 Championship series in the next couple of weeks and I hope to balance these factors in my selection. Several of my likely race selections are in fact charity oriented races, but have committed fully to maintaining emphasis of the event as a competitive athletic event. It is my hope that we’ll be able to please those who have been with the sport for many years, while at the same time introducing newcomers to the sport into the fine tradition of competitive racing whether you are racing against the front runners, or just against yourself.
It is a valid point, Mike. Would it be feasible to start dividing races into competitive and non-competitive categories?
It is highly challenging to do so Joe. In some ways having two categories can be like organizing two races. Unless you have the time to stage completely separate heats (I was able to do this when I directed MagMile), people get intermingled and it works no better.
Also, the controversial point becomes who is competitive and who is non-competitive. To some people, even if they do a 20 minute mile, they want to be in the competitive division and will register that way, which can create issues as we’ve heard.
My need personally as NC rep is to put together a slate of competitive athletic events and I feel like I’ve got a great slate. We will definitely work to insure that people that just want to come out and participate have the opportunity to do that without compromising the competition, but the emphasis and organization of the races is definitely going to be on the competitive athletic event aspect. We’d love to see those participants of 2010 become competitive racers in 2011 – there’s great fun in racing.
I don’t have any silver bullet here to tell you the truth Joe. I think we’ll be struggling with this for a while. I hope to see a re-emergence of emphasis on competitive athletic events to balance out the trend of all events to become participation oriented. There is definitely enough market for both.