I love internet threads about unpopular opinions. What movie do you hate that everyone else loves? What famous author do you hate to read? While being slightly provocative, I think these types of conversations are interesting and open us up to different points of view. So without further ado, here's my unpopular running opinion:
I hate that nearly every road race gives out finisher's medals to all participants.
I think when everyone gets a medal, it's value becomes meaningless. I think that if everyone is a winner, then by extension no one is a winner.
I think it's disgraceful that in many cases, the first-place finisher gets the same trophy as the last-place finisher.
I think that not only do they encourage non-competition, but they also send a message of anti-competitiveness. I think finisher's medals embody the "everyone's a winner" attitude that is antithetical to competitive sport.
I think finisher's medals are one of the reasons why running is not taken seriously as a sport. They certainly aren't the whole problem, but they exemplify the attitude that treats running as an activity or a hobby instead of a sport to be taken seriously along with other major sports in the American cultural consciousness.
I think finisher's medals are meant to appeal to the more casual runner who may not be a loyal customer, while they alienate the more competitive runner who is a lifelong consumer of racing. I think finisher's medals target the wrong demographics if races want legitimacy and longevity.
I think that if people want a trophy or memento from their race, then it should be their bib number instead of a medal...the bib number is more personal to your own individual race than a cookie-cutter medal. I think that people should be able to buy race medals if they want, but the finisher's medal should not be included in the race entry fee.
Could you imagine if any other sport gave out participant medals to everyone who took part? The car company Kia did, and the results are, most would agree, laughable.
I think it's absurd that people will be offended by my unpopular opinion. "You're being elitist," they'll say, adding, "finisher's medals make running more accessible to other types of people who aren't fast." Of course I feel that sentiment is off-base. Nowhere am I disparaging slower runners (however one defines what a 'slower' runner actually is); all I'm saying is that we should honor the race winners like any other competition...and a race is, by definition, a competition. On the second charge, running already is the most easily accessible sport/activity out there. All you need are a pair of shoes (although some would argue you don't even need that) and the will to train. No special equipment, no special venue, just got out and do it. Anyone who runs is a runner; you don't need a special medal or a professional contract to validate that.
Well, there's my unpopular opinion. What's yours?
I hate that nearly every road race gives out finisher's medals to all participants.
I think when everyone gets a medal, it's value becomes meaningless. I think that if everyone is a winner, then by extension no one is a winner.
I think it's disgraceful that in many cases, the first-place finisher gets the same trophy as the last-place finisher.
I think finisher's medals are one of the reasons why running is not taken seriously as a sport. They certainly aren't the whole problem, but they exemplify the attitude that treats running as an activity or a hobby instead of a sport to be taken seriously along with other major sports in the American cultural consciousness.
I think finisher's medals are meant to appeal to the more casual runner who may not be a loyal customer, while they alienate the more competitive runner who is a lifelong consumer of racing. I think finisher's medals target the wrong demographics if races want legitimacy and longevity.
I think that if people want a trophy or memento from their race, then it should be their bib number instead of a medal...the bib number is more personal to your own individual race than a cookie-cutter medal. I think that people should be able to buy race medals if they want, but the finisher's medal should not be included in the race entry fee.
Could you imagine if any other sport gave out participant medals to everyone who took part? The car company Kia did, and the results are, most would agree, laughable.
I think it's absurd that people will be offended by my unpopular opinion. "You're being elitist," they'll say, adding, "finisher's medals make running more accessible to other types of people who aren't fast." Of course I feel that sentiment is off-base. Nowhere am I disparaging slower runners (however one defines what a 'slower' runner actually is); all I'm saying is that we should honor the race winners like any other competition...and a race is, by definition, a competition. On the second charge, running already is the most easily accessible sport/activity out there. All you need are a pair of shoes (although some would argue you don't even need that) and the will to train. No special equipment, no special venue, just got out and do it. Anyone who runs is a runner; you don't need a special medal or a professional contract to validate that.
Well, there's my unpopular opinion. What's yours?
Comments
Post a Comment