PatrickJohnMcCrann.com

There’s yet another article about the downward decline of the marathon from a race for the elite runner to a mainstream “event” for the masses.

Once again we have the faster folks pitted against those who aim just to finish the event. While the median finishing times cited in the article are around 4 hours and 30 minutes, anyone who has spectated a marathon knows that finishers cross the line seven, sometimes eight hours after the gun has sounded and well after the finish line has been taken down.

Even the slowest of participants know they have completed a marathon, they have covered 26.2 miles in a single go. Whether you prefer walking, jogging, run/walking, or all out running, the journey is the same. Twenty-six point two miles. So why can’t we all just get along? Let’s see both sides…

The Cons of the “New” Marathon Movement

* Congested Races + Venues — Without a doubt, the biggest change since marathoning really took off in the mid-80s is the incredibly large events that take place with increasing frequency. Local or smaller marathons that once had 500 runners, now regularly top 7500 people. This means longer lines, a bigger crowd, increased difficulty pacing, etc.
* Danger of Poorly Prepared Participants — Opening the marathon to anyone has allowed even the ill-prepared to participate, increasing the chance of injury and race day emergencies as the competitors simply don’t possess the physical and mental experience with the event.
* More = More Money — Hard to give specifics, but you know that marathon directors aren’t necessarily complaining about the exponential increase in revenue. The more runners they can take, the more money they’ll make, period.

The Pros of the “New” Marathon Movement

* Sustainable Events — Many events barely made it year-to-year, but with the influx of new runners some of these same events are selling out months in advance. More money for the organizers means an increased likelihood the events will continue on an annual basis.

*Fundraising — Millions upon millions of dollars have been raised for countless charities thanks to aggressive nonprofits who have capitalized on the event to mobilize people and increase awareness.  This money can have a significant impact on important local charities.

*Healthy Population — Making the marathon accessible and increasing participation only serves to expand the total pool of runners. These runners in turn attract more runners, and also bring their focus on a healthly lifestyle back to their families, coworkers and social circles. Even though some of these folks might not be incredible runners, they can all connect with the marathon distance since it’s open.

The Solution?
I can see both sides of the equation, and honestly think we should just get on with it. But if this is really a deal-braker for some runners, I could see the following solutions.

1. Improved Pace / Corral Guidance — Folks are seeded by previous race times, with the walkers truly being seeded to the back so as not to impede the speedy runners.

2. Imitate Boston — Why can’t there be other destination events where athletes need to qualify to participate? Directors could perhaps make a series of events (via the calendar) cap participation and increase the registration fee to compensate for the decline in the total # of athletes.

3. Same as #2, only have it be a rotating deal across multiple races each year. So perhaps in 2010 the BayState marathon is such an event, with 2011 being the Atlanta marathon etc. These races are part of a consortium that would help promote the movement and help with finances, etc.

What other solutions do you see?

Tweet This Post 

This entry was posted and is filed under Run. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.