For the past week I've been reading the March 2016 Runner's World magazine. I still believe most of the magazine is made for people with short attention spans, those who like their news in quick sound bytes. However, the Editor-in-Chief addressed this issue in an essay on the differences between Running Times and Runner's World and how they are trying to meld the two magazines together to appeal to all types of runners.
The March issue has nice coverage of the U.S. marathon Olympic trials with predictions on who will finish in the top three for men and women. It seems most of the time someone runs the race of their life and either wins or places in the top three and makes the team, someone totally unexpected. 1984 saw one of those races, with Pete Pfitzinger taking the win and John Tuttle finishing third, both fine runners but not expected to be true contenders. Alberto Salazar, the race favorite came in second, but world class runners like Bill Rodgers, Greg Meyers, Tony Sandoval failed to make the team.
I also like the article on some of the "average" trials competitors, men and women who beat the qualifying times of 2:19 for men and 2:45 for females in the marathon. These are some of the people who are balancing work, families and running at a national or world class level. They have interesting stories to tell and reasons why they are racing even if finishing in the top three isn't likely.
Maybe Runner's World will be able to find a balance between the "fun" only runner and age-groupers and national/world class runners.
No comments:
Post a Comment