Former Bad Ass
And the guy who just broke thw world record in Berlin would not have gotten over $100k if not for the eventers, bucket listers and mid to back of the pack runners.
And if you ask, most elites have no issue with those runners, walkers, joggers.
Damaris
We keep getting faster as human beings and the world record is faster today than it was 30-40 years ago, right? It's not like there are less fast runners, it's just that there are more people of all walk of life racing. It's not complicated and it's not all that fascinating or alarming.
PRs: Boston Marathon, 3:27, April 15th 2013
Cornwall Half-Marathon, 1:35, April 27th 2013
18 marathons, 18 BQs since 2010
KillJoyFuckStick
Math: it's complicated.
You people have issues
People want to read shit into posts that's not there. Correct me if I'm wrong but I explicitly stated that I wasn't making a value judgement.
I do think it's accurate that the talent is more spread out. The Charleston Distance Run is a 15 mile race and was started about 40 years ago when the only road races you could find were marathons. It used to draw national level talent because it provided a great training run for runners of that caliber short of laying yourself out in a marathon with the long ass recovery that comes from a 26.2 mile race. These days it draws mostly local and regional talent.
Still, this year I finished in 1:44:51 which was good enough to win my age group and put me in 28th place.
In 1985, that same time would have put me in 303rd place.
Short term goal: 17:59 5K
Mid term goal: 2:54:59 marathon
Long term goal: To say I've been a runner half my life. (I started running at age 45).
People want to read shit into posts that's not there. Correct me if I'm wrong but I explicitly stated that I wasn't making a value judgement. I do think it's accurate that the talent is more spread out. The Charleston Distance Run is a 15 mile race and was started about 40 years ago when the only road races you could find were marathons. It used to draw national level talent because it provided a great training run for runners of that caliber short of laying yourself out in a marathon with the long ass recovery that comes from a 26.2 mile race. These days it draws mostly local and regional talent. Still, this year I finished in 1:44:51 which was good enough to win my age group and put me in 28th place. In 1985, that same time would have put me in 303rd place.
And you know why you won your AG, right? Simply because, as you stated, the race attracts now only local and regional talent, not national level talent like 40 years ago.
Kind of like you reading into posts that someone questioned your statement on value judgements?
(No, I haven't run a marathon. I'm not going to sign up for one until I run a sub 1:40 half at the very least) (Yes, I'm a new runner, less than 2 years running)
(No, I haven't run a marathon. I'm not going to sign up for one until I run a sub 1:40 half at the very least)
(Yes, I'm a new runner, less than 2 years running)
Out of curiosity, why do you feel you must run a sub-1:40 HM before you run a marathon? You finished your first HM in 1:55, why didn't you wait for a sub-45:00 10k first, and then aim for a sub-1:40 HM?
Smaller By The Day
Who's reading shit into shit? Get that shit out of here. What the shit?
Improvements
Weight 100 pounds lost
5K 31:02 Sept. 2012 / 23:36 Sept. 2013 (Same Course)
10K 48:59 April 2013
HM 2:03:56 Nov. 2012 / 1:46:50 March 2013
MARATHON 3:57:33 Nov. 2013
Hip Redux
You reminded me of Carlin's seven dirty words skit. Hilarious stuff. Your post needs more dirty words. :P
I agree. This should only happen on Fridays. The nerve of some people.
It's hard to argue with the numbers. In terms of the sentiment of the article, I guess it depends in your perspective. You won't see me plodding across the finish line in 6+ hours anytime soon, but I understand that people have different goals and I respect that. If somebody wants to be one-and-done then who am I to give a shit? Good for them.
Now there is the issues of increased costs, but I guess I'll save that for the First World Problems thread.
Just to clarify what races were around when:
Longest running road races (appears to have some trail and hybrid races in there, but not the oldest trail races like Dipsea and Mt. Marathon)
Longest running marathons (looks like it includes trails also)
Look at all those non-marathons back in the early 1900s. Granted, google wasn't around then to actually find them. Actually, when you compare those lists, looks like marathon popularity is fairly recent - looks like a bunch started in early 60s, and not too many before then.
Haha. You made my afternoon.
I'm trying to think of a way to analyze this so that the analysis would actually mean something but the problem is that there are so many more races than there used to be. Let's say you take the top 50 non-professional runners in a given race. Well, that's fine except that 30 years ago, that large marathon you use in your analysis was one of only two marathons per year within a 300 mile radius. (Yeah, I'm just making up numbers but the idea is the same). Now, within that same 300 mile radius, there are 30 marathons. Regardless of talent level, some folks may decide to run a closer marathon because it's cheaper or because they prefer smaller races or just because it's closer. The top 100 marathon runners in that 300 mile radius will be spread out among those 30 races rather than all of them focused on a couple.
I agree, Brad. I still think that is not bad. I am not quoting you or any one here, but we have read about others who think this diminishes the sport for some reason. I actually think that the fact that there are more races means more people have a chance to win an AG award and even win a race. And the increase in events and the advent of eventers like me really puts more money into the winners (except during an RnR race).