Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
One respondent called you a pot-stirrer, and that's about the only purpose I could fathom for your article. It was appalling enough that it's goaded me to put in my own two cents.
My background--I'm a long time runner at various distances, including three marathons, and various half-marathons, 12k's, 10k's, 5ks, and high-school cross-country meets. Like you, I feel more suited for shorter distances, partly because I tend to have a fast pace and I like running that way, and partly because it's hard for me to find the discipline to hold back my pace for longer than about 10 miles.
I respect anyone who takes on the challenge of training for and completing a marathon. Maybe you want to "kick ass" but each runner has his own goals and reasons, and brings his own gifts to the table. This is something I experienced first hand while training with a group called USA Fit, which is like Team in Training except minus the onerous fund raising. I was one of the fastest runners there but I was there more for the company and moral support (without which I wouldn't have been able to finish) than the competition. Part of what I learned was not running fast, but slowing down and being patient so I could endure the miles and months of training. I stuck with the group for several years because of the friends I made, even after it was becoming plain that the marathon was not my favorite race.
I think the experience of training for a marathon is something that should be available to all who want to challenge themselves, not just those that meet whatever your arbitrary standard is...I guess it's somewhat faster than your own 4:16 or Oprah's 4:29. Most of my friends in USA Fit were slower, but I couldn't imagine thinking they shouldn't be out there, as long as they were having fun and not hurting themselves. Even if you attain your goal of 3:30, you'll certainly be faster than the majority of the field, but there are going to be plenty of runners kicking your ass, because they've been training more or are more gifted physically. Maybe if you can't qualify for Boston you should just hang it up and not try. Or maybe you could imagine that the other runners, faster and slower, all have their reasons for being there.
I was irked at first by the attitude shown by your article, but now I wonder if you are judging others because you need to prove yourself after your first marathon which you were less than happy about. In any I case, I've been in your shoes so I wish you good luck.
Kudos to the genius who decided to run articles from the Onion on the Salon website.
For a brief moment, I thought that this piece was sincere, but it soon became clear that this was a work of satire.
Congrats to the brain wizards at Salon and the Onion for combining their synergies to maximize their something.
-- SCAM
...is will you sell me your copy of Once a Runner?
Condescend much?
Mr. Edward McClelland claims that Americans have gotten slower at running marathons, "an average of 45 minutes slower over the last 25 years."
What garbage.
He appears to derive this number from the Chicago Marathon. Yes, the average finishing time has dropped, but he also writes, "the Chicago Marathon field has increased tenfold, to 45,000."
What is the average time of the top 10%. to match the 4500 who ran about 43 minutes faster 15 years ago? Or the top 20%?
Have America's elite marathoners really gotten slower? Or are the just as fast? Sure, the rest of the world has gotten faster. But have our best really gotten slower? Have our top 1000 really gotten slower?
Has the greater interest in marathonning really hurt the sport? Has it resulted in slower time?
This article is dishonest and below Salon. I expect better.
I find it hard to believe that any true athlete would be put off his game simply because he has to pass more people on his way to the finish line. Any one who would let the average joes, who are just trying to achieve an ounce of the glory the pioneers gave marathons, turn them away is entering the race for the wrong reasons.
Edward McClelland's article posits an essential question — what has happened to American competitive long-distance running? — which he frustratingly then does not answer.
He seems to suggest that the United States no longer produces competitive world-class marathoners because of a general psychic weakness brought on by popularization of the sport. While this is an interesting (and extraordinary!) claim, it's not clear how or why this enervation has (supposedly) come to pass.
It's easy to imagine how if major league baseball, say, were adulterated by mass participation, the best guys out there wouldn't want to play anymore. But road racing doesn't work the same way. If you're in front, every minute that passes separates you even more from the ten thousand goofballs behind you. Vade retro!
So really, where are the great American marathoners who just don't compete anymore because Oprah has demoralized them? I just don't see it — though McClelland's original question is still a good one and I would love to hear it answered by someone with real insight into American running.
Edward McClelland is all over the place with his article but when you cut through all the grumbling it sounds like he's actually disappointed that people have become attracted to the sport he loves.
How strange!
It reminds me of growing up in a small town on Vancouver Island where outdoor types chastised people for not exercising more and then complained when newbies started hiking on their precious mountains.
What kind of fool wouldn't applaud even feeble attempts at physical exertion?
Self-righteous elitists.
So if you're middle-aged and flabby (and female) you should just stay home and spare Edward McClelland from seeing you haul your ass around the marathon route at a less than gold-medal pace? He blames the lack of American dominance in marathoning on the presence of people who aren't in it to puke and cramp up and pass out? Those are some pretty powerful flabby middle-aged women!
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
