A Reasonable Response To The NY Times Article: Plodders Have a Place, but Is ...

As someone who's proud of what I've accomplished running I read an article yesterday in the NY Times regarding "slower" marathon runners and how, according to some longtime marathoners, are ruining the mystique of a marathon.

As someone probably deemed as "slow" I take a bit of offense with this. First what determines fast? 2 hours? 3 hours? 4 hours? 5 hours? What do you deem as fast?

I've told my story here about why I started, some of my battles during training and marathon days. But does running a "slower" pace diminish a marathon. Let's think about this, I never ran before two and a half years ago. It took me 4 months to get into marathon shape and ran a 12:00 mile over 26.2 miles. Was it "fast" to me, yes. To an elite runner: no. Let's face it, elite runners have been running a good portion of their lives. They are called "elite" runners for a reason. Do I have any aspiration to be called one? In a word: No. I go at a pace and level that's healthy for me. Does my finishing a marathon towards the back half of the pack mean the marathon's value isn't great? In this blogger/runners opinion no.

Is it a race: yes. Do I run to compete with others: No, but I do compete against myself. Very hard. I compete against those not on the course, the ones who have tried to bring me down and with every mile I take I feel like I'm going faster.

Let me take a step back from talking about me. People run a marathon for many reasons, some sure it's a something to check off the life to do list. But others, they do it to find something therapeutic, something bigger than your race finish number. Something bigger than being called an "elite" runner. They do it for the betterment of their life, for the betterment of others who can't run or even get out of bed because of illness or disease.

I understand to a point that some runners want the best of the best. Then have a circuit for these people in addition to events. Boston is not open to the general public it's based on qualifying times. I know in every ounce of my soul that the odds of me qualifying for Boston are the same as me winning the lotto, they exist and every time i run I do have a chance albeit slim. I have no desire to qualify for Boston. Fact is I like running the races I do, to be able to participate in multiple marathons. I definitely don't need people diminishing my accomplishments because they feel upset that there are people not at their athletic level. I don't need people like Adrienne Wald to tell me that because I run at a slower clip that I've diminished the value of a marathon. I think running a marathon still means a lot to others, but you only can take out what you've put in. If you are genuinely not serious about training then no the value of a marathon is inherently less than if you put a lot of time and energy into your training. I see run/walkers all the time training hard, if not harder than some runners and does their dedication to the sport not make it better? Shouldn't we be celebrating people who are willing to better their lives, and dedicate themselves to a sport to put months of training into one singular event? We train and we train not for a full season, not for a post season but for one day, and not even a full day but for several hours. Not all of us can run at an Olympic pace, or an "elite" runners pace and I will tell you that the value of my marathons probably have a lot more meaning and are more special to me than those who are constantly finishing and expect to finish high in the standings. I appreciate my journey and the journey of us "slower" runners. In the dedication of so many we celebrate the marathon and I feel inspires people to get out of their houses/apartments and go for a run or a long walk. In that way I believe we create more value for a marathon.

It's not where you finish, or your time, it's your dedication to something that creates value. Maybe it's time for some runners to remember that.