Silver or bronze medal for finishing the Dublin marathon

Woddle

I was reading in a running magazine where the writer reckons road racing standards have dipped, and he reckons it's because people are more about participating than winning and that it's been thought to us through schools that joining in is what it's all about.
One of his suggestions is that if you run sub 3:15 the finishers get a gold medal, sub 4 a silver and so on and that this might help encourage a winning attitude, I don't think it's the worst idea I've ever as it's a nice way to distinguish yourself from let's say those that walk a marathon. Would this ever happen

Enduro

I don't know if they still do it, but the Ballycotton 10 used to have a special T-shirt for the top 100 finishers. The competition to get one was intense (I was called as 101 at the bottom of the hill with 2 miles to go one year, so I know all about it ). People with a competitive streak can be motivated with almost anything. So yeah, definitely a good idea.

Peckham

Not sure it's a good idea for the marathon. Finishing times are all relative - what about differences by age or gender? It's not a level playing field, so people can't be judged against one set time. 3.15 might be a poor performance for one person, but an unbelievable lifetime best for the person finishing alongside them.

I also read the article, and think it was in context of the London marathon where everyone gets a gold medal. Not Dublin, it's bronze (I(I think) all round!

tunney

Woddle wrote: »

I was reading in a running magazine where the writer reckons road racing standards have dipped, and he reckons it's because people are more about participating than winning and that it's been thought to us through schools that joining in is what it's all about.
One of his suggestions is that if you run sub 3:15 the finishers get a gold medal, sub 4 a silver and so on and that this might help encourage a winning attitude, I don't think it's the worst idea I've ever as it's a nice way to distinguish yourself from let's say those that walk a marathon. Would this ever happen

They have dropped alot. The depth and breadth of road runners is nowhere near where it was. I've heard it from alot of club coaches, and serious runners in their forties who are disgusted that they are still placing in road races. In their eyes if they are still placing its because the next generation are too lazy to do the work required.

Racing Flat

Woddle wrote: »

One of his suggestions is that if you run sub 3:15 the finishers get a gold medal, sub 4 a silver and so on

They do this at one of the ultramarathons in South Africa, Comrades or the other one can't remember.

Enduro wrote: »

I don't know if they still do it, but the Ballycotton 10 used to have a special T-shirt for the top 100 finishers.

Still do it - took me 4 attempts to get one. Everyone gets an unbreakable cup though!

Peckham wrote: »

what about differences by age or gender? It's not a level playing field

Good point.

tunney wrote: »

In their eyes if they are still placing its because the next generation are too lazy to do the work required.

Or because they are playing computer games at home, or going to the gym or playing tag rugby, or doing triathlon all those things you couldn't do 20 years ago so had less choice, so there were more chances that better athletes would end up in running.

robinph

I different coloured lump of cheep metal would be enough to spur me on to try for a better time when flagging close to the finish. Kids need to be taught that winning is good again. That taking part is good is all that seems to be told these days, which is fine, but the main purpose is to try and win.

Even if the winning is only beating one of your mates, getting a shinier "medal" or a different coloured t-shirt, winning is good.

plodder

Woddle wrote: »

I was reading in a running magazine where the writer reckons road racing standards have dipped, and he reckons it's because people are more about participating than winning and that it's been thought to us through schools that joining in is what it's all about.
One of his suggestions is that if you run sub 3:15 the finishers get a gold medal, sub 4 a silver and so on and that this might help encourage a winning attitude, I don't think it's the worst idea I've ever as it's a nice way to distinguish yourself from let's say those that walk a marathon. Would this ever happen

I think it's a good idea, and some marathons do this already I believe. Elitism and mass participation can exist side by side. Let people set their own goals by all means, but it is good to recognise people who reach an absolute standard (whatever it is).

rovers_runner

Don't see the point or it.
If some for example finished in 2:59:59 and someone 3:00:01 and they were placed say 699th and 701st in a marathon is a different colour medal really going to change anything ?

Prizes are for the elites, as they are elite.
Everyone has their own personal targets and draws their own individual satisfaction/disappiontments each and everytime they run any organized race.

As for the mass participation part of the argument and people just accepting taking part:
There are around 6,000 Irish people registered for Monday, add that to the fact that most of these make up the Longford/Conn/Cork numbers and you'll find a marathon is far from "mass" participation in reality.
6,000 in 4,000,000 isn't much.


Aside, the elite field for the mens race is not up to much this year, why didn't they approach Martin Fagan to take part? Is he running in New York ?
Does the fact that Dublin clases with New York take from the field ?
I think this also has a knock on effect on the younger runners in the country as it would help if we could attract top class fields like we did in cross country in the 90's

thirtyfoot

tunney wrote: »

They have dropped alot. The depth and breadth of road runners is nowhere near where it was. I've heard it from alot of club coaches, and serious runners in their forties who are disgusted that they are still placing in road races. In their eyes if they are still placing its because the next generation are too lazy to do the work required.

Yes, all you need to do is look at the mens marathon times. We have one elite, Martin Fagan (and he is only ranked 13th all-time in Ireland but should break top 10 this year), and then nobody within an asses roar. Some of the longer track or cross-country guys may or would have a chance if they moved up (like Mark Kenneally, Vinnie Mulvey and a few others). Looking at some previous years sub 2:20's were common and in fact a low 2:18 would just get you into top 50 all-time in Ireland. Top 10 all time is, look at the years, same could be said for many of our distance events.

Treacy 2:09 '88
Carroll 2:10 '02
Ronan 2:11 '91
Woods 2:11 '88
Hooper 2:12 '88
Kiernan 2:12 '84
Kenny 2:12 '80
McDaid 2:13 '76
Dooney 2:13 '92
Cusack 2:13 '74

Womens is same story where outside of Rosemary Ryan or Marie Davenport there is nobody. Maybe Maria McCambridge can move up successfully.

Its a hard one to fathom why we don't have as many or as successfull distance runners anymore. The distance athletes I know train as hard as ever but maybe that fear or hunger isn't there. Maybe Eamonn Dunphy is right 'You need dictatorships and poverty to produce great footballers runners'.

The irony is we have more people running marathons but fewer people racing marathons. I think the coloured medals would be a good idea, the Ballycotton example is good one.

plodder

rovers_runner wrote: »

Don't see the point or it.
If some for example finished in 2:59:59 and someone 3:00:01 and they were placed say 699th and 701st in a marathon is a different colour medal really going to change anything ?

I agree with you to a point. For instance, my own goal is (next year) to beat 3:30 and say, as woddle suggests the gold standard is 3:15, then it isn't going to make much difference to me.

And for the people who just miss the 4:00 silver standard (say by a second), yes that is tough, but competition is tough, and marathons are tough. I take your point about mass-participation though. Finishing a marathon, and getting a bronze medal is still a great achievement. But the amount of training needed to reach the higher standards is something that could be recognised in my opinion.

robinph

rovers_runner wrote: »

Don't see the point or it.
If some for example finished in 2:59:59 and someone 3:00:01 and they were placed say 699th and 701st in a marathon is a different colour medal really going to change anything ?

I'd say the person getting 3:00:01 would be annoyed enough already at that extra 2 seconds and wondering if they should have been a bit more forceful in pushing their way through at the start that the colour of a medal won't matter to them, but the person with 2:59:29 will be delighted and certainly feel that they deserve a shinier medal for those 2 seconds.

cfitz

rovers_runner wrote: »

Aside, the elite field for the mens race is not up to much this year, why didn't they approach Martin Fagan to take part? Is he running in New York ?
Does the fact that Dublin clases with New York take from the field ?
I think this also has a knock on effect on the younger runners in the country as it would help if we could attract top class fields like we did in cross country in the 90's

How do you know they didn't approach Martin Fagan? I don't think he's running New York, he's probably leaving a bigger gap since Beijing was only about 2 months ago. I'd say the budget for Prize Money for Dublin might be what is the biggest deciding factor on the quality of the field. Also, I think it is considered a relatively slow marathon and for everyone other than those thinking of prize money this is important.

I think it would be a strange decision if Fagan were to run Dublin for a number of reasons: he only has one marathon done, surely his next one should have a large field of similar quality athletes that he can run with; signs are that he is capable of going significantly faster so he should pick a fast course; it might make more sense to leave a decent gap after Beijing until his next marathon.

Krusty_Clown

I would have thought that with more than 100K in prize money (total), and the added boost of home support it would be a big draw. But I have no idea how this compares to prize money for other races, where the Irish Elites have an opportunity to get into the money spots.

robinph

How does the cash for coming 15th or more behind a bunch of Kenyans in the likes of London compare with wining Dublin?

After the fuss about who got 4th in Chicago I'd have thought that coming in way down the field in the big city races isn't much good for you financially other than getting a bit more tv coverage for however long you manage to stay in the lead group.

MCOS

Its a sound idea. If you are doing a marathon again and have a shinier medal to aim for then cool. Peckham makes a very good point though about the relative finishing times of age/gender. Perhaps they could award a different metal for a percentile of each category listed. For example top 10% get gold, next 30% get silver etc... This would ensure that on a year where the standard is unusually high that its harder to get gold and vice versa for years where 12,500 entrance are walkers!

Racing Flat

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I would have thought that with more than 100K in prize money (total), and the added boost of home support it would be a big draw. But I have no idea how this compares to prize money for other races, where the Irish Elites have an opportunity to get into the money spots.

Maybe I'm being naive but I'd say prize money isn't the main motivating factor for most elite athletes. In any case, appearance fees and prize money would be a lot higher the faster you are. Therefore, doing 'easier' marathons, ie flatter, better weather conditions, better paced, more competitive will increase your chances of faster times and qualification for Olympics etc. and so you might command more money.

thirtyfoot

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I would have thought that with more than 100K in prize money (total), and the added boost of home support it would be a big draw. But I have no idea how this compares to prize money for other races, where the Irish Elites have an opportunity to get into the money spots.

cfitz summed it up. Fagan is not going to get a fast time in Dublin. He is probably chasing Worlds next year and it would be like if Joanne Cuddihy knew she had one race to get the qualifying time for Berlin next year and decided to go to Castleisland in the middle of May for the Munster Championships against local competition to get it instead of maybe taking a lane in Paris the week after:) Simple really. Some home glory in Dublin and a bit of cash or running on the biggest stage in Berlin next year. Maybe surprisingly, for most elite athletes its more about the champs and the majors than the money in the pocket.

Krusty_Clown

I have no idea how the Elites make their bread and butter (I assume sponsorship plays a big part), but couldn't a race in a lower quality field offer some earning potential (and potentially a good placing)? Just a general question, not specific to Fagan.

thirtyfoot

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I have no idea how the Elites make their bread and butter (I assume sponsorship plays a big part), but couldn't a race in a lower quality field offer some earning potential (and potentially a good placing)? Just a general question, not specific to Fagan.

Most elites bar the top 5 or 6 per event will beg, borrow and steal to make a living. Its even common for track athletes to not have sponsors, not have a job, not get a state grant and yet be Olympic or World medalists and live only off the small appearance fees/prizemoney they may get at Grand Prix. A thrower who won gold in Beijing got $1,500 for her next appearance in a reasonably big grand prix just after Beijing which is when as an Olympic champ they would be at the peak of their earning powers.

Road is different and a little more lucrative I think but I don't know what the numbers are. Its a case of taking priorities. Many times you won't see the big names in the Worlds yet most will be at the Olympics. Take Baldini, he won in '04 and a great championship racer yet wouldn't be as prolific as Geb. In 50 years time what will be remembered as the marathon highlight of '08 - Geb's WR or Wanjiru's Gold. probably Wanjiru's gold as that will still be in the record books while we may have sub 2's by then.

As has been said, money for the majority of athletes is not the driving force. It wouldn't want to be, otherwise they would have quit and be playing football or golf long ago. Big money in athletics died in the 90's.

Slogger Jogger

I would agree with a time limited gold, silver and bronze standard. It would be logistally difficult to organise though - much easier for them to hand out the same colour medal at the end.

On the subject of time limits I read an interesting article in runners world some months back about the Comrades run about how you could finish 1 second outside the time limit and its tough s***, you are considered as having not finished and you don't get whatever the finishing memento is or listed with the finishers who made the limit. A bit of a sickener if you were that soldier. Apparently theres a rush at the end when the walking wounded etc suddenly realise their predicament and run for all their worth for the line and it makes for pretty dramatic TV where I think its covered live.

Running Bing

plodder wrote: »

I agree with you to a point. For instance, my own goal is (next year) to beat 3:30 and say, as woddle suggests the gold standard is 3:15, then it isn't going to make much difference to me.

And for the people who just miss the 4:00 silver standard (say by a second), yes that is tough, but competition is tough, and marathons are tough. I take your point about mass-participation though. Finishing a marathon, and getting a bronze medal is still a great achievement. But the amount of training needed to reach the higher standards is something that could be recognised in my opinion.

That's a fair point.

For example I started running four months ago, my time in the marathon (should I finish;)) will reflect that.

Now dont get me wrong, I have been 100% committed and dedicated to this and worked my arse off.....but lets say I stick with it, lets say over the next few years I really really work hard to improve. If I do improve it would be nice to have some small recognition of that...even if it is as superficial as a different coloured medal.

I think those who train for years and continually better themselves deserve to be acknowledged. It takes serious commitment to carry the required training on for a number of years.

--amadeus--

Babybing wrote: »

I think those who train for years and continually better themselves deserve to be acknowledged. It takes serious commitment to carry the required training on for a number of years.

Going a bit OT here but I think the training gets easier. I've only been running for 3 years (started properly before Dublin 05) and you get into a habit and a routine. There is also less fear and the physiological changes and your better self awareness of your limits mean that recovery from sessions is faster.

I certainly found training for my 2nd easier than my first, 3rd easier than 2nd, etc

Peckham

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Going a bit OT here but I think the training gets easier. I've only been running for 3 years (started properly before Dublin 05) and you get into a habit and a routine. There is also less fear and the physiological changes and your better self awareness of your limits mean that recovery from sessions is faster.

I certainly found training for my 2nd easier than my first, 3rd easier than 2nd, etc

Would agree with that. First time training is definitely the toughest - step into the unknown etc. Routine definitely takes over and you don't notice the miles being accumulated as you're used to 30 mile weeks (or whatever) as standard.

Woddle

Just found this thread again while searching for sth else. I still think it would be a good idea, I think it would be great to see one of the Irish marathons take it on or maybe even Conn for their ultra.

Krusty_Clown

Yeah definitely. This was the structure of the Two Oceans in South Africa and it really added a huge dimension to the race, both from a spectators and participants perspective. It wasn't difficult to organize either. Everything was based on gun time, so if you were:
1) In the top 10 finishers (male and female), you got a Gold Medal
2) Sub 4 hours (56k race) you got a silver medal
3) Sub 5 hours - Sainsbury medal
4) Sub 6 hours - Bronze medal
5) Sub 7 hours - Blue Medal
6) 7hours+ - No medal. :eek:
As soon as the clock hit the allocated time, tough shayte, you got the next medal (or no medal at all). Massive spectator participation right to the end of the race, as the crowds tried to urge the participants under the alloted time barrier. Not like other marathons I have seen, where the crowds just dissipate after 4 or 5 hours of clapping.


So a good structure for Dublin marathon might be:
1) Top 10 finishers (male/female) - Gold medal
2) Sub 2:45 - silver medal
3) Sub 3:00 - bronze
4) Sub 4:00 - green medal
5) Sub 5:00 - orange medal
6) Sub 6:00 - chocolate medal (*joke*).

macinalli

Not sure where my marathon medals are - given a choice from that list above I think I'd go for the chocolate!

nerraw1111

Brilliant idea.

Comrades marathon also something similar. Gold medals only for top ten.

Can't find it at the moment but there is an amazing photo of someone getting blocked at the Comrades finish line just metres from the line. He missed the cut and that was it. Wasn't allowed finish.

Seres

Is the idea of the chocolate one to, eat it , forget bout it and try again !

BeepBeep67

Medals for the top 3 in each category different colored bananas for the rest

TheRoadRunner

Or how about a radical idea like only the first 3 getting a medal, i.e gold, silver and bronze and he remainder of the field getting a cheap memento to let them know they ran the race but weren't good enough to get amongst the medals ........... oh wait

Killerz

The Around the Bay 30k road race in Canada has a graded medal system. Sub 2 hours is gold, sub 2.15 is silver and then bronze thereafter. This is based on gun time (it would be a logistical nightmare otherwise). Therefore, it could be very difficult to do this at the likes of dublin marathon where, if it takes a few mins for some people to cross the start line, and there's an interest in getting higher level medals, there'll be a lot of people trying to start up the front..... Which causes a lot of overcrowding up the front, as so often discussed on these forums!

plodder

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Or how about a radical idea like only the first 3 getting a medal, i.e gold, silver and bronze and he remainder of the field getting a cheap memento to let them know they ran the race but weren't good enough to get amongst the medals ........... oh wait

I'd say in the DCM, the first three placed care even less about medals than the rest of us do about finisher's medals. At that level, they are well enough known anyway, and it's about the money more than anything else, imo.

I'd say gold for sub 2:30 (32 would have got that last year), silver for sub 2:45, bronze for sub 3:00 and the standard medal for everyone else. You'd only be dealing with 400 runners in those categories. So, you could do it based on gun time as these 400 runners would be near the front of the pack anyway. I'd love to say 3:15 should be included as well, to give me something to aim for, but the numbers are getting bigger there :rolleyes:

If you go for a wider range of times, then it would have to be based on chip time and that's logistically more complicated all right.

tHE vAGGABOND

Comrades marathon also something similar

I dont think its a terrible idea actually.

Picking the time would be a pain in the arse, do you use Boston good for age kind of time, or just first 200 get gold and everyone under 4 hours gets silver or something?

I guess that would all make the finishing area a utter mess..

BeepBeep67

A variation of this post, you need to submit your marathon time to make you eligible to purchase the colour top for your time band.

Xempo running gear is ideal as either racewear or as training gear for marathon and half marathon runners. And it doesn’t just feel good. It is the only kit out there which shows (off) just how fast you are.
Different colours in the range represent different standards. So whether you are an elite runner, a mid-pack improver or a first time long distance runner, there’s a Xempo colour for you.
So reward yourself for that recent PB, show it off to your rivals, or simply let others know how good you are. And as only runners of half and full marathons will be wearing Xempo gear, you’ll be joining an exclusive club. Just tell us where and when you ran your race and we’ll do all the verification for you.

Gold is the colour for anyone who has run, since 2008, a marathon time of sub 2h30 or a half marathon time of sub 1hr10 - just tell us where and when at the checkout and we'll do the verification for you

Siver sub 2h45

Red sub 3hr

Goes as far as sub 4h15 and then a white shirt for completing the marathon.
Gimmick or will it catch on?

robinph

I prefer the red one anyway.

gerard65

Gold dye:p

Emer911

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Brilliant idea.

Comrades marathon also something similar. Gold medals only for top ten.

Can't find it at the moment but there is an amazing photo of someone getting blocked at the Comrades finish line just metres from the line. He missed the cut and that was it. Wasn't allowed finish.

Here's a video of the cut off from this years Two Oceans Ultra (courtesy of cphowlin)
It really is harsh!

I watched the cut-over for the different medal at 4 hours and that was heartbreaking for the guys and girls that just missed it, but this is just cruel! Imagine running for 7 hours, completing 55.9k and the gun (cut-off) sounds as you are running up the home straight with the Finishing Line JUST THERE?! :eek:

...made for SUCH exciting spectating though.

opus

robinph wrote: »

I prefer the red one anyway.

I would as well actually, gold t-shirts don't really appeal (not that I'd ever be able to achieve the time to get one of course)!

TFBubendorfer

robinph wrote: »

I prefer the red one anyway.

Damn. I don't wear red. It makes men look effeminate and women cheap.