Many new runners come from a mindset where everyone gets a medal and it's good enough

nerraw1111

"If you're going to get just as much praise for doing a four-hour marathon as a three-hour, why bother killing yourself training?" asked Robert Johnson, a founder of LetsRun.com, adding that, "It's hard to do well in a marathon if your idea of a long session is watching season four of 'The Wire.'"

AND

"If you can pull the wool over your customers' eyes and convince them that communism is better, you can drop at least $40,000 to your bottom line every race." In relation to the emergence of running events that don't record finishing times.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324807704579085084130007974.html?mod=us_most_pop_newsreel

Itziger

There's a point there somewhere alright. First thing is to scrap medals. First 3 home in a race, end of. But as for the praise for a 4hr being the same as for a 3hr, it's true that people who don't understand the game would high five a fella for strolling around in 7 hours. Thing is though, if you're a runner, YOU know the difference.

When people say to me "OMG, you ran a marathon, that's brilliant" Well you know it counts for naught, especially if they follow it up with, "My boyfriend ran the marathon in town last weekend - 55 minutes it took him" (they're referring to a 10k).

The vast majority on here know the difference between a 3.10 and a 2.55.

As for the second bit, no fuppin idea what it's about and I haven't clicked the link to find out.

fleet

Itziger wrote: »

The vast majority on here know the difference between a 3.10 and a 2.55.

First off: I'm not a runner. So excuse my ignorance.

It can't all be down to time for every runner can it?

If an aul lad runs a sub 4 hour it must count for at least as much as a young lads sub 3, no?

ThisRegard

fleet wrote: »

If an aul lad runs a sub 4 hour it must count for at least as much as a young lads sub 3, no?

Isn't the oul lad most likely to run the sub 3?

Itziger

fleet wrote: »

First off: I'm not a runner. So excuse my ignorance.

It can't all be down to time for every runner can it?

If an aul lad runs a sub 4 hour it must count for at least as much as a young lads sub 3, no?

Sure there are factors. I'm 48 and am thrilled to be still improving since first Half Marathon 5 years ago. Have pb times at 5, 10 and 21k so far this year. Hoping to improve marathon time in 3 weeks. Now if a 28 year club runner posted the same times, well, I wouldn't be quite as impressed! But you're right, it shouldn't be about time only.

Cleanman

But if you're motivation for doing a marathon (or whatever race) is driven by the amount of praise you think you are going to get, then you're probably doing it for the wrong reason?

People all have their own reasons for running a race, but I just don't understand why one of those reasons is to lap up the praise from (most) people who don't have a clue

ThePiedPiper

Everyone has a different perception of what constitutes a remarkable lifetime achievement.. For 23 years, my mother's little trophy from DCM 1983 was something I marvelled at and aspired to, ultimately getting me interested and involved.

The fact that I now have a fair few similar medals doesn't dilute that. For a great many people, a marathon may represent a lifetime 's ambition so some sort of physical memento is appropriate.. Now in fairness, if I'm given a medal for a 10k or half, it doesn't mean much to me, but that's just my perception of what represents a noteworthy achievement.

Anytime anyone congratulates me on running achievements, its nice but as time goes by, what I would've considered a lifetime ambition in the past is no longer that. You become more aware of your own relative place in the grand scheme of things. Anything that gets more people pursuing a healthy and active lifestyle is brilliant and if getting a medal for a 10k that doesn't record times is part of that then so be it. The sharper end of things is another issue entirely unaffected by this

Smartguy

This is old fashioned snobbery. No doubt the lads running 2.30 will dismiss the achievement of someone running 2.50 and so on etc etc.

RJM85

If you're just runnin the marathon for praise you're doing it wrong.

If you're getting worked up about what someone else's motivation is you're also doing it wrong.

With running in particular the times / finishing positions don't tell the full story. I've been running for 3 years; have dropped 5 stone in that period, and have gone from an overweight unfit whatever to someone who is a relatively good hobby runner (I still complete races as opposed to compete, but my times are somewhat respectable - in my opinion anyway). The first 10k race I did was 55 minutes, I'm aimin for a sub 3 marathon in October. The 55 min 10k was to some extent a bigger achievement than the sub 3 marathon would be if I make it, given how far I came o get to the first.

Markcheese

Kind of depends who yr running for, if yr being competing against others for cock waving rights off you go...(although unless your in the world top three,there is always someone faster) if yr competing against yr self ,for your own pb , or just to finish ..well off you go...

Red Belly

I'm a very slow recreational runner in my 40s having taken it up after 20 years of sedentary living. My marathon participation medals are treasured possessions but not something I put on display or boast about and I don't seek paise or admiration for them. For a great many recreational runners the marathon is a personal goal and a significant personal achievement. Don't see the problem with that. If a 5k or a 10k or a half marathon medal represents something similar for someone who the hell am I or anyone else to criticise?

RB

mossym

i (sort of) have a medal from the Great Limerick Run this year. i say sort of cause it didn't go to me, it went to my 3 year old, who was so excited by the whole day she must have run 10k herself up and down the sidewalk before i started, was so disappointed she didn't get to do the actual race, was delighted when i picked her out of the crowd 500m from the finish, ran up the street with me to the finish line absolutely loving the crowds, and when the girl at the finish went to put the medal on my neck i told them to give it to her. when they put it on her neck she looked up at me and asked "daddy, did i win the race?"



giving everyone a medal may belittle the efforts of the first three, but you know what, in most of these races the top 3 are frequently in that position, and often don't care about another medal of their own, let alone whether everyone else gets one.

I don't particularily about getting a medal, and when i do, i don't see it as recognition for any achievement as i'm a MOP runner. However, that medal that day meant more to me(and not me really) than anything else in the race, and is a memory i'll cherish. if medals do nothing more than allow people to relive memories, then i say they serve their place

tunguska

Itziger wrote: »

First 3 home in a race, end of

I'd agree with that, it does kind of remove the meaning from medalling if everybody in the entire race gets one. At the Athlone half last week I refused to take a medal at the finish. One guy actually chased after me trying to give me the medal and was kind of shocked when I told him I didn't want one. I wasn't trying to be rude or disrespectful to him or the race organisers(it was in fact a great race and really well organised) I just felt uncomfortable taking the medal.

Itziger wrote: »

When people say to me "OMG, you ran a marathon, that's brilliant" Well you know it counts for naught, especially if they follow it up with, "My boyfriend ran the marathon in town last weekend - 55 minutes it took him"

Brilliant, I get that one all the time. I know people are only trying to be polite and all but that kind of thing just comes across as fake. One time only somebody was honest with me. I told her I'd run the marathon and she said that honestly she didnt even know anything about that kind of thing. No false praise just honesty. It was great and I had so much respect for her for that.

Itziger

This thread has gone a slightly different direction. I get the emotion and all of that and I have felt emotional and proud on finishing races at times. End of the day though, it's a bleedin race and a competition. It's not like I'm donating half my liver or saving an Amazon tribe. My kids get a kick out of the races and I'd absolutely love to do a half or a full marathon with one, or two, or three or all 4 of em in the future. That'd be a buzz, but for now it's me trying to do my best and do justice to the training I've put in.

Yes, I've lost weight but that's just cos I'd been a lazy bastard before I took up the running game. Enjoy folks. Now, I must pull up me recovery socks and do an easy 10 miler on a lovely Autumn day.

Itziger

Smartguy wrote: »

This is old fashioned snobbery. No doubt the lads running 2.30 will dismiss the achievement of someone running 2.50 and so on etc etc.

Have you seen the feedback Krusty gives people? And KielyU will respond to any questions and queries. Two 2.38 runners right there. Some extremely helpful people on here, though sometimes it's hard to be patient with the lads who say, "I want to run a sub 4 marathon but I don't like training........."

mossym

have had a bit more thought on this one

nerraw1111 wrote: »

"If you're going to get just as much praise for doing a four-hour marathon as a three-hour, why bother killing yourself training?" asked Robert Johnson, a founder of LetsRun.com,

hands up those that are running for the praise of others? i'd guess for most a PB with no-one watching or aware of is better than a slow run with 2000 people cheering you on and high fiving you.

let me just say so that Mr Johnson strikes me as someone very focused on recognition, probably a good thing for a business man, but i don;t put a lot of stock in that comment.

Itziger wrote: »

When people say to me "OMG, you ran a marathon, that's brilliant" Well you know it counts for naught, especially if they follow it up with, "My boyfriend ran the marathon in town last weekend - 55 minutes it took him" (they're referring to a 10k).

again, why would someone else's misconceived notions about what you do either inflate or deflate the achievement?? not having a go, just don't get that.

Itziger wrote: »

There's a point there somewhere alright. First thing is to scrap medals. First 3 home in a race, end of. But as for the praise for a 4hr being the same as for a 3hr, it's true that people who don't understand the game would high five a fella for strolling around in 7 hours. Thing is though, if you're a runner, YOU know the difference.

one last point about the medals. if people are that against them, consider this: does the 3rd place medal not belittle the winner then? if the mass distributed medals were different to the top 3 medals would that make it okay?

i'm not for medals, don't particularily care if i get one or not, but i'm not against the idea and just curious as to why some are so set against them. The OP didn't even mention medals yet they were brought up straight away

Itziger

mossym wrote: »

have had a bit more thought on this one



hands up those that are running for the praise of others? i'd guess for most a PB with no-one watching or aware of is better than a slow run with 2000 people cheering you on and high fiving you.

let me just say so that Mr Johnson strikes me as someone very focused on recognition, probably a good thing for a business man, but i don;t put a lot of stock in that comment.


again, why would someone else's misconceived notions about what you do either inflate or deflate the achievement?? not having a go, just don't get that.




one last point about the medals. if people are that against them, consider this: does the 3rd place medal not belittle the winner then? if the mass distributed medals were different to the top 3 medals would that make it okay?

i'm not for medals, don't particularily care if i get one or not, but i'm not against the idea and just curious as to why some are so set against them. The OP didn't even mention medals yet they were brought up straight away

With all due respect Mossy the tradition of giving 3 medals goes back a long, long way. If you can find me a winner who says, "The second and third don't deserve medals" then I'll call it a day. I just think that giving someone like me a medal for coming 765th - WTF! Give me a photo or a diploma if you like. That's something for me that I can look at and look back at and cherish. I have one pic that I've framed - it's nothing spectacular, just a nice running photo that I hope to have in 30 years time and maybe inspire a grandchild with!!! A teacher of my eldest told me recently that my daughter has often mentioned my training and dedication as something she's well impressed with. If that inspires her to work for her own goals, fantastic. And one last point on the medals. Most here competed in sports as teens I guess. The winners of almost all team games get medals and the runners up get "losing finalist medals". I don't believe the fellas who got knocked out in round 3 of the County Juvenile competition should get medals, sorry, that's not how it works.

I'm a bit old-fashioned on that maybe, but this tree-hugging mentality of "we're all winners". Bah! Now I really must get my sorry a$$ out the door for a run. Ciao!

Rantan

I needed a bit of ribbon to wrap a pressie for the missus last minute before a recent birthday and teh only ribbon i could find was one from a DCM medal. cost me no thought to cut it off and I might even have binned the medal -I think the plastic face had come off anyway.

However when she asked some other time is she could bin my old race numbers that I keep in a drawer in the spare room... I nearly freaked out...they mean a lot more to me than the medal...sweat stained, snotty pieces of paper at least have some echo of the effort fromn the race and training involved....if ditching the medals made race entry fees cheaper Id be for it.

Mint Sauce

Hands up, I cherish my Marathon Medal, even if it took me four and half hours to earn. If I run the next one quicker, I will cherish that medal more, if its slower, it will just be hung up with the rest.

The same as my two half medals, the second one was run quicker, so it means more.

I'm never gonna be competing for the top, only against my self, with just the aim to get stronger and quicker, is there any thing wrong with that.

mossym

Itziger wrote: »

With all due respect Mossy the tradition of giving 3 medals goes back a long, long way. If you can find me a winner who says, "The second and third don't deserve medals" then I'll call it a day.

you took me the wrong way, i don't think giving third a medal belittles first, that was my point. same way if i ever got third in a race the guy getting 5 receiving one wouldn't bother me

going off topic now, but i like the way some races are giving medals in non medal shape, more a figure that relates to the race, that to me is a nice compromise,give the standard medal to the top 3, give everyone else a momento, make it a different metal as well to make it obvious what it is

Rantan

Mint Sauce wrote: »

Hands up, I cherish my Marathon Medal, even if it took me four and half hours to earn. If I run the next one quicker, I will cherish that medal more, if its slower, it will just be hung up with the rest.

The same as my two half medals, the second one was run quicker, so it means more.

I'm never gonna be competing for the top, only against my self, with just the aim to get stronger and quicker, is there any thing wrong with that.

i don thibnk theres anything wrong with that...heres a question...would you be prepared to have the option to pay a few quid more in your race entry fee if you wanted a finishers medal?
Bit of waste really if a lot of people running any large race dont even care about the medals..

Doesn't this whole thread boil down to that old one, for some it's the winning, for others it's the taking part, neither is more or less valid than the other?

You just get a succession of people saying "for me it was the winning"..."for me it was the taking part"...

Itziger

Deleted User wrote: »

Doesn't this whole thread boil down to that old one, for some it's the winning, for others it's the taking part, neither is more or less valid than the other?

You just get a succession of people saying "for me it was the winning"..."for me it was the taking part"...

There's not too many walking around saying the former though!!!

I think there's a big number on here who are in between. I'm never going to win a marathon but I don't want to be a total plodder either. I try to race myself/my training/expectations. As I guess a lot on here do.

Smartguy

Itziger wrote: »

Have you seen the feedback Krusty gives people? And KielyU will respond to any questions and queries. Two 2.38 runners right there. Some extremely helpful people on here, though sometimes it's hard to be patient with the lads who say, "I want to run a sub 4 marathon but I don't like training........."

Just to be clear I was in no way talking about people on here. The snobbery comment was aimed at the initial post.

Although I think medals for everyone is silly.

walshb

Marathon races should have a 3 hrs 30 mins cap. After that, everyone should just go home.

Chivito550

mossym wrote: »

i'm not for medals, don't particularily care if i get one or not, but i'm not against the idea and just curious as to why some are so set against them. The OP didn't even mention medals yet they were brought up straight away

I'll tell you why I'm against them. Because it just reiterates the nonsensical belief among some that running longer is better than running faster. Why a medal for a marathon? Why not a medal for somebody who enters a 60m indoor race? In the end of the day, a race is a race. Why is it that one that is longer is seen as more impressive? That they have to work harder to achieve their goals?

Maybe I should contact the local body and demand medals for all the track races I've entered. As valid compensation as somebody jogging a fun run IMO.

Medals for 1st, 2nd and 3rd in each category and that is it! Medals for anything else just creates complacency and backslapping.

TRR

Ah the medal thing AGAIN. I usually bin medals for a big city marathon that I have done well in I like to keep them as momentos. Don't cherish them but nice to have.

The crux of the article IMO is that people are lacking a competitive spirit. Races are now social events. Nothing entirely wrong with that as a social event spent doing a little exercise is better than a traditional Irish social event in the pub. However there doesn't seem to be a drive from the majority of participants to improve or get faster. They complete a marathon in x hours tick it off their bucket list and move on or do some stupid event like run through paint or jump over bales of hay etc etc.

Now before anybody gets their knickers in a twist I don't think that is true of the vast majority of posters on this board. I don't think I've come across anybody who doesn't want o get faster. Read race reports and training logs and that is obvious.

ThePiedPiper

Chivito, I understand and appreciate your point here, but I just can't agree with it across the board for all distances. A marathon is completely and utterly different from a 60 metre run, or from a 1k fun run or whatever. The distance is what makes it different, and what is wrong with that? For the most part, 99.99% of entrants in a marathon have made a sustained commitment of training, and for a hell of a lot of entrants, it might represent one of the more important events in their lives from a sporting or personal perspective. Why should there not be something, a medal or a plaque or whatever?

Do you also think its ridiculous that the Comrades marathon gives medals to each and every one of the finishers, and has done since 1921 or whenever it started? Where do you draw the line? Is the 3rd place finisher of some random 3k fun run/walk deserving of a medal while something completing Comrades or UTMB or equivalent not?

Maybe its the actual medal that irks you, and if it is, I can understand the theoretical argument.

Mint Sauce

Rantan wrote: »

i don thibnk theres anything wrong with that...heres a question...would you be prepared to have the option to pay a few quid more in your race entry fee if you wanted a finishers medal?
Bit of waste really if a lot of people running any large race dont even care about the medals..

MMMMMmmmmm..

Not sure I would, as I would never get one if that was the case, its called a finishers medal for a reason, to show you have finished. The cheque, the vase, etc is for your top 3. Yes I would not feel the same way about if I ran slower, but I would still be proud of it I think.

Finishers medal has still been earned, weather it has taken you 3 hours or 7 hours.

Heres a better one. Souvineer Tee Shirts, personally I really dont get wearing them during the event. I wont as I dont think I derserve to until the race has been done.

ThePiedPiper

TRR, but how many people do you know that may have gotten into running thinking that they might just tick it off a list, but end up falling in love with the sport, and improving and competing properly over time? My first race of any sort was a marathon, and I didn't foresee that I'd immerse myself in the sport for years afterwards. For every 10 people who swear they'll just do the one marathon, thinking its just something to tick of a list or whatever, I'd say at least 2 or 3 end up getting properly involved in running.

Chivito550

RunForestRun wrote: »

Chivito, I understand and appreciate your point here, but I just can't agree with it across the board for all distances. A marathon is completely and utterly different from a 60 metre run, or from a 1k fun run or whatever. The distance is what makes it different, and what is wrong with that? For the most part, 99.99% of entrants in a marathon have made a sustained commitment of training, and for a hell of a lot of entrants, it might represent one of the more important events in their lives from a sporting or personal perspective. Why should there not be something, a medal or a plaque or whatever?

Do you also think its ridiculous that the Comrades marathon gives medals to each and every one of the finishers, and has done since 1921 or whenever it started? Where do you draw the line? Is the 3rd place finisher of some random 3k fun run/walk deserving of a medal while something completing Comrades or UTMB or equivalent not?

Maybe its the actual medal that irks you, and if it is, I can understand the theoretical argument.

A race is a race. An event is an event. 60m, 400m, Marathon, long jump, whatever. Just because one is longer doesn't mean one requires more work. There's nothing I hate more than when people think this!

My opinion is simple. First 3 in a race get a medal. Whether that is M40s at a local fun run or the Olympic 5000m final, that is the way it should be. You don't see people in tennis getting medals for participation. Or rugby, or football, or ice-hockey. Why is our sport always subjected to things like this? Whether it's charity or an everyone's a winner attitude, we seem happy to make our sport look a bit crap to outsiders, and more like exercise than actually displaying it as a competitive sport.

And this point does not apply to most posters here of course. It's a more general observation.

ThePiedPiper

Yeah, at the elite level, that is completely true. The best sprinters in the world (maybe not Bolt) work as hard as the middle distance, field athletes and the long distance runners. And, that is precisely why it feels ridiculous to me to get a finishers medal for a 10k, 5k, and to a certain extent a half marathon.

But, I still believe that the modern-day marathon event/race has a distinct appeal and identity separating itself from your 60m, 400m, track events that include only people actually involved in athletics. Without the mass entry model that NYC, London, etc developed for the marathon 40 years ago with medals for all finishers, etc., the marathon would exist only as an obscure event that only comes into the consciousness of the public every 4 years at the Olympics. You can't possibly argue that the running boom that started in the 70s with the first of the big city marathons coming along has been bad for either the sport or for people's participation in competitive or non-competitive running. The backslapping, social and everyone's a winner attitude is a part of that.

And even if you think that a 50-60 year old jogging around at 5 hour pace isn't worthy of getting a medal, slap on the back, there's a huge chance that that particular person could be doing that in memory of a lost family member, collecting money for a charity to benefit a cause, whatever. Yes, its not athletics and sport in the strictest definition of the word, but recognition is given and is 100% warranted. The marathon has evolved, we have to go with it.

drquirky

walshb wrote: »

Marathon races should have a 3 hrs 30 mins cap. After that, everyone should just go home.

Thats a ****ing ridiculous comment.

ThePiedPiper

drquirky wrote: »

Thats a ****ing ridiculous comment.

Don't fall for his bu!!sh!t drquirky. I'd hazard about 50% of his posts are aimed at rubbing people up the wrong way..

Chivito550

RunForestRun wrote: »

Yeah, at the elite level, that is completely true. The best sprinters in the world (maybe not Bolt) work as hard as the middle distance, field athletes and the long distance runners. And, that is precisely why it feels ridiculous to me to get a finishers medal for a 10k, 5k, and to a certain extent a half marathon.

But, I still believe that the modern-day marathon event/race has a distinct appeal and identity separating itself from your 60m, 400m, track events that include only people actually involved in athletics. Without the mass entry model that NYC, London, etc developed for the marathon 40 years ago with medals for all finishers, etc., the marathon would exist only as an obscure event that only comes into the consciousness of the public every 4 years at the Olympics. You can't possibly argue that the running boom that started in the 70s with the first of the big city marathons coming along has been bad for either the sport or for people's participation in competitive or non-competitive running. The backslapping, social and everyone's a winner attitude is a part of that.

And even if you think that a 50-60 year old jogging around at 5 hour pace isn't worthy of getting a medal, slap on the back, there's a huge chance that that particular person could be doing that in memory of a lost family member, collecting money for a charity to benefit a cause, whatever. Yes, its not athletics and sport in the strictest definition of the word, but recognition is given and is 100% warranted. The marathon has evolved, we have to go with it.

Of course the masses should run. Anything that gets people moving and away from the biscuit box is a good thing. I just don't personally believe medals are appropriate and necessary. If somebody only runs a marathon for a medal then one has to ask questions!

ecoli

Mod: Walshb banned for trolling

PaulieC

Hooray for mods! (of all varieties)

ThePiedPiper

Chivitto, 100% agreed. And, of the couple of hundred people I know who've done a marathon, there's been one or two who have had that as their motivation, but they're in the extreme minority.
To me, there's a difference between running a marathon just to get a medal, and wanting to get a medal at the end of running a marathon. Personally, I care much more about the medals I have for London, NYC or Boston than the trophies I got for finishing 1st and 3rd in lowkey races of shorter distances. There's no comparison there. The medal's not the motivation. Winning the lowkey races wasn't the motivation either. In all of them, I was just trying to do my best, and to me completing Boston in my 2nd slowest ever marathon trumps winning a lowkey nothing 10k race by nearly 3 minutes any day of the week.

TRR

RunForestRun wrote: »

TRR, but how many people do you know that may have gotten into running thinking that they might just tick it off a list, but end up falling in love with the sport, and improving and competing properly over time? My first race of any sort was a marathon, and I didn't foresee that I'd immerse myself in the sport for years afterwards. For every 10 people who swear they'll just do the one marathon, thinking its just something to tick of a list or whatever, I'd say at least 2 or 3 end up getting properly involved in running.

to be honest I don't know and I don't care. Can everybody reread the article and pay particular attention to falling standards section. They are rubbish now compared to 20+ years ago.

RayCun

I don't think they're related though. I find it hard to imagine that elite distance runners are going slower because they're pissed off at everyone else getting medals :pac:
Jerry Kiernan made the point a few months ago that distance standards were falling, but sprint and field standards were much higher. I don't know how true that is, but blaming track fairies would make a change from blaming medal collectors

hypersonic

drquirky wrote: »

Thats a ****ing ridiculous comment.

why? every sport has a time limit, why not marathoning, it could be age/sex graded. if anything it would add to the appeal.
I would take it further and have the first 10% in any category given a time, all the rest would be DNFs. if you can't hack the heat get out of the kitchen!

ecoli

hypersonic wrote: »

why? every sport has a time limit, why not marathoning, it could be age/sex graded. if anything it would add to the appeal.
I would take it further and have the first 10% in any category given a time, all the rest would be DNFs. if you can't hack the heat get out of the kitchen!

Wonder how many here have an interest in Fukuoka Marathon (pulled off if you are running slower than 2.46)?

hypersonic

ecoli wrote: »

Wonder how many here have an interest in Fukuoka Marathon (pulled off if you are running slower than 2.46)?

what is the issue, people don't stop playing sport because the ref blows the whistle, they suck it up and try harder next time. if you what a pass time take up knitting.

Oops69

I think this thread should be closed , it's revealing some deep rooted insecurities and low self esteem of some posters

ecoli

hypersonic wrote: »

what is the issue, people don't stop playing sport because the ref blows the whistle, they suck it up and try harder next time. if you what a pass time take up knitting.

My point was that your idea has been implemented but doesn't seem to capture too many peoples imaginations.

While I don't think that races should be exclusive I do think there should be some sort of incentive to bridge the gap between participants and elites. I remember growing up Rathfarnham only used to issue t shirts to top 100 finishers. It gave the t shirt a little more meaning. Regarding the medals thing,I think rather than an all or nothing why not a grading in the forms of different medals/coloured t shirts for different time/age grading achievements.

Agree with tRR that standards are slipping but not in front or back its the midpackers which is where there has seen this decline to the most part. It is getting better but I do think it needs to be incentivised to have an external as well as internal driving factor

hypersonic

ecoli wrote: »

My point was that your idea has been implemented but doesn't seem to capture too many peoples imaginations.

While I don't think that races should be exclusive I do think there should be some sort of incentive to bridge the gap between participants and elites. I remember growing up Rathfarnham only used to issue t shirts to top 100 finishers. It gave the t shirt a little more meaning. Regarding the medals thing,I think rather than an all or nothing why not a grading in the forms of different medals/coloured t shirts for different time/age grading achievements.

Agree with tRR that standards are slipping but not in front or back its the midpackers which is where there has seen this decline to the most part. It is getting better but I do think it needs to be incentivised to have an external as well as internal driving factor

thanks, I did not know about the fukuoka marathon, that sounds bloody tough, actually it's frightening tough. that's a tshirt worth having.

ThePiedPiper

Worthless T-shirt and medal from the Fukuoka marathon unless you finish in the top 3 of course!

hypersonic

RunForestRun wrote: »

Worthless T-shirt and medal from the Fukuoka marathon unless you finish in the top 3 of course!

worthless medal, yes, but I'd take the tshirt.

ecoli

Maybe there should just be t shirts/medals for PB's?

TRR

On the increased standards in Irish sprinting. They were ****e historically so not hard to improve on. They are easily outperforming middle and long distance now though.

Mint Sauce

ecoli wrote: »

Maybe there should just be t shirts/medals for PB's?

So nothing for completing your first (and sometimes only) marathon then?