Runner's Forum: How Oprah Ruined the Marathon

A friend sent me this. I'm interested to know what everyone here thinks, I believe it could generate some interesting discussion.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/11/03/marathon/

Look at it and post your response!

    I can't believe that article.   We live in a society whose obesity rates have risen 30% in the last 20 years!  I am sure the NYC marathon is slowing down.  I am 35 and when I was in elementary school, there were only a handful of overweight children.  As a former public school teacher, cross country and track coach I can assure you that is no longer the case.  Kids are obese.  Not overweight, obese.  They have had more soft drinks in a week than miles walked.  With that in mind, what is more important?  An event that makes the average American look on in awe, or an event that inspires the average American to be a part of it!  And isn't that what is so great about running?  It's attainable.  You don't need a team, a court reservation or special equiptment.  It's just you and the road.  I ran 10 miles this morning and had I worn $300 shoes, it would have still been 52,800 feet!  And let me assure you, I could have an Olympic coach and I would never qualify for Boston!  But I am out there beating the pavement just like every runner who does!  I hope in 10 years the NYC marathon is so huge that it has to be run on two separate days with participants divided by a lottery.  I hope that it becomes an attainable goal to every person regardless of weight or the style of shoe they can afford.  Wake up Salon.com. 

First, there are elite marathon runners.  A few dozen in the world.

Next are the competitive amateurs.  Maybe 20% of the field.   Trying to qualify for boston, or pr, but training seriously and giving it their all.

The rest of us may have any number of reasons to run, but we know we're not in the above groups.  If I feel good about a 5 hour marathon I have my reasons.  I know my finishers medal isn't an olympic medal. 

These elitist snobs make me sick.  Do they really want the sport to go back to the 70's?  Seems all those oprah runners represent alot of $$$.. 

Seems the logic of the article is skewed.  The more popular a sport becomes, the more likely there to be added people getting into it to go faster.  Maybe, the "just finish" person realizes they can do better and does a second marathon more competitively. The attitude of the author in general is very elitist.

 Second, the whole complaint about the average times getting longer for finishers speaks less to the mentality and more to the popularity of the race.  When only 200 dedicated runners are competing, I expect a fast "average" finish time.  When 37,000 of their closest friends are running with them, I expect the masses of amateur's slow times to overwhelm the 200 elite runners finish times.  The slower average marathon times has no bearing on the quality of the elite runners and is not a basis of comparison to postulate why America hasn't produced a marthon medalist in so long.

 Overall, lame article.

What makes you think that someone who is just happy to finish is only giving a half assed effort?  There are many people who have to work their asses off to "just" finish.  A marathon is a race first, but it is also a great accomplishment for many people to make it to the finish line. Why do you think there are so many people (elite runners included) that have to drop out? It is not just something you can do on a whim.

I would very much like to point out that I never made the claim that I thought the people that are doing marathons just to finish are half assing it. I will say once again that THE ARTICLE AND MY OPINION ARE NOT AN ATTACK ON SLOWER OR LESS TALENTED RUNNERS/WALKERS. THE ATTACK IS MADE ON THE GENERAL LACK OF COMPETITIVENESS AND THE CONSCIOUS DECISION TO DO LESS THAN ONE IS ABLE TO DO.

I do think there is an issue with guys like this "Penguin" who are physically able to do more, but do not want to do so because, in his words, "the price would be so high it would not be worth it". Stuff like that sickens me. 

Here is an analogy to demonstrate my point: Pretend that someone you know has decided to go to medical school because they want to become a doctor and help people out. After being accepted to a medical school, this person decides that they just want to finish and earn their MD, rather than learning all of the stuff that they should be learning in order to become a good doctor. 

What would you think of this person? Would you feel safe if they were your physician? Is it ethical to make this kind decision?

Running a marathon is the same thing on a different scale, why would someone endeavor to do something, when they do not plan on putting a full effort into it?

Naturally, not everyone is going to become an elite marathoner, just as not everyone that goes to medical school is not going to be a great doctor. Somethings are genetically determined (speed, endurance, intelligence). It just makes no sense to me that people would decide to try for something and then take the easy way out. They think "oh I will just try to finish instead of running to my potential". 

I stand by my point of if something is worth doing, it is worth doing the right way the first time.

Regarding the doctor analogy:  I would not feel good putting my health into the hands of a physician who didn't take their profession seriously.  I don't see how that has anything to do with someone running a 5 hour marathon that doesn't want to put in the training to do a four hour marathon.  Who's lives do they affect?  In fact, some of those slow runners may be very good doctors!

Recreational runners don't stop anyone from being a serious runner.  You seem to be offended by the idea that anyone would not put 100% effort into everything they do.  If you hold yourself to that standard, good for you.  If someone else does not, it's really none of your business.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an analogy to demonstrate my point: Pretend that someone you know has decided to go to medical school because they want to become a doctor and help people out. After being accepted to a medical school, this person decides that they just want to finish and earn their MD, rather than learning all of the stuff that they should be learning in order to become a good doctor. 

What would you think of this person? Would you feel safe if they were your physician? Is it ethical to make this kind decision?

Running a marathon is the same thing on a different scale, why would someone endeavor to do something, when they do not plan on putting a full effort into it?

Mr McClelland's opinion sucks.

If anyone is prepared to travel the 26 miles at whatever speed, in order to claim sponsored funds for various charities - which is what I suspect is the aim of 'Oprah' - good luck to them.  This shouldn't distract from the die-hard atheletes who will compete in the race, with the aim of acheiving new records / personal bests. As for 'Shockproof' gear being used as opposed to the plimsolls used in the seventies- so what?; technology moves on - let's face it, would McClelland consider flying the Atlantic the way Alcock & Brown did? OF COURSE HE WOULDN'T - the sesationalist jerk!  

Yeah!!! What changingground said!!!

 

KDogg-

 I don't think I'm missing your point. I agree that it is generally best, where we have a contract (however you care to define it) with our community or society at large to do a job that we do our best.

My point is this- signing up to run a marathon, or half, or 10 k, etc. is a contract with ourselves- no one else. If we do the best we can given our allocation of resources, then it's all good. I'm shorting no-one but myself if I enter a race to give myself a goal to work towards. This winter I'm running in a series (10k, half, and 20 miler) so that I'll be in the best possible shape by spring for a marathon I'm considering. Given my resources, I'll be prepared as best I can.  But, until the race organizers set forth in their signup that they require a competitive effort from all comers, I've met the requirements of the race- to pay my fee, to show upon time, and to put the effort into it that is appropriate to meet my goals. I'll admit I'm new to the recreational racer/runner circuit, but I've yet to see a requirement that I run at a certain speed or effort level. I'm beholden to no one until they start including language that says, in effect  "Do you swear, on your honor, to put forth your maximum effort, for the good of the race."

I'm glad you feel it's important to do your best in everything you do. I do too. But, like many, I have a finite set of resources to put into my running. Should I not run in races so that they remain the sanctum of the potentially best and brightest, the selflessly dedicated?

changingground -

I'm not saying that everyone has to run all out at all races. I enter races all the time in order to use them as a training effort rather than an actual race. I mean, check my public log, almost every race I have ran this fall has been a controlled effort. So, in other words, I am using the races as a means to an end. That is okay for others to do as well, I have never said it isn't. What I am saying is that if you are spending the time to do something, why not do your best at it? 

My primary argument is that people are settling for less when they are able to do so much more. As described in a previous post, if this type of behavior is allowed to continue, then as a society we could become apathetic towards everything we do, not just running.

Also, irregardless of whether or not you have finite resources you can still put forth your best effort given your time, economic or personal restraints.

Let me say, some of my best friends within my local running community are not fast runners. On the other hand, other friends I have are extremely fast runners. However, both groups of people go out there day after day, run their training pace, go to races and do their best. All of these things are done with the intent surpass their previous limits and continue to get faster.

My main issue with the people who have posted against me is that they seem to think it is okay to go out and lollygag around in the things they do. If people disagree with me, thats fine, but I would like to see reasons as to why it is okay to go out and not do your best (which I remind you, is different for different people) rather than just saying stuff like "people can do whatever they want". 

"I'll leave your comment about the analogy and logical arguments alone lol. If you really want me to comment, reread my earlier statement, take a second to think about what I said, and then repost. "

Not sure what you're lol-ing about.  You said not trying hard in medical school was analogous to not doing your best in a marathon.  When I pointed out that this was ridiculous you tried to say that the use of medical school as an example wasn't important and described a very flawed syllogism (your point 'C' doesn't follow.  It's simply an opinion that you keep reiterating). 

Plug something else into your logic and does it even make sense to you? 

I take on the endeavour of playing Halo 3 (A)  I don't care if I do a good job (B) that is unacceptable to the general public (C).

Is it really?  Replace playing Halo 3 with "washing dishes",  "learn guitar" or even "run a marathon".  Does it follow that doing a half-assed job on these things is (or should be, as you say) unacceptable to the general public?  What if "A" reads "take on the endeavour of raising children and supporting a family"?  I think it makes a big difference.  Some things get full effort, others aren't as important.  The degree of effort that goes into them is a personal choice.  You look down on non-competitive runners.  That's not a logical part of some universal truth.  That's your own personal bias.  I doubt that you look down on non-competitive video gamers or dish washers.

I will lollygag around the streets and through marathons if I want to and I would respectfully suggest that it's not worth your time and effort to worry about it.  It has no bearing on what you or any other competitive runner does. 

Look, I actually do understand what you're trying to say.  It's a good philosophy for an athlete it just doesn't translate very well into all aspects of the real world.  You come off sounding like a pretentious prick when what you're basically saying is that people who aren't as gung ho as you about pr's are a drag on society.  We all have different priorities and goals.

Good luck burning up those roads and tracks and stay well.

Hi all,

I am from New Zealand and we also have a similar issue with an increasing average waist line (maybe not quite as bad as the US yet). 

We have always been a country that has excelled in sports, achieving extremely well on the world stage considering our small population (4.2 mil).  But there has been a change in attitude in the last 15 years that everyone who enters a race is a winner.  Some primary schools don't even have sports awards for kids that make representative honors....everyone that enters the school cross country gets a certificate but no mention of the actual winner.  What this is doing is helping with teh avergage waistline.....but for those kids who are competitive it gives no encouragement to excel.

As someone earlier pointed out there needs to be seperate categories of runners...the ones where times count....and the ones who just need to finish.  Both are are just as important.

 

 

I think the article is kind of mean-spirited but there is a difference between those who view running as an athletic pursuit vs. those who view it as "self-improvement" or whatever. I've been running 9 years and haven't run a marathon because I don't feel I'm physically and athletically ready for that distance. I have no desire to do it "just to do it." So, the idea of making a non-runner into a marathoner in 20 weeks or whatever to me is absolutely ludicrous. I really don't understand the point either. The fitness and health benefits of going zero to 5K in 20 weeks are basically the same, if not even better. Some of these people who get off the couch one day and are "running" a marathon six months later are probably doing more harm to themselves physically than good.

So in that respect I agree with the overall point of the article. However, I could care less about why someone else is out there on the course, and how fast or slow they're going. I've run several half marathons and enjoy the whole spectacle of it, from the elites to the back of the packers. This idea though that "I've finished a marathon, I'm special" just doesn't wash with me. My PR in the half is 1:44, which is decent for a guy my age, but it doesn't make me "special." It just makes me athletically and physically sound.

there are only two types of participants in any race, be it a miler, a 5k, or a marathon, that should be looked down upon and encouraged to change their ways.

 the first is the couch potato who views the event merely as a thing to do on the way to collecting a shiny souvenir and maybe a new t-shirt, and are willing to put in only the exact minimal amount of effort required to not have the finish line removed from the roadway before they are able to cross it.  it has nothing to do with speed, or fitness, or athleticism, or BMI.  it has everything to do with effort, and they are putting in zero, willfully, and often proudly.    a finisher's medal should be a reward, and if there is no effort expended, then what is being rewarded?  how does one work their way out of this population?  quite simply, you try!  if you take offense to the above graph, and find yourself typing up that you have to work your ass off in a race to not get swept, then you, sir/madam, are a marathoner!  if you are seeking no benefit from the event aside from the medal (not even the challenge!)... well... give your spot to somebody who would.

 and the second is the athlete who shows no respect for the race or the racers.  the slowpoke who must start at the front of the pack. the runners who do not yield to faster traffic.  the folks who cut line in the finish chute.  those who act as if the race revolves around them and them alone, and all other participants be damned.  sometimes, it's rookie mistakes, but i'd think it would be obvious at the same time.  if you're going to walk or simply not challenge for the lead, would you not think that you would be in the way of all those runners behind you - that those runners should not have their path blocked, their goal impeded?  if you're going to run side by side by side by side by side, would you not think that you could be in the way of anyone behind you who might be faster?  - that you might not want to take up all the available space in the narrower parts of the course?  if you've crossed the finish line behind someone, why would you think that they would like you to pass them on the way to handing in your number, diminishing their feat in favor of yours?  the moral of this graph is to be considerate, naturally.  

 if you're slow, or if you're fast, just try.  and be considerate.  and i've got no issue with your participation in our great sport.  and neither should anybody else.  you're not running for anybody but yourself.  but you are in there with thousands of the rest of us.

gregrogers you are absolutely right

too many people are worried about offending someone then to actually give them some constructive criticism. Sometimes the way you say something is more important then what you say, and that is the case with children. We need to be supportive of their efforts, but still get them to try harder for a better output.

 

As far as the marathon trends getting to be the way they are:

A marathon is a race, a competition. People like oprah do not have competition anymore because of their position in the world. Oprah could get away with murder if she wanted to, and if you were to challenge her you would lose. Ask the rapper ludacris.

However if a personwants to run a marathon for its accomplishment of just being able to finish, they should be encouraged to run AT THE BACK OF THE PACK AND TO RESPECT THE FASTER RUNNERS!!!!!!!!!!!! because it is first and foremost a competition.  

Tzapata,

 I think your view of of only TWO types of runners is rather limited.  Personally, I am in the category of "couch potato", but I do not fit your definition.  I began running in order to see change in my life.  I had blood pressure going through the roof and was about 130lbs overweight.  I began training not for the shiny medal (although it is a tangible sign of a personal success), but to help myself find a healthy lifestyle.  Accomplishing the half - marathon was something that said to ME that I was creating true change in my life.  However, I will say that while the half-marathon was a benchmark event for me, it wasn't a one-time event.  I didn't believe I had arrived just because I crossed the finished.  Running has continued to be a part of my life. 

In response to the article, yes, I participated with Team in Training (TNT).  It was an incredible experience which gave me guidelines on how to train without starting too fast, killing myself, and ultimately quitting.  I would have had no idea how to even start training without them.  The TNT provided everything I could imagine to support my training... including mental preparation (I believe our mentality is often what gets in the way of believing you can accomplish more).  I feel frustrated with opinions that simplify TNT and Binghan into "just have fun."  It's more like, "come on out with the attitude of just having fun, don't stress over how much faster others are than you (mental defeat), and we promise you will accomplish more than you could ever imagine."

By the way, I finished in 3:47:13.  Some readers will be appalled at my time, but I am quite proud... and also quite proud that I am working hard to  beat that time in my next half-marathon.   Other rewards: my inclusion in this new lifestyle has resulted in 81 lbs, 29 inches, and blood pressure medication lost.

How about a counter-article - "How Oprah Saved The Marathon".  Given the economics and logistics involved in staging a race of any size it seems to me that more participation is better rather than worse. 

Let's take an example - The New York City Marathon.  Assume that there are (as an extreme example) 4,000 persons who really want to "race" in this event.  With that level of participation how are the organizers going to pay for their time and effort, logistics (rest stops, post race food, etc.) and prize money.  Assuming $75 per participant (and you know that some of these runners won't have to pay an entry fee) the race generates a modest $300,000 in fees.  Another revenue source is sponsors but the value of sponsorship sure drops with less participants.  Sponsors depend on volume of product to determine the value of their sponsorship and 4,000 people won't make a big dent.  Lets also assume that 1/2 of participants will need/want to stay in New York for the event.  Assume 2 nights at $300/night and a 15% hospitality tax (love that dichotomy!).  This would generate a total of $135,,000 for the city (for police overtime, etc.). 

 Now assume that the race has 40,000 participants.  Entry fee revenue increase 10x to $3,000,000.  Hotel revenue (I haven't considered meal taxes or income tax in either scenario) would jump to $1,350,000.  Sponsorship now has an additional 36,000 persons who may (or may not) wander their way through the expo, drink their brand of sports drink, etc.

Organizing and running a marathon (or other event) requires a very significant effort.  My hat is off to everyone who does this as a volunteer or as a business - you have my appreciation.  Fortunately running is a very popular sport where thousands of participants are willing to shell out some serious cash to participate in events.  To paraphrase "A Few Good Men" - You want us on that starting line.  You NEED us on that starting line.  God bless Oprah and every other runner/jogger/walker who chooses to better themselves and the sport by signing that entry form.

Oh, BTW - I thought the writer of the article came off as an elitist snob FWIW.   

 

 

What ever happened to the idea of competing with yourself? I am the world's most competitive person but I'm not a competitive runner at all! I am concerned about beating myself. As I enter these races, I go with the attitude of doing better on this race than I did on the race before. If I got upset or disappointed every time that I lost, I'd be miserable all the time and probably give up running. People like nursechristy and NHisSteps are inspiring to me because they are willing to try something that they aren't going to win on the first try. Keep it up girls!

Can't believe this thread is actually still going - not because it isn't important, but because we seem to all agree on some level.  Competition is what you make of it.  Competing in the world of elite athletes is a completely different concept to most of us. Most everyone on this site compete on some level.  Some of us run races and continue to work and better our times, our endurance.  Some of us don't even compete in races against others - we run each week for ourselves. We try to beat last week's numbers....how many miles last week?  What kind of pace?  Can I do better than what I did last week.  And some of us (me) run to relax, get away, and clear our heads.  Who cares why?  I've said it before - I don't believe the elite runners of marathons are looking behind worried about the sloggers back there. 

 No real issue here, in my opinion, except for people who are a bit elitist, snobbish and arrogant (what are they afraid of?)I don't find people here to be that way.  I enjoy the commaraderie and the support people give each other here - no matter what the level of committment to running/biking/hiking.  Just a nice group of people who like to move.

Who the F%*@ is Oprah and why the  F%*@ does she matter about anything? That was her goal..her fitness achievement..Good for her..

This story was in a Runner's magazine read by runners..If it inspires others to start exercising..fine..good for them..if it doesn't, well to each his own..But i doubt if that story will sell anymore magazine subscriptions

I didnt see this before, i debated on making a thread about it myself.

This is not about people exercising it's about the competetive spirit of the marathon.If you want to exercise for 26.2 miles while chatting with your fellow exercisers go find a road and do it. A marathon is a RACE, go there to compete. Whether it be against yourself, a friend, time I dont care just do the best you can no matter how slow it is. The competetive sprit is one thing that has built America and it's a shame that the marathon has somehow escaped that spirit.

I personally will never run a marathon, not because I cant but because I have no desire to COMPETE at that destance, and if I'm not competing there's no point in me doing it. I hate it when I tell people that I have never run a marathon and they act like I am not a real runner and have accomplished nothing.

Anyway enough with this marathon stuff, the MILE is where it's at!!! haha

 Oh deary me......Chiggyxc!

Everybody knows you have to run at least one marathon to be considered an accomplished distance runner. 

I'm sorry. But that's just the way it is I am afraid. 

Even Oprah knows this.

Where is your American spirit???

 

 

 

I think the true American spirit is in the person who invented the IPod so you can download that video of Oprah telling you "You can do it!" and watch as you run your marathon.