Two NYC Marathons in Two Days?

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/running_dialogue/2011/11/vote-should-the-nyc-marathon-spread-over-two-days-to-meet-runner-demand

This seems dumb to me. But that's about as articulate as I can get about it.

I like the idea. One day the women would run and the other day the men would run. Sounds great to me.

Even if not broken up by gender I don't see the problem. What's dumb about it?

Stan

I don't really see any downside to this other than the additional logistical difficulties of sectioning off the much of a busy city for two days in a row.

ssilvert wrote:

One day the women would run and the other day the men would run.

That would be a depressive run, my friend!

Don't know. Just dumb.

I guess it is to comply with the new USATF rules about world records and such? I have no issue other than it would probably be a logistical nightmare for the city.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:I guess it is to comply with the new USATF rules about world records and such? I have no issue other than it would probably be a logistical nightmare for the city.

No, it's too accommodate everyone who wants entry, so they would make twice the cash! cha-ching!

To me it just seems like a Marathon is an event. Like, one. What if it is pouring rain one day and beautiful the next? That would be rotten luck.

But really, I just think it's silly.

Seriously, if it is just all about the almighty $, then I'm not a fan.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:Seriously, if it is just all about the almighty $, then I'm not a fan.

Oh I am sure they would spin it as wanting to accommodate all of the people who apply for entry. Which isn't necessarily a negative...I just don't like it.

So which day is the REAL race????????????? I agree -- stupid.

mountandog wrote:So which day is the REAL race????????????? I agree -- stupid.

Both are real races. It's just that there would be two of them. Two separate races. I don't see the problem.

If it is all about the money good for them. Think about how much money the event brings to NYC. This helps the economy IMO. As long as it does not affect the integrity of their race and/sport. The upside can be that you maybe more likely to get into the race. If the demand is there why not split it off into two race events.

Question is why male and female why not runner and joggers. or maybe this and that

I'm on the "dumb" side, but I can't explain why, either. Just seems... Illegitimate.

Kenny B. wrote:Question is why male and female why not runner and joggers. or maybe this and that

That part was just me making a guess. If they did it then I do think it would at least make sense to have the men's and women's elite races separated so that each could get the full benefit of media coverage for that day.

A "runners" and "joggers" separation might be interesting too. Or even masters / non-masters.

Stan

Mike MacLellan wrote:I'm on the "dumb" side, but I can't explain why, either. Just seems... Illegitimate.

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:Seriously, if it is just all about the almighty $, then I'm not a fan.

Considering most big city marathons don't make money unless they get huge sponsorship dollars, I don't really think this is the case. It would bring many more dollars into the city with that many more runners participating, but I don't see how that really benefits the marathon itself. It would allow many more people to participate, but once people have run it one time, will the demand remain high enough for them to continue doing it?

It seems this is really for the runners and dividing it into men's and women's would seem to make the most sense, especially if world record were to come into play, which, as difficult as the course is would probably be unlikely.

mountandog wrote:So which day is the REAL race????????????? I agree -- stupid.

I agree. Which is the REAL race. Double the participants, double the load on hotels, quadruple the prices, which are already ridiculous in order to meet demand. Dumb.

mul21 wrote:

Michele "1L" Keane wrote:Seriously, if it is just all about the almighty $, then I'm not a fan.

Considering most big city marathons don't make money unless they get huge sponsorship dollars, I don't really think this is the case. It would bring many more dollars into the city with that many more runners participating, but I don't see how that really benefits the marathon itself.

The benefit IS to the city hosting the event. That is a real benefit not to be discounted. If you are any city, big or small, you want to host an event like the NYC Marathon, or the World Choir Games, or the NAACP convention in your town. This is as important aspect of hosting the event as any. And to double the number of participants by spreading it over two days, doesn't necessarily make for a better experience. You've now made it more difficult to book a room, get a reservation at a restaurant, buy a ticket to a show, find a cab, etc... etc... You are thereby diminishing the enjoyment people get from visiting your city and possibly discouraging them from coming back by leaving a bad impression. Plus, if you make the event that much easier to get into, you will probably get fewer participants. Also, I can't see the NYCM giving up the free money it already gets each year from the thousands of hopefuls who pay $11 or whatever it currently is to enter the lottery. I know they made $44 from me in addition to my entry fee. That's a lot of fees to give up for nothing!

What I was thinking about, is that this would really make things crazy for mixed groups trying to travel together. I've been to plenty of races with both men and women runners from my group and we drive the day before, race the marathon that morning and then head home. I can't really see going a day early or staying a day later anywhere to wait for the guys to finish up their race (or have them wait for the women.

On the other hand, I would love to see something like this for marathons that have half marathons that start at the same time and make things so congested but many races have already figured that out and have different start times/slightly different routes.

First and foremost, making it a two day event would remove the luster
and charm of Marathon Sunday. As anyone who had been there knows, it's a
singular experience, and no matter how you split it up, having it over
two days would diminish that electricity.

Also, as supportive as most New Yorkers are about the marathon, despite
the fact that is forces the paralysis of huge chunks of the city, I don't see that
support extending over an entire weekend. This is still New York, you know.
Lastly, I don't see this as a serious idea. I'm thinking that Wittenberg floated it as a test balloon and nothing more.

Here's what NY Times sports columnist George Vescey has to say on the matter:

http://marathon.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/two-marathons-good-idea-or-bad/?ref=sports

Seth Harrison wrote:First and foremost, making it a two day event would remove the luster
and charm of Marathon Sunday. As anyone who had been there knows, it's a
singular experience, and no matter how you split it up, having it over
two days would diminish that electricity.

Also, as supportive as most New Yorkers are about the marathon, despite
the fact that is forces the paralysis of huge chunks of the city, I don't see that
support extending over an entire weekend. This is still New York, you know.
Lastly, I don't see this as a serious idea. I'm thinking that Wittenberg floated it as a test balloon and nothing more.

Here's what NY Times sports columnist George Vescey has to say on the matter:

http://marathon.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/two-marathons-good-idea-or-bad/?ref=sports

Couldn't have expressed it better myself. (Clearly I couldn't, but I think what you said about basically translates to "it's just dumb" in Sara Jane speak)...but yes, the "electricity" is what would be missing. It just wouldn't be...right. IMO.

Sara Jane wrote:

Seth Harrison wrote:First and foremost, making it a two day event would remove the luster
and charm of Marathon Sunday. As anyone who had been there knows, it's a
singular experience, and no matter how you split it up, having it over
two days would diminish that electricity.

Also, as supportive as most New Yorkers are about the marathon, despite
the fact that is forces the paralysis of huge chunks of the city, I don't see that
support extending over an entire weekend. This is still New York, you know.
Lastly, I don't see this as a serious idea. I'm thinking that Wittenberg floated it as a test balloon and nothing more.

Here's what NY Times sports columnist George Vescey has to say on the matter:

http://marathon.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/two-marathons-good-idea-or-bad/?ref=sports

Couldn't have expressed it better myself. (Clearly I couldn't, but I think what you said about basically translates to "it's just dumb" in Sara Jane speak)...but yes, the "electricity" is what would be missing. It just wouldn't be...right. IMO.

I think Seth is right. There is no way the crowds come out two days in a row. The other thing is that part of the draw of marathons is running the same race as the elites. I know people mentioned splitting out the men and women -- really? Not the greatest idea.

Inclined to agree

Logistical nightmare for an international hub! Leave it alone, there are other marathons. Want to tour the city, they have tour guides!

I ran a 15k in Chicago this morning. The guys decided if there were no women in the race, and the women decided if there were no men in the race, much of the appeal of running the race would be gone.

I'm not quite sure if I'd feel the same for a marathon that I was going in seriously trained for, but if it would have been all dudes there today, I would have slept in.

To be honest I could care less what New York does with their marathon. The last time I had any interest to go to NY was when the Dead were still playing Madison Square. Now that Jerry is dead and gone, I'm almost 100% certain that I will never go to New York the rest of my life.

Hell I already have an expensive marathon to pay for in Chicago and Boston. I'm really getting tired of how much it cost to run the big city marathons. At least with Chicago I cut the expenses down by living here and at least with Boston you can stay outside the city for really cheap. To me NY just doesn't and hasn't ever appealed to me as far as running their marathon. That is why it is time for me to start hitting the trails more at least I know that my money is going to help keep nature looking good and groomed for myself and other to enjoy it for a long time to come rather then giving it to a big city. Hence the reason that I'm actually thinking about skipping out on big city marathon is in the future all together. Although that might be hard since I do love running Chicago and Boston every year, but it just might if the price keeps going up like it has been. Starting to get plain stupid to pay 150 bucks to run a marathon.

But I do think that it would be a little a crazy to run the marathon over a two day period. The only way that I see were it would make sense would be if they were using it as a Olympic qualifier race for the elite men or women. But for the general public running the race I would have to say I would agree with SJ pretty stupid idea!