If you've been paying attention to the running world this past month, you might have noticed that there's been a lot of discussion on the supposed decrease in the competitiveness of road races. These articles and blog posts have all tried, in some way, to wrestle with the state of our sport. How do people in this country feel about the sport of running? What are some things we athletes, race directors, and fans need to do better to promote the sport? And since, after all, this is a running blog, I figured I might as well weigh in.
It all started about a month ago when Competitor Group (which hosts races nationally, including the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon series) announced it was eliminating its support of elite athletes at all of its events in North America.
Then Toni Reavis posted an article about the "dumbing down, slowing down" of road races across the country. In it he made some very intriguing points about the growth of rec runners in road races and the lack of connection between them and some of the more elite athletes running the same race. Many of the recreational runners can't even name - much less care about - the people at the front of the pack.
Throwing fire on the flame was a puff piece in the Wall Street Journal that was poorly written and poorly researched and clearly meant to spark outrage and drive pageviews (it succeeded). In his article author Kevin Helliker argued that today's generation is less competitive than the good ol' days of the Baby Boomers. Because nothing sparks clicks like golden-age nostalgia and generation-bashing. *Kids these days... I could go on about how misinformed and misinterpreted his anecdotal evidence is, but then I'd be straying from the point of this post. (Besides, most of what I'd say has already been written in the comments section)
Finally, 3:52 miler David Torrence responded to much of the debate in a very interesting letter published by LetsRun. His letter makes the point that "the blaming of elites has to stop." I completely agree. He also provided some fixes to better promote the sport of running, including more educational and higher-quality TV broadcasts. Again, I completely agree.
So with all the ado about road races and runners and the overall state of the sport, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. That is the purpose of a blog, after all.
First of all, a distinction must be made between the activity of running and the sport of running. Running as an activity has never been more popular; in fact, we are in the midst of the second running boom (the first being in the late-70s / early-80s), and most of the gains being made are with people - recreational runners - involved in the running the activity. Just look at the exploding numbers of road races, from local 5ks to big city marathons - and the correlating explosion in number of participants. Some of these, such as the Chicago Marathon, host close to 50,000 runners. And you know what? Good on all these people. Get out the door, go run, be active, have fun. Kudos.
One of the things that makes running a unique sport is that it places participants and athletes on the same course at the same time. Ryan Hall, for example, can toe the starting line next to someone dressed up as Batman. Your after-work softball league doesn't play at Great American Ball Park with Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto. Your flag football team doesn't play at Paul Brown Stadium with Coach Marvin Lewis. You don't swim laps with Michael Phelps. But running places athletes and rec runners next to each other; there should be more of a connect between the masses and the elites, yet there is not. Often the masses are ignorant - or even contemptuous of - those athletes who are there to race.
And here lies the problem with the state of the sport: participants either don't know or don't care to know the athletes. The sport of running does a terrible job of promoting itself. Better TV coverage is one solution. Race directors also need to do a better job of not only bringing elite athletes to their events, but also using them for promotion. Some great ideas that have been brainstormed have included: encouraging participants to cool down with the elites, creating a 'mixed zone' where finishers can mingle with elites, etc. Race directors, TV, and especially USATF all need to step up their game.
But here's the thing: US distance running at the top has never been stronger. The following are just a few examples: Nick Symmonds won silver in the 2013 World Championships 800m, the first American medal in the event since 1997 and highest in an international event since Dave Wottle's gold in 1972. On the women's side in the same event, Brenda Martinez won bronze, becoming the first American female to medal in the event. One step up in distance, Jenny Simpson took silver in the 1500m...this two years after her 1500m gold in the 2011 World Champs. Matt Centrowitz followed up his 2011 1500m bronze with a silver medal this year. And at the Olympics last year, Leo Manzano (silver) won the first American medal since Jim Ryun's silver in 1968. And Galen Rupp took the nation's first medal (silver again) in the 10,000m since Billy Mills' miraculous gold in 1964. There are so many more athletes, including Meb Keflezighi, Evan Jager, Shalane Flanagan, etc., that I can't include them all here.
This may be the fastest era in US distance running history.
This is not the fastest era for the sub-elite runners; those who are trying to make it to that next level. (Me? I hope?) This is the area of the sport where the USA is struggling. This is where decisions like Competitor's to drop support for elite athletes does the most harm to the sport.
In his aforementioned article, Toni Reavis notes that in the "1983 Boston Marathon, nearly 90 men broke 2:20:00." In the 2013 Boston Marathon? 21. Ten Americans. (Not me)
A sub-2:20:00 marathon is generally the benchmark of an elite / sub-elite male runner. Since the first running boom, the number of American sub-2:20:00 marathoners has precipitously declined. In 1983, there were 267 2:20:00 marathon. In 2007, there were 57. (The low occurred in 2001, when there were only 20) While Ryan Hall and Meb are running faster than Frank Shorter and Alberto Salazar were 30 years ago, the sheer number of athletes trying to run fast has declined.
Runners have always been the starving artist-type. Crashing on couches, scrounging cash for shoes, desperately trying to pay for travel with prize money; much of this is similar to how it was 30 years ago. And that's the problem. If we want to improve the quality if distance running, then we need to adapt strategies that encourage good young athletes to become distance runners. Way too many talented college runners quit at graduation, before their prime, because there simply cannot train at a high caliber while working a full-time job. And we shouldn't expect the future of the sport to do that.
Race directors, shoe companies, other companies, even USATF and local running clubs need to do a better job of supported the sub-elite distance runner - the person who is trying to make it to that next level. Provide some sort of financial incentive beyond prize money. I'm not experienced enough to suggest solutions, but I do know that these sub-elite runners need more support, both financially and psychologically. A comp'd entry and hotel goes a long way to building that support...and it also creates repeat entrants.
So maybe I'm a little biased; I'm one of those runners who has aspirations of the Olympic Trials but is not nearly good enough to make a living off of this sport. To pay the bills (including race entry fees) I work at a running store and am training to become a teacher. I know former all-Americans who have had to work full-time while also running upwards of 100 miles per week. This needs to be the exception, not the rule. Just like baseball has the minor leagues and basketball has Europe, runners who are striving to reach that next level need some level of support. This is where the state of the sport needs vast improvement.
It all started about a month ago when Competitor Group (which hosts races nationally, including the Rock 'n' Roll Marathon series) announced it was eliminating its support of elite athletes at all of its events in North America.
Then Toni Reavis posted an article about the "dumbing down, slowing down" of road races across the country. In it he made some very intriguing points about the growth of rec runners in road races and the lack of connection between them and some of the more elite athletes running the same race. Many of the recreational runners can't even name - much less care about - the people at the front of the pack.
Throwing fire on the flame was a puff piece in the Wall Street Journal that was poorly written and poorly researched and clearly meant to spark outrage and drive pageviews (it succeeded). In his article author Kevin Helliker argued that today's generation is less competitive than the good ol' days of the Baby Boomers. Because nothing sparks clicks like golden-age nostalgia and generation-bashing. *Kids these days... I could go on about how misinformed and misinterpreted his anecdotal evidence is, but then I'd be straying from the point of this post. (Besides, most of what I'd say has already been written in the comments section)
Finally, 3:52 miler David Torrence responded to much of the debate in a very interesting letter published by LetsRun. His letter makes the point that "the blaming of elites has to stop." I completely agree. He also provided some fixes to better promote the sport of running, including more educational and higher-quality TV broadcasts. Again, I completely agree.
So with all the ado about road races and runners and the overall state of the sport, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. That is the purpose of a blog, after all.
First of all, a distinction must be made between the activity of running and the sport of running. Running as an activity has never been more popular; in fact, we are in the midst of the second running boom (the first being in the late-70s / early-80s), and most of the gains being made are with people - recreational runners - involved in the running the activity. Just look at the exploding numbers of road races, from local 5ks to big city marathons - and the correlating explosion in number of participants. Some of these, such as the Chicago Marathon, host close to 50,000 runners. And you know what? Good on all these people. Get out the door, go run, be active, have fun. Kudos.
One of the things that makes running a unique sport is that it places participants and athletes on the same course at the same time. Ryan Hall, for example, can toe the starting line next to someone dressed up as Batman. Your after-work softball league doesn't play at Great American Ball Park with Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto. Your flag football team doesn't play at Paul Brown Stadium with Coach Marvin Lewis. You don't swim laps with Michael Phelps. But running places athletes and rec runners next to each other; there should be more of a connect between the masses and the elites, yet there is not. Often the masses are ignorant - or even contemptuous of - those athletes who are there to race.
And here lies the problem with the state of the sport: participants either don't know or don't care to know the athletes. The sport of running does a terrible job of promoting itself. Better TV coverage is one solution. Race directors also need to do a better job of not only bringing elite athletes to their events, but also using them for promotion. Some great ideas that have been brainstormed have included: encouraging participants to cool down with the elites, creating a 'mixed zone' where finishers can mingle with elites, etc. Race directors, TV, and especially USATF all need to step up their game.
But here's the thing: US distance running at the top has never been stronger. The following are just a few examples: Nick Symmonds won silver in the 2013 World Championships 800m, the first American medal in the event since 1997 and highest in an international event since Dave Wottle's gold in 1972. On the women's side in the same event, Brenda Martinez won bronze, becoming the first American female to medal in the event. One step up in distance, Jenny Simpson took silver in the 1500m...this two years after her 1500m gold in the 2011 World Champs. Matt Centrowitz followed up his 2011 1500m bronze with a silver medal this year. And at the Olympics last year, Leo Manzano (silver) won the first American medal since Jim Ryun's silver in 1968. And Galen Rupp took the nation's first medal (silver again) in the 10,000m since Billy Mills' miraculous gold in 1964. There are so many more athletes, including Meb Keflezighi, Evan Jager, Shalane Flanagan, etc., that I can't include them all here.
This may be the fastest era in US distance running history.
This is not the fastest era for the sub-elite runners; those who are trying to make it to that next level. (Me? I hope?) This is the area of the sport where the USA is struggling. This is where decisions like Competitor's to drop support for elite athletes does the most harm to the sport.
In his aforementioned article, Toni Reavis notes that in the "1983 Boston Marathon, nearly 90 men broke 2:20:00." In the 2013 Boston Marathon? 21. Ten Americans. (Not me)
A sub-2:20:00 marathon is generally the benchmark of an elite / sub-elite male runner. Since the first running boom, the number of American sub-2:20:00 marathoners has precipitously declined. In 1983, there were 267 2:20:00 marathon. In 2007, there were 57. (The low occurred in 2001, when there were only 20) While Ryan Hall and Meb are running faster than Frank Shorter and Alberto Salazar were 30 years ago, the sheer number of athletes trying to run fast has declined.
Runners have always been the starving artist-type. Crashing on couches, scrounging cash for shoes, desperately trying to pay for travel with prize money; much of this is similar to how it was 30 years ago. And that's the problem. If we want to improve the quality if distance running, then we need to adapt strategies that encourage good young athletes to become distance runners. Way too many talented college runners quit at graduation, before their prime, because there simply cannot train at a high caliber while working a full-time job. And we shouldn't expect the future of the sport to do that.
Race directors, shoe companies, other companies, even USATF and local running clubs need to do a better job of supported the sub-elite distance runner - the person who is trying to make it to that next level. Provide some sort of financial incentive beyond prize money. I'm not experienced enough to suggest solutions, but I do know that these sub-elite runners need more support, both financially and psychologically. A comp'd entry and hotel goes a long way to building that support...and it also creates repeat entrants.
So maybe I'm a little biased; I'm one of those runners who has aspirations of the Olympic Trials but is not nearly good enough to make a living off of this sport. To pay the bills (including race entry fees) I work at a running store and am training to become a teacher. I know former all-Americans who have had to work full-time while also running upwards of 100 miles per week. This needs to be the exception, not the rule. Just like baseball has the minor leagues and basketball has Europe, runners who are striving to reach that next level need some level of support. This is where the state of the sport needs vast improvement.
Comments
Post a Comment