In defense of the plodders: may there always be a slow lane
Paula: hardcore. You: not so much.
Last week, the New York Times published a front-page ramble on the politics of marathon runners who opt for the slow lane. The question: should slow runners, some of whom take six, seven, even eight hours to complete the 26.2 miles, be allowed to participate in the same events as the more fleet-footed?
I repeat the story’s main query because you may have missed it, in between all the elitist snobbery and ridiculous garbage being spouted by “real marathoners”. And yes, I do consider myself part of the exclusive club of those who’ve checked 26.2 off their lifelong to-do list. It never took me six hours, but I did watch my father, who, after months of training, still hobbled the final few miles of one marathon to finish in what was – ahem – not quite a P.R. I said it: my father was a plodder. Is he also a marathoner? Absolutely.
According to the article, the growing trend of casually ambling along a marathon route has cut the median finishing time significantly since 1980:
In 1980, the median finishing time for male runners in United States marathons was 3 hours 32 minutes 17 seconds, a pace of about eight minutes per mile. In 2008, the median finishing time was 4:16, a pace of 9:46. For women, that time in 1980 was 4:03:39. Last year, it was 4:43:32.
The phenomena, apparently, is “driving some hard-core runners crazy.” The piece goes on to quote a cross-country coach who wonders “how low is the bar?” and another runner who opines that wearing a marathon t-shirt “doesn’t really mean anything anymore.”
Obnoxious. But back up a minute: hard-core runners? Not quite. Hard-core runners are the rare breed among humankind, the Paula Radcliffe’s and Meb Keflizighi’s, who train seven days a week, 365 days a year, and consider marathon running their full-time job. If you finished your last marathon in 3:26 or 4:19, that’s nice for you. You’re a speedy, recreational runner. But unless you ran it naked, drunk and carrying a 10-pound bag of sand, you aren’t hard-core.
Furthermore, I think those upset over slow marathon times “diluting” the mystique of their sport are missing the point. Completing a distance of 26.2 miles, on-foot, consecutively, is very difficult. That’s true for someone running an 8-minute-mile or for someone walking at a much slower pace. And at least the zippy runner gets the agony over with sooner. The plodder, however, is managing to overcome the incredible mental exhaustion – the incredulous disbelief that I am not even half-way there – for hours.
And finally, do slower runners taking part in a marathon really minimize your accomplishment? If you’re doing it to brag at a cocktail party, and suddenly every guest and her pigeon-toed husband is wearing a racing tee, then maybe your accomplishment does feel trivialized. But you can blame your elitist egomania, rather than slower runners, for that. And perhaps “hard-core runners” can benefit from an arrogance-check thanks to the slow-marathoning trend: run without pretension, without bragging rights and without comparison to those behind (or ahead) of you.
Oh, and one more thing, for those still gunning for the bragging boost of endurance sports: I hear that Badwater still has a few spots left for 2010. Finish that one, and you can boast all you want.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
If people want a “hardcore” marathon, they should do a mountain marathon, that will test them.
But unless you’re doing doubles seven days a week and running a race with poo down your pants (we’ve all seen the picture) I really don’t think that “hardcore” is a necessary term.
Utzie: don’t forget chafed, bleeding nipples. Those are also a “hard-core” necessity.
Love reading your articles as always. As a novice competitive runner such as myself, I have no issues with anyone partaking in any marathon, especially since the entire idea of the event is for personal achievement. My only issue is that runners who are slower, who are actually taking the event seriously, make navigating the course difficult. I actually emailed NYRR last year after the race, and suggested some sort of race etiquette training whereby all slow runners would stick to the right side, which would allow the speedier demons to pass without difficulty. In addition, this would alleviate the criss crossing, and potential accidents that occur when trying to pass slower runners. I wish I had my iphone 3GS camera on this past Sunday, but I literally saw a girl try to pass a slower runner who was on the left side of the course, and fall right on her face. The impending doom I witnessed was sad, embarrassing, and looked utterly painful. Oh, and lets not forget her race watch which broke off of her wrist, went flying in another direction, and was stepped on by oncoming runners. In short, slower runners to the right, faster runners to the left, and the added bonus of better race safety.
Thanks, Orensky. You make a good point, and one that the Times and I both missed. I mention “slow lanes” jokingly, but that might be a seriously good option. Runners pacing themselves to finish in 5+ hours stick to the right, or something. Fine by me, as long as everyone gets to partake! Cool idea.
you’re hardcore if you run any distance naked, drunk, with a 10lb bag of sand.
[...] Link: In defense of the plodders: may there always be a slow lane [...]
Agreed. Well said.