It seems to me that many of the folks objecting to this article are missing its most salient point - that is, it isn't the time that counts, but rather, the mindset of the runner involved. Perhaps it was unfair of the author to label Oprah as a "feel-good" amateur whose only goal was "to stagger across the finish line," but his point is well taken. In my view, the marathon is all about challenging oneself to push beyond our known limits. Every marathon I have done - and I'm doing my 20th in Philadelphia later this month - has involved me running at a pace that puts me at the intersection of success and utter failure. It hurts, it's scary and sometimes I fail. That's as it should be. I say that because when I succeed, the experience is transcendent.

I'm 45. I've got one 2:57 marathon in me and I'll probably never break 3 hours again. At this point, most of my marathons times are about 3:15. I'd like to be faster, but that seems unlikely. I've got a family, a career and a mortgage to pay. Nonetheless, I train as hard as I can and approach each race with the hope for a PR. I don't begrudge others their 2:20 marathons or their 4:40 marathons. I do take exception, however, to those whose only goal is to say they've done a marathon. If you don't take the risk of failure, you're simply cheating yourself and cheapening the accomplishment for others.

One should only participate in activities with the intention of constant improvement. Doing things for fun leads to the the destruction of "America's competitive spirit". Here are some examples of violations of this rule:

• you play golf and don't always finish 5 under par

• you play basketball and can't shoot with both hands

• you go to school and don't get straight A's

• you lift weights and can't bench twice your body weight

• you photograph your kids and haven't gotten at least one published

• post letter about this article and have not been selected as the Editor's Choice

I apologize for violating McClelland's Rule by not making this the greatest letter ever published. Although getting selected as an Editor's Choice would mean that it was just a minor violation.

Mr. McClelland presumes that all the marathon efforts of feel-good amateurs are febrile, futile and an embarrassing waste of time. Worse, these overweight, inadequate, wannabe-slouches have caused the collapse of America's competitive running spirit.

Wow. Amazing jump in logic, Sherlock. To conclude that marathon times are going down because of the influence of amateur runners is a joke. Then again, simplifying makes it easier to pump out a condescending story that's really about Mr. McClelland's personal running prowess - about to be on the re-bound, despite bad knees.

I imagine there are some truly amazing stories behind many of the snail pace finishes by those feel-good amateurs the author looks down on.

For one, I have a friend who was in a coma for a month after a motorcycle accident. He wasn't expected to be more than a veg for his remaining days. One year later, he finished The Bass Lake Smokey Bear Six-mile Run dead last at, at best, a slow limp. And he's still entering races and improving. He inspired me to get with it.

So, personally, here it is: I'm 59 and will run my first marathon in Las Vegas, December 2. I've got only half a functioning hamstring on my left leg so it drags a bit and limits me to a gimpy lope. I only run 35 miles a week, yet training has shed 30 pounds and has dropped my resting heart rate 30 points from 85 to 55. I use a heart monitor and don't run faster than 138 beats a minute - no matter how competitive I feel(or should feel). I'll stay in that range until maybe the last five miles. If I'm cooking, I may average 12 minute miles over the course. Totally pathetic.

I'm sure that we - me and the hordes of challenged others like me - by some kind of anti-athletic, sympathetic/telekinetic connection, will be slowing down Mr. McClelland and the rest of the best. Shame on us.

Yet, until we're banned from competing by the efforts of elitists, we'll keep signing up and running.

Until then, the author can have back his expectations of how the rest of us should perform. Thanks, but no thanks. And, by-the-way, Oprah's time was in no way shabby for a big lady. You go girl.....

I don't have any stats to bear this out, but are more people than ever involved in adult sports leagues? I don't think so, and perhaps one of the draws of the marathon is that in order to train and compete in one, you don't have to be dependent on a great number of people in order to compete. We're living in a country that is increasingly individualistic, but we're still a country of competitors.

I'm just wondering if the point of the article is to comment on the American acceptance of mediocrity? Is the point of the article to comment on the nature of competition, or is it simply to whine about how a favorite past time has changed over the years?

I usually run half-marathons and run into the same sort of snobbery laced in the article. I respect the event enough to respect those, elite or penguin, who undertake this quest. The marathon is a test of endurance and more than once have I seen not a novice, but an elite runner stagger across the line, usually throwing up for good measure. Tenacity wins my admiration and it does not come from the first runner coming across the finish.

As a Canadian reading the article, I find myself flabbergasted to read competiveness as a trademarked American trait. Last time I checked both competitiveness and tenacity are part of the human spirit.

What you say is true for those who take mostly undadulturated joy in doing what they do as well as they can do it.

A lot of people do things for the cache, though. Its not the noblest motive out there, but it drives a lot of otherwise unacountable behavior.

Running a marathon in three hours is pretty unaccountable behavior. Its not fast enough to go pro, but its plenty fast enough to hurt. I'm sure alot of people resent trying to describe their achievemnt of a 3.5 hour marathon only to be one upped by some grandma who clocked in at twice the time. It must be a drag since you know pretty much noone understands the difference and even fewer people care about the difference between a well run race and waddling through.

Its not so much the way that the slouches are different from the quasi-elite, its the way they are the same. Neither one is doing anything so spectacular or noteworthy or worthwhile.

There will always be a group of quasi-elite anything who resent total hacks, precisely because hacks show the inanity of the whole enterprise.

I'm sure many former high school golfers are mildly embarassed to be associated with the vast herd who can't break 100, and I say that as someone who can't break 100. The fact is that there are two kinds of golfers out there in most people's view, the ones on TV and everyone else.

People who are very good, don't want the "everyone else" catagory to become a complete joke.

Its annoying.

If people are just craving the runner's high and no recognition, then they can run any 26 miles they choose and no need to suffer the crowds of an official race.