<p>
</p>
<p>Speaking as someone who roots for the underdog, that is really cool.</p>
<p>The wheelchair racers are very serious athletes.</p>
<p>^^True that. Those wheelchair guys are animals. </p>
<p>In mixed road races I’ve run, runners often pass the wheelchairs on the uphill, and the wheelchairs pass them all back on the downhill. But those guys are every bit as dedicated to their sport as the best runners.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only downhill; it’s definitely not an advantage going uphill. I did a charity ride a few weeks back, and I swear going up one hill, I was in danger of going backwards! (And I rode up that hill 50 or so times.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point I was trying to make was not about suffering. I would not be at all surprised if dadx looked at me (and when I’m in spandex, that is not recommended) and decided I couldn’t possibly have biked enough miles to train for enter name of whatever event here. He couldn’t know from looking at me.</p>
<p>Yes- but with runners you can tell a little more easily. Not all runners are waifs, but you don’t see too many decent marathoners who are carrying a lot of weight. By suffering I meant “the ability to do the sport”.</p>
<p>Well, I suppose the races kind of mirror the whole college process. Fortunately there are third-tier races for those of us who don’t qualify for those boston ivies (I mean, marathons.) ;)</p>
<p>I live in a community through which the Boston Marathon runs. The BAA keeps the course open late but the cross streets run, traffic starts to flow, pedestrians cross, garbage starts getting collected, etc. If they ever tried to cut off the participation of the mass of people, they would not be allowed to hold the marathon. My town, which can’t be run around, would not cooperate. It costs us money. This is a people’s event which has a road race as part of it. </p>
<p>I think the entire concept of the “race” needs closer examining. There are about 10, maybe 20 people with a chance to win, almost all from Kenya or Tanzania, with a smattering from Asia and Europe (and an occasional American). There is no “race” except for that handful. The rest are just running, some fast and some slow. The elite runners, which include a number of people who can’t win, even start before the rest of the field, which surely indicates that the concept this is a big race is a sham. It’s a people’s running day. The hospitals run programs to turn people into runners and you can see them go by in their matching shirts. The National Guard jogs the course in full packs. </p>
<p>There is a strong elitist sentiment among the avid runners who want to restrict Boston and the other big events to those who can qualify at say better than 4 hours - and I’ve met some who say it should be faster. These people can go suck eggs; the marathon depends on the good will of many communities and on the hordes of people who line the streets, not to cheer these idiots but the legions of people for whom running a marathon is a major life achievement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp]Boston”>http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp]Boston</a> Athletic Association<a href=“and%20this%20is%20as%20it%20has%20been%20for%20many%20years.”>/url</a></p>
<p>A minority opinion:</p>
<p>Marathons are LONG. Is it really appropriate to encourage people who are not extremely well trained to participate in races of this length?</p>
<p>I can see the come-one-come-all approach to a 5K or 10K. But is it really the best choice for a marathon?</p>
<p>dadx, qualifying times are for official runners, the ones who get a singlet and a chip in the shoe for an official time. Everyone knows that. The issue is not official runners but the additional thousands who run.</p>
<p>But a race can somewhat limit its liability for the bandits (term for unofficial runners). They run at their own risk. It’s the entrants who want to walk a race in 8 hours that present a problem.</p>
<p>Also, it is NOT true that the only “race” is occurring at the very front of the pack. Many of us race hard for our age group places/awards and we are NOT at the front. Especially as you get into the older age groups, there are serious competitors in the 3:30-4:15 finishing time range. </p>
<p>I don’t expect everyone to be like me. My running friends and I are an extreme and after particularly ridiculous undertakings we are heard proclaiming the “running is stupid” and we often call each other “idiots” for the things we do, such as back-to-back marathons or finishing a marathon after two bad falls and bruised ribs (my last act of “stupidity”).<br>
HOWEVER, I DO want people to respect the distance and adequately prepare and do the best they are capable of doing on that particular day. If that is 5 hours, then good for them!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. For some people the hardest part of a marathon is properly reaching the starting line. Getting to the finish is just icing on the cake. </p>
<p>Resenting the slow marathoners because they’re slow is like resenting a golfer who can’t shoot in the 70’s. What’s the point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well, now they do, apparently. </p>
<p>My issue is not with unregistered runners. Its that you should be trained adequately if you want to undertake this, officially or non-officially. Simple as that. Improper preparation can occur at all time levels. Not just the slower ones. But the slower the times, the more likely the preparation is not proper. </p>
<p>An interesting article on the bandit runners in Boston. </p>
<p>[Boston</a> Marathon blog - Acknowledging the Boston bandits - Boston.com](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/blog/2009/04/acknowledging_the_boston_bandi.html]Boston”>http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/blog/2009/04/acknowledging_the_boston_bandi.html)</p>
<p>MOfWC, you make excellent points. Here is my 2 cents. We all have to start somewhere. My friend finished her first marathon in about 5 hours despite very rigorous preparation. A year an a half later, she qualified for the Boston Marathon in her (early forties) age group. If she had not been given an opportunity to run that first marathon, she woud have never qualified for the next one, and the next one, and so on. Races are not just about endurance and athleticism, they are about strategy and mental toughness. Endurance can be trained in practice runs, however, racing strategies are practiced and perfected in real races. Not all slow marathoners are fat, untrained folks who stop for tropical drinks on the way to the finish line. Some are Boston qualifiers in training :)</p>
<p>MomofWC - I agree with your entire post. </p>
<p>There are many races in a road race beside the race up at the front. The age-group battles are just as fierce as the one for overall winner. In local 5 and 10K races, occasionally I win, but my most common finishing spot is 3rd. I’ve got a whole drawer full of bronze medals and third place ribbons. Back when I was a young man I was sometimes up with the leaders battling (and ultimately finishing third) in the open race. In my late 40s I started losing to women, but in one sense I didn’t really lose to them because they were in a different race - their own sex and age-group race. They just finished ahead of me. Now in my late 50s when I race I battle just as fiercely to finish in my current age-group. And often it’s the same two or three guys beating me who used to beat me when we were young.</p>
<p>The guys on my forum call losing to women “getting chicked”! I had a friend in Dallas who was in his 60s. He would look around at the starting line and figure out what place he was going to get just by who had shown up from his age group.<br>
I know a runner from Chattanooga who is very active in the running club, does every single long run in preparation for his marathons, but he is still very slow. He works hard at it- he simply doesn’t have the horse-power. No one begrudges someone like this a place at the starting line.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t race that much any more, but when I do I get “chicked” a lot these days. But at least it’s mostly by young women. I can stll cling to one tattered shred of my machohood by saying that I’ve never lost to an old woman or a little kid.</p>
<p>Back when I was still fast (and young), I was racing Columbus Marathon. I saw a very fit, fast woman ahead of me at about mile 18 and I gave it everything I had to catch her, just in case she was in my age group. As I went by her (proudly), I saw the cyclist accompanying her with the sign (LEADER W 60-64). I slunk off quietly. I think she set some kind of record that day. Yes, as we get older, we find ourselves behind all sorts of folks we would have never seen back in the day…</p>
<p>Okay, so here’s something that interests me. I’m a 5K 10K girl…I always finish up with the pack. (Kid teases me, but she is being recruited by colleges as a frosh in H.S., so I don’t take her seriously.) I’m not a marathoner, and plan to stick to the races that are right for me. What do the marathoners think of the ultra-marathoners? Is this just a whole other type of person altogether, or is it something you would do, yourself?</p>
<p>I did two ultras back in the day, and set age records at both (since eclipsed). I thought they were easier than marathons, but required lots of time for preparation. Instead of a 20 mile training run, we did 33. We used a planned run/walk method (scheduled walking breaks every 10 minutes or so) and drank sugared tea or flat coke (this was before the day of most sports drinks). I DO think it is a different breed of runner that is attracted to runs like Western States or Leadville, much less the god-awful 24 hour runs around a 1/4 mile track. These are often slower runners with incredible endurance. I no longer have the interest or the time to devote to that kind of thing. I was feeling sorry for myself on my 15 miler this morning!<br>
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a focus on doing 5Ks and 10Ks. They are fun, don’t consume your whole life and you can push your body really hard. I think 5Ks and 10Ks really hurt! (I should also add that the first race I ever quit was an 800 (1/2 mile)).</p>