RRR - I agree with you. London was my first marathon in 1995 and a life changing experience for me.
I've run London 3 times, last time in 2001, I don't even try and get a place now, much to the amazement of my fellow running club members who seem to think it's the only marathon worth running.
I now prefer quieter and different type of marathons (with hills) but I still go to Dublin every year and enjoy that city marathon.
I accept FLM for what it is, I wouldn't want to change it, I have just decided that is no longer a race I want to take part in, and there's plenty of people willing to enter FLM so I don't feel I am being disloyal in any way.
If you enter a race you must accept it as such and that there will be "competitors" that are running to compete, trying to get a PB, beat a specific rival, be part of the winning, second, third placed team etc etc.
If you don't expect to finish at the front of the field, don't line up at the start as if you will.
Not yet hippo, another thing to tick off my list beside my computer eventually! But I will, as I say if only to have my say and for no other reason, as it won't make an ounce of difference to the organisers!
could be 'cause a lot of the commentaters are ex atheletes that regard people who are not competative, that is with a chance of finishing in the top 50, sorry being British, top 150 as being there for a bit of "fun" only.
could also be why the word elite is used as the rest of us are beneath them.
Yep, we're all `fun runners' as it is our hobby and hardly anyone on here is going to make any serious money.
The fun is different for different people. My `fun' is running well, setting pbs and being competitive with my peers. Other's may be just taking part, completing the course or raising money.
No marathon is fun when you're doing it I should imagine, whether it's 2:05 or 6:05. The fun is in training and testing yourself and the satisfaction of having achieved something worthwhile afterwards.
Its not you Hilly - all a prob of terminology, definitions etc.
These need to be reviewed it seems for words such as 'Running', 'Race' etc which I'd previously thought were pretty clear...
Oddly, many years ago, I was involved in a converse debate in the mysterious (but easier on the knees) world of 'Rambling' (see the Fast Show for details of what this is..)
The issue then (and now ?) was attempting to discourage or ban runners from taking part in organised walking events - use to be quite a lot of friction between these two camps.......(unlike now !)
Hmmmm...I run unattached but I still do all the 'Mickey-Mouse' races during the year, so I like Barnsley Runner's point about the FLM being for runners who do those small races and keep the sport going. The problem with people starting the race in an 'inappropriate' position isn't just a problem with the big races - I'm sick of having to weave around people jogging in the Leeds Abbey Dash, and some other small races. And I don't mean at the end, more like in the first 400 metres! And it is certainly a race where I like to get a PB.
There is nothing wrong with going slowly and needing to walk now and again, but a bit more honesty on the part of some competitors as to their real expected time would help to keep everybody happier.
Re the bigger races such as London, I've still got a prob with the money thing though. Would there be fewer walking from the "off" in races such as FLM if the entry was fairer ?
On this note, what do people think of the Hugh Jones article in the current RW ???
Notably, his view that its only moany old club runners who think there's something unethical or wrong with..
(i) the charity lobby squeezing as much money as possible out of those desparate to do such things, and
(ii) charity runners getting free trips abroad to do NY etc and/or free kit on the back of sponsorship raised
He also does not mention the issue of allocating places to sponsors/corporate bodies.
Apols if I've misunderstood. Am trying to keep an open mind as his articles are normally one of the best things in the mag - plus of course because of who he is and what he's achieved.
I haven't read the article OFT but surely points 1 and 2 are not compatible?
If the charity is paying the air fare then they obviously don't get as much money as if the runner does! The only way the charity does better is if they would have places not taken up that will now be filled, and the cost of the flights is outweighed by the extra sponsorship money from the extra people doing it.
Maybe I should read the article first, but whether you think there's anything wrong with it depends on whether you think FLM should be a race for club runners as well as for charity runners. Personally I think it should be.
Points 1 and 2 are very closely related, in that in both instances, people think they are donating money to charity and aren't, at least only a small fraction of what they think they are. In the FLM, a big chunk of it goes to pay for the golden bond place (some of which may end up with another charity), and in the foreign ones it goes directly on your free trip. I had trouble raising money for the NYC marathon because people didn't believe I was paying for it myself.
There's an argument to say that all charity money is good, no matter how dubiously gathered, but you don't have to be a grumpy old fart (although I am) to object to it.
Yes, i think people are getting more savvy about that - there was a thread a few days ago where people were not keen to donate as they thought that lots of the money would be going to pay for the flight. It may just be people on these boards or who've done simialr thigns themselves though.
I'm all for honesty and letting people make up their own minds if they want to donate in light of the full picture.
Comments
I've run London 3 times, last time in 2001,
I don't even try and get a place now, much to the amazement of my fellow running club members who seem to think it's the only marathon worth running.
I now prefer quieter and different type of marathons (with hills) but I still go to Dublin every year and enjoy that city marathon.
I accept FLM for what it is, I wouldn't want to change it, I have just decided that is no longer a race I want to take part in, and there's plenty of people willing to enter FLM so I don't feel I am being disloyal in any way.
If you don't expect to finish at the front of the field, don't line up at the start as if you will.
A thread with emotion at last!!!!!
could also be why the word elite is used as the rest of us are beneath them.
The fun is different for different people. My `fun' is running well, setting pbs and being competitive with my peers. Other's may be just taking part, completing the course or raising money.
Each to their own and may all prosper next year.
Barnsley(suspiciously)
What are you on?
Hilly, what do you think you might be missing?
Hippo, what do you think I might be on?
These need to be reviewed it seems for words such as 'Running', 'Race' etc which I'd previously thought were pretty clear...
Oddly, many years ago, I was involved in a converse debate in the mysterious (but easier on the knees) world of 'Rambling' (see the Fast Show for details of what this is..)
The issue then (and now ?) was attempting to discourage or ban runners from taking part in organised walking events - use to be quite a lot of friction between these two camps.......(unlike now !)
Youd had a tadge of non controversial pill earlier
They sort of completed the Barnsley semi-circle!
There is nothing wrong with going slowly and needing to walk now and again, but a bit more honesty on the part of some competitors as to their real expected time would help to keep everybody happier.
I know where to start!! Tee hee.
On this note, what do people think of the Hugh Jones article in the current RW ???
Notably, his view that its only moany old club runners who think there's something unethical or wrong with..
(i) the charity lobby squeezing as much money as possible out of those desparate to do such things, and
(ii) charity runners getting free trips abroad to do NY etc and/or free kit on the back of sponsorship raised
He also does not mention the issue of allocating places to sponsors/corporate bodies.
Apols if I've misunderstood. Am trying to keep an open mind as his articles are normally one of the best things in the mag - plus of course because of who he is and what he's achieved.
A troubled OFT though...
If the charity is paying the air fare then they obviously don't get as much money as if the runner does! The only way the charity does better is if they would have places not taken up that will now be filled, and the cost of the flights is outweighed by the extra sponsorship money from the extra people doing it.
Maybe I should read the article first, but whether you think there's anything wrong with it depends on whether you think FLM should be a race for club runners as well as for charity runners. Personally I think it should be.
There's an argument to say that all charity money is good, no matter how dubiously gathered, but you don't have to be a grumpy old fart (although I am) to object to it.
I'm all for honesty and letting people make up their own minds if they want to donate in light of the full picture.