Is there room for slow runners in big marathon races?
This morning as I was driving to work, I noticed a familiar sight — many people out for a morning run. Some of these people may be running to get fit, while others are training for something more specific, like a marathon.
Running has become more and more popular as a recreational sport, and marathons in particular are feeling this surge in their entries. Last year was a record-setting year, with more people than ever signing up for marathons. Many marathons sold out, while others had more than 10,000 participants, according to runningusa.org.
While races are getting bigger, times are getting slower. A recent article in The New York Times brought to my attention an argument many race directors and competitive runners have been discussing: Should marathons have a time limit?
Pace sign from the Chicago marathon on October 11, 2009.
Photo by Tony Hanks
The fact that marathon times are getting slower at the same time that more people are signing up has some competitive runners miffed. They argue that a race should be just that — and slower folks should get out of the way. However, these slower folks help keep the races populated with entries, and their money also contributes to the success of the race.
There is an equally strong argument for people out to complete their first marathon, regardless of time. These individuals put in as much work as faster racers and are out to complete the same event. Every single person out on the marathon course has worked hard to be there and has improved their health by taking up the sport of running.
Many races have begun to react to the growing numbers of racers, fast and slow. This year at the Chicago marathon, people were split into corrals based on pace, which made for a more fluid race start. Pacers at the Detroit marathon essentially do the same, suggesting people start near the signs with the minute-per-mile pace they expect to run. At the Boston marathon, most runners have to qualify in order to run, and at the New York marathon people can also qualify in order to run in the same year (otherwise runners have to enter a lottery).
Whether races choose to create a cut-off time for slower runners or cap the entry field, the growing number of marathon runners is forcing races to respond with more effective ways of organizing these races without losing the integrity of the event.
What do you think? Should “races” be only for those looking to run a certain pace, or should everyone be allowed to run?
Chelsea Earls is a runner and works at Running Fit in Ann Arbor. You can reach her at chelsea.earls@gmail.com
Comments
Lauren
Mon, Nov 9, 2009 : 4:54 p.m.
From a slower runner's perspective, faster runners are equally as guilty for disrupting the traffic flow at times. I'm often passed by fast runners who either 1) started in the wrong corral or 2) didn't make it to the start on time. These runners end up weaving and bobbing through the slower runners, cutting them off, stepping on their heels - or worse, running them over - as they try to zoom through tiny spaces in an effort to catch up. I think the lesson for slow and fast runners alike is to determine your goal time in advance and line up appropriately at the start.
Ken
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 2:35 p.m.
Running is probably one of the best ways to get people into becoming physically fit and, to the extent practical, running events should try to be as inclusive as possible. Large numbers of entrants help events balance their budgets and create greater interest among more people. Having said that, there are often logistical constraints that events must cope with such as having to get public roads reopened to traffic and efficiently utilizing the various race management resources (timing services, medical services, volunteer services, etc.). So that presents a bit of a trade-off between being totally inclusive and being too exclusive. One of the best examples of a race done well (from my own running experience) is the Detroit Marathon which earlier this month had 18,000 entrants organized into about 11 different starting groups (corrals) based on estimated running pace (the fastest elite runners in the 1st group and the slowest in the last). This made for an extremely smooth and pleasant start for everyone and out on the course there were no "traffic jams". From my perspective, with the exception of perhaps "premier" events, most events probably could reasonably "draw the line" a average pace of 15 minutes per mile (an easy speed for most, albeit possibly brisk for some) which would be about 6.5 hours for a marathon or 3.25 hours for a half marathon, thus balancing inclusiveness with the logistical constraints. The fastest runners would obviously finish the course in about 1/3 of those times. With an early start (e.g. 7:30 am), it should be possible to meet the needs of almost everyone involved, interested or affected.
mrk
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:30 a.m.
I read the New York Times article and was outraged. As a fairly new runner I have encountered nothing but support from the more experienced runners I've met, so I'm not sure where this is coming from. If people are concerned about tying up traffic, etc. for a marathon, then go ahead and put a time limit on it (and publicize that -- they do so for the Dexter-Ann Arbor half-marathon and I respect that). But what is that time limit? I can assure everyone that my twelve-minute mile was every bit as difficult to come by as someone else's more respectable eight-minute mile. Who is to say that the eight-minute milers should be able to compete either? Are we next going to say that you should only be allowed to compete if you have a chance to place? That's ridiculous! What is this, the Olympics? The truth is that there are some people who are more gifted runners than others and, yes, of course, it takes hard work over a long period of time. But someone who is not as athletically gifted, or maybe is still pulling around a few extra pounds, or has a disability that makes speed a little harder to come by should be allowed to run. Running is a great sport because one competes with him- or herself, and it is a great accomplishment to complete a marathon and have your name and time out there for the world to see. Of course there are logistical issues -- there needs to be education about the faster runners starting at the front of the line, etc. because it becomes a safety issue. If running is becoming a more popular sport in a country plagued by obesity, though, we should be doing everything in our power to encourage, not intimidate. I'd like to think that once I do achieve my ten-minute mile, my nine-minute mile, or if I stay at my current pace, I will always be supportive of new runners. I think (or hope) most people feel the same way.
Anonymous Commentor
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 7:21 a.m.
Runners of all abilities should be encouraged to participate in races. Our nation is faced with a growing public health crisis due to our sedentary and overconsumptive lifestyle, and we should do everything we can to support and encourage people who want to improve their fitness. There's always room at the front for faster runners.
glimmertwin
Thu, Oct 29, 2009 : 4:26 a.m.
If faster runners are going to slip down this slippery slope, what next, not allow wheelchair entrants? Road races should be an all-inclusive activity. Just because someone runs slower does not mean they have not put in the time and commitment to participate. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of the "everybody gets a trophy" advocates. But a marathon is a different animal. Participating in and finish *is* a big deal, and should be rewarded. If nothing else, knowing that all that work leading up to it has paid off. If you are an elite runner, start at the front of the pack and you won't have a problem. If that isn't good enough, find another race more suitable without so many runners.