Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I very much enjoyed Mr. McCelland's marathon piece. As a nine time marathoner- I ran my first at age 54 (I'm now 62), I'd like to offer him the following counsel:
Don't set your heart on a sub-3:30 your first time out, because it's just not likely to happen- unless you're in Lance Armstong shape. Just train wisely and try to run well. You're much more likely to break that barrier after you've got one under your belt.
I too, was a 20 minute 5K runner when I ran my first New York, yet I still finished a shade over 4 hours. I was embarassed and humiliated. But a year later, having "hit the wall" once, I ran a 3:19 and qualified for Boston. I wasn't in any better condition (Well, maybe I did a little more hill work). But it was mostly that I had been there before, and I was better able to handle that last six miles.
In any case, I look forward to your account of your first effort. Do write it. And good luck!
Sean O'Malley
Let's face it, no matter how good life gets, a certain percentage of the population is going to lie awake at night and grind their teeth about meaningless crap like what kind of losers are running marathons or what high school kids are wearing for Hallowe'en.
Then they'll write about it, and suckers like the rest of us will read it and write letters of outrage and waste our nice Saturdays looking at ads on the Salon site when we could be outside in the fresh air.
Presumably, they're running. The goal, in a marathon, is to run whatever distance it is that one runs, as fast as one can. In what way is an amateur who has trained for the race and who runs from start to finish "wrecking the spirit" of the marathon? As long as the person is actually propelling himself or herself in a reasonable approximation of the running gait, and makes it through the whole race, what's wrong with that? Just because the person in question can't be a professional athlete or can't run it at a time of which the author of the article would approve (but can't do himself)?
This, by the way, is the attitude prevalent in Soviet Russia at the time I was growing up. If you didn't have the talent to make it to the Olympics, forget about learning any kind of sport, or music, or dance, or anything like that. Nonprofessionals just didn't do these things. (this seems to be the world that the author of the article yearns for...)
Was it really "better" than the US, where enthusiastic amateurs participate in just about anything? I'm not sure. When I was a child, my mother wanted to enroll me in a gymnastics class, just to get me off the couch and to get me more physically fit. No class would take me for any kind of money; I didn't have the talent to make it to the Olympics, and they didn't want to waste their time on an amateur. So, I stayed on the couch. I didn't start participating in regular physical activity that I enjoyed (school PE did not count because I really did not enjoy it) until I was 24 and living in the US.
Note that under those standards, the author of the article would not be allowed to run the marathon any more than Oprah (or any other amateur) - his time wasn't all that much better than hers. The only people allowed to run the marathon would be the elite Kenyans and elite Americans who train full-time. And we would all be resting our fat butts on the bleachers and watching from the sidelines.
What an elitist piece of drivel. Good for you and your nostalgia for the good old days of running, but Oprah hauling her flab across the finish line does a lot more for humanity than your words. She had lost more than 70 pounds at that point, I believe, and was an inspiration to millions to get moving and set goals for themselves.
If you're pissed about these kind of runners bringing down the average times of the entire race, blame the race organizers, not the people who are just trying to do something positive. Of all the things to write about in the world ... you gotta pick on the fatties. How original.
For some, barely making it across the finish line is their victory and who are you to mock that?
Mr. McClelland,
This article is really about you. It's about your injury, how great a runner you were, how great a runner you could have been, how great a runner you will forever aspire to be. Great. With all due respect, who cares? And who cares if Oprah runs in a marathon? She's got every right as does every couch potato who bettered her/himself by getting up and training for a marathon. You sound more jealous than genuine.
Ciao.
Sluggo
McClelland seems to think that the marathon is just another race---albeit a lot longer than most. That may be the case for "elite" runners and for some spectators and "commentators," but for most of us who run a marathon, it's a rite of passage. The race asks a question: do you have the heart? It's a good question, an important question, and it has nothing to do with time. McClelland doesn't seem to grasp that---which is just...sad.
I've run so many marathons I've lost count, and completed 10 100-mile races, so maybe I know something about running in America. I am delighted that so many people are running marathons, even if they have to walk all the way. Yes, Americans don't run as fast as they used to. I too have slowed down. It's called age.
The top American runners are not as hungry to win as the Kenyans. There's minimal financial incentive and little prestige. Mr. McCelland should lighten up because he's part of the problem by his attitude.
I, too, was a bit offended by this article. Mr. McClelland is assuming that those of us who are less-than-elite runners are ruining the game.
So WHAT if the majority of marathoners are not finishing sub 4 hours?? And that slows the elite runners down???? I don't think so! I ran the LA Mararthon twice and the elite runners run in their own crowd, with their own starting time, separate from the rest of us.
I've been running for 30 years and was considered a champion in my day (back in the 70s). I remember Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter. And Joanie Benoit.
Trust me, if I could run a fast marathon today, I would. Hell, I'd love to run another one but my body won't let me--I got injured after my second one. So, I work out in the gym with weights and cardio. I didn't consider myself a 'drag' on the elite runners because I finished both marathons around 4:30. And I trained my ass off.
American marathoners have lost their edge, not due to the 'Oprah' runners of the world, but due to the lack of corporate sponsorship that other sports get. We don't support runners like we do other sports. There was a great story on NPR about this the other day.
AND, Mr. McClelland, the Chicago Marathon shut down early due to lack of water a couple hours into the race, not because the slower runners bogged the race down. Good God--where did you get such an attitude?!
I am happy to see less-than-stellar runners get into the game....anything to stop the growth of obesity and all of the adjacent diseases the come along with it.
In the meantime, if America wants better marathoners, then nuture them--give them sponsorship, collegiate and post-collegiate. That is the only way we can compete with the Kenyans, Eastern Europeans, etc.
And get off of your high horse, Mr. McClelland.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
