Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NY, Boston should go amateur.

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

    For those who want NYCM to be amateur due to the times, please consider:

    New York and Boston are two of the most difficult courses to run. It is not easy to get well below 2:10 out of those courses. Juma Ikanga's 2:08.01 in New York stood for 13 years (and it took an adjustment of the course on Fifth Ave and 102nd street to break it!!!!).

    And if anyone thinks that the sponsors will be around for an amateur NYCM....

    ....and (with withdrawn sponsorships for NYCM) if you think NYCM will stay afloat (expensive as it is) try paying overtime to NYPD and Sanitation for the five borough cleanup!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

      My apologies to kuhu1 for my a-bit-too-negative response. Didn't see the (seemingly) part. Just took it (too) personally given the great Kenyan guys I have met over the years.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

        Thanks, man. We're really on the same basic side here... We all care about the sport. We may have differing visions of what it all means, but the interchanges here are--in some real way--conversations between friends...

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

          DF said: "New York and Boston are two of the most difficult courses to run."

          Give me a break. These are not two of the most difficult courses. If you think so you need to get out more and run more races. These courses are fairly fast. Yes, London, Chicago and Rotterdam and some others may be flatter but NYC and Boston are good fast courses.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

            >My argument is an economic one. While watching
            >the Boston telecast last spring, it was mentioned
            >that 4 million dollars were spent on appearance
            >and prize money. Meanwhile, on the screen there
            >were 10 or so Kenyans running in a line across
            >the street in front, going along a moderate pace.
            >My main thought at the time was not how exciting
            >it was (it wasn't) but why are they doling out
            >this money. If none of those runners were there
            >would anyone care? I doubt it. While they are
            >certainly better than American runners, they are
            >not the world's best and come and go with such
            >frequency that they are completely
            >interchangeable.


            races run by private entities (such as nycm, boston, *ahem!* chicago, london, etc.) pay athletes only as much as they see fit - as they should be allowed to. they pay out to get a return, they are not running a charity. somebody must care if they are there. lose the professional race and lose national (if so-called "nameless and faceless" 2:10 males are of no interest to the viewing public, just consider how uninteresting "nameless and faceless" 2:18 males [to the average american, caucasian distance runners are no more familiar than those from africa or asia] would be) and international interest/exposure and watch the sponsors jump ship. kiss national broadcasting goodbye, why would any network would want to show even a second of that?
            besides, there already are amateur marathons in the u.s. (las vegas, marine corps, houston (though prize money will be reinstituded there next year.))

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

              >DF said: "New York and Boston are two of the
              >most difficult courses to run."

              Give me a
              >break. These are not two of the most difficult
              >courses. If you think so you need to get out
              >more and run more races. These courses are
              >fairly fast. Yes, London, Chicago and Rotterdam
              >and some others may be flatter but NYC and Boston
              >are good fast courses.

              Then why did it take over a decade (and a course adjustment at 5th Ave and 102nd--Mile 23) to break 2:08:01 at NY?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

                >DF said: "New York and Boston are two of the
                >most difficult courses to run."

                Give me a
                >break. These are not two of the most difficult
                >courses. If you think so you need to get out
                >more and run more races. These courses are
                >fairly fast. Yes, London, Chicago and Rotterdam
                >and some others may be flatter but NYC and Boston
                >are good fast courses.>

                NY, depending on the weather and wind, is probably 90 secs to 2 mins slower than the pancake courses at the elite level.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

                  Besides, just like with any other distance race, a marathon can't be judged only on times achieved. This year's NYC was a tactical race. These guys could have probably gone 2 mins faster had they gone for it... but the NYC marathon has never really been about fast times.
                  It's true that this race isn't quite what it used to be in terms of quality, but if anything, it's because there are not enough Kenyans in it, not too many!
                  And, even if your whole argument was tongue-in-cheek, I will still criticize it for being illogical. You're saying the race was not exciting enough because it was won in a 'slow' 2:10, yet you're suggesting it will be exciting if it's won in 2:24. On the other hand, if you're interested in 2:20ish times, maybe you should have followed the women's race instead :-P It definitely have a better field than the men's, and the times were relatively better as well.
                  Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: NY, Boston should go amateur.

                    I DID follow the women's race. It was obviously of much higher caliber than the men's. As for the overall popularity of the race, I will point out that the back-of-the-packers got WAY more media coverage than the guys up front. How much did we read about the Honorable Sean Puffy P. Diddly Combs? And this morning's paper has more info on the folks who staggered through the "race" in 5 hours or 25 hours. I'm not "for" this aspect of the event, but it's apparently what the general media and public focus on. They hardly care about 2:04:55 times, after all, never mind 2:10:30 times. So if it's media coverage and public "excitement" you're after, go for the glitz and sob stories. The obvious answer: Every competitor in a funny costume, celebrities by the score, and lots of "up close and personal" profiles. Heaven!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X