I just want to post a comment about this article. I ran the FLM this year as a beginner. I started running about a year ago and ran it one month before my 50th birthday and finished in just over 5 hours (slightly slower than I hoped). However the majority of those featured were serious runners, nearly all finishing in the top half of the field. I can remember picking up this magazine when I started for guidance and information, however for people like me who may do the same for next years race, they will certainly not find it inspiring! On the contrary it could be very off putting. How about featuring the 'ordinary' runners who do get there but at their own pace?
0 ·
Comments
I wouldn't have said that these are times that aren't achievable for the majority of people.
I think you're doing fine.
its a race - the aim is to finish with as many people behind you and as few in front of you as is possible. So there for you would expect alot more coverage of front runners.
This applies to any form of sport...You wouldnt expect to watch a high profile superbike race and give give coverage of anything but the front runners. The brutal truth is nobody is really interested in the guys who just qualify.
the FLM is a notable exception in its coverage as it is heavily slanted to the charity event side of it so in general the latter parts of the field get abnormally high exposure.
It gets a huge amount of coverage - which other city marathons get hours on the BBC?
I have run a number of marathons now (11 in the last 18 months), never with the intention of "beating" other people. Always with the intention of doing as well as I can. Depending on the conditions and the course, this might be the aim of getting a PB, the aim of enjoying the event and the views, the aim of finishing strong, the aim of finishing at all. Sometimes I've finished in the top 35%, sometimes in the bottom 35%, depending on the field and the conditions. In fact, I am not sure of that, because it has never occurred to me to find out.
Running a marathon, enjoying it, and feeling you've had a good run is enough for me. I suspect that I may be an average-ish RW magazine reader, if I were bothered to read it. But frankly, it has so little in it of interest that I rarely do.
I know what you mean about the start though - too easy to hare off and blow up.
So much better to ease in and then pass them all later in the race.
Everyone has their own part to play in the success that the FLM has become.
I don't see why the magazine should cater exclusively for absolute beginners or the people on the back of the field.
The fastest runner featured in the specific article ran 2:53 on his debut, that's a good club runner (as his 483rd finishing position indicates). Good to see the sub 3 runners are 'ordinary' runners too, how can that be off putting?
whats the adidas wall by the way?
You're never alone on here.
They can't include everyone, so have to make a decision.
RW is a magazine aimed at runners. As previously mentioned, other publications will carry articles about charity runners and so on.
From my perspective Runners World caters almost entirely for the beginner and hardly at all for the serious runner.
I see the mag as an extension of the website, rather than the other way round. Would you agree?