El Burro Blanco

You would be missed but I think it is a better opportunity for you. Besides you have allready done St. G and will have many more chances to do that marathon.

Depends on why you are thinking of changing. When Paul was looking for his OQT last year, he did a big post on his marathongis blog about it- take a look. Pro's and con's for both- Chicago is definitely more well known and respected. Of course, you better hope the weather isn't like last year...

As I told you in the van I think it would be an interesting experience for you. Jon's concern about the weather is a good one but that is probably the case with the vast majority of marathons.

Logan, I can see benefits both ways. As Josse said, ya you have ran St. George, but I think now you are capable of winning it. That would be pretty cool. On the other hand, I think you would benefit from the better competition, running with some of the big boys. Either way you will have a positve outcome, follow your heart!

Go for Chicago as I agree it would be a great experience to run with those elite athlete and it is a great course. I have looked into running it and right now miss their "Top 100" program by 1 minute (and they won't deviate from it...bummer).

Why Chicago? If you are running it to prepare for a trials qualifier there than that is a good choice. Dave and I want to find a course that we both feel comfortable on and then run it as soon as possible every year to be ready to try and qualify on it in later years. But I was thinking San Diego, PHX or Cal International... as a possible qualifier course.

Clyde - Cal International will not be a qualifier course, since it is aided.

Logan - go for it. You've accomplished what you needed to at St. George. What is the motivation for coming back, other than convenience? That is how I look at it anyway. Unless St. George switches to large cash prizes, I probably won't be back for several years. Chicago, Twin Cities, and Detroit are all good October marathons on record-eligible courses.

Don't forget Portland as an option as well.

Go for it... I'm seriously thinking about St. George this year. Thanks for the motivation.

Paul for some reason I though CIM was going to be approved...but if it's not than it's off the list.

The thing of it is- is last year there wasn't even a debate. When STGM was ok to qualify on then there is no question- you run it. But it's not and now there really isn't a good reason to run it. No real $$$ thats for sure. Like I said I would really like to find a approve course that we all would agree on and then go run it together every year to prepare to qualify. I'm just not sure about Chicago...but I'm open to peer pressure and persuasion.

Clyde - I know Boston will be approved despite being "aided" (note the sarcastic quotes) because it is such a huge race. CIM is no bigger than Top of Utah, so I doubt it will get that kind of grace. But I haven't heard one way or another; I'm just assuming it won't make the cut unless they slip USATF some money or something.

I agree that it would be advantageous to pick certain races and do them as a team. It's good for pacing, logistics, emotional support, and advertising for that matter. In some ways Twin Cities might be best. It has been the USA Championships for several years, and because of that you can actually qualify there a year early. For instance, if it is the USA Champ course next year, they will open up OT qualifying just for that race, whereas you will have to wait another full year for OTQ on other courses. And you can bank on racing against several dozen of the best Americans. The downside is that Twin Cities is rolling hills and not that fast. However, Chicago is only fast if it is not windy and not hot. It has fast topography, but not necessarily for conditions all the time. Same with Detroit. IMO, the best reason to run Chicago (or any other big marathon) isn't necessarily for the fast time, but for the thick, fast competition. There are few races were you can run 2:20 and finish 50th. This might sound weird, but personally I find intense competition and clawing for every spot more fun than winning a thousand bucks and beating up on locals. The race and experience gained becomes the reward.

In my mind, the best scenario (for me) would be to run a bigger, higher-profile marathon in the early fall like Twin Cities or Chicago, and then do a smaller, high-dollar marathon like St. Jude or CIM in the early winter before going back to base training for the winter. Best of both worlds?

Sorry for hijacking your blog Logan.

Let's see- Logan, Paul, Clyde, and Dave are all thinking of not doing St. George this year. That's 4 spots in my age group that I just moved up! Excellent! Anyone else we can encourage to run elsewhere?

Paul, A well thought out and presented arguement. Thank you for the insight.

Thanks for the input everyone. I would like to try a big race just to see how I do against the big boys. I would be interested to see how I do.

Does it make a difference to you that Chicago is a Sunday race? Boston is not, though.

Sabbath day racing issues aside, Chicago has a very poor monetary payback unless you are going to make top 3 (which would take around 2:08 in good conditions). Money goes top 5, but anywhere below 3rd you get paid quite a bit less than what you are worth unless they gave you appearance money, which they will not for anybody slower than 2:10. For somebody in the 2:12-2:20 range who does not want to race on Sunday I would recommend Hartford, Baltimore, Akron, Richmond, or St. Jude around that time. All of those are on Saturday, and in all of those 2:20, and especially 2:15 would pay very well. You get to go against bigger boys too, mostly of Kenyan and Ethiopian origin.

It seems like Sasha had a pretty good experience at St. Jude last year. It would be cool to get a bunch of us out there this year and perform the FastRunningBlog live show, complete with commercials. :-) 5 or 6 of us in the top 10 would look good.

Yes, and if we are going to St. Jude, then St. George allows us to earn the airfare, or at least a portion of it. Other than the airfare, St. Jude costs are covered by the race. Plus, I think Steve would really like the St. George Running Center shirts dominating the top 10 of St. George.

I would just like to see where the OTQ courses are at. I want to run it a couple of times to get ready to make a serious run at another Olympic Trials. I am antsy and tired of waiting around for the committee to make a decision!

Don't you have to wait till 2011 to qualify? Or can you qualify this year?

I think it is 2 or 3 years before the Olympics when you can qualify. I am not sure. I wasn't planning on going doing Chicago this year and trying to qualify. I just want to see how I might do. I think my training is a little better than last year at this point. I am very curious.

If it is like the previous qualifying window, we will be able to qualify at Twin Cities in 2009, and then at all eligible courses from Jan 1. 2010 to whatever their cutoff is (either mid-fall 2011 or early spring 2012, depending on the date of Trials).

That is one reason why I'm leaning toward Twin Cities this year: because I can get some experience on the course and in the race, and then try an early qualifier next year. And if that doesn't pan out, I've still got two more years.

To run the fastest possible record-eligible marathon one would go to either Berlin or Dubai, and make sure to get there a couple of weeks in advance to get adjusted to lower altitude and different time zone.

Yes, and Dubai is a Friday race, BTW.

I'd really like to see the list and then try to make plans for a race that can be ran multiple times over the next few years.

However unless things really change I'm still going to do STG this year and then after that try to chase down other marathons. I have a little date with the sub 2:20 club in October and I don't think I can do it anywhere else until I do it here first.

But running the big races is very important. The last two years I've gone out to Boston and have learned things you just don't get at these "hometown" races. I'd most likely be in to go run St. Jude's this year too- as long as I'm recovered from STGM. But I still don't think it will bring the same type of things that running a Boston, Chicago, NY, or something like that would. As a runner you need to run these type of races... You've put in the time and owe it to yourself to experience the best and the best is only going to be at a major marathon.

If the goal is to see how you would fare against the best runners in the country, then it seems like you have to select the races with the best field. That's a pretty short list. Go make a name for yourself, man!

I have run Chicago and enjoyed the course. It is certainly flat. It's a loop and you're not likely to get a headwind the whole race in all events. I have also run CIM and didn't like the course much. It's advertised as fast, but really has a lot of rollers. The "aided" element is not at all noticeable the way it is at St. George.

Clyde, what do you learn at the big races?

Dubai- I'm guessing no one would travel to that race. A bit of an expense and jet lag. And probably hot.

Sasha, why do you think they should adjust to lower altitude? I had always heard you want to go down at the last minute so you don't acclimate- you want to keep the high altitude advantage.

Logan, Go where you will have the most fun.

Well I'll make this the 28th comment... good marketing plan Logan.

Jon- The experience of a big marathon is a learning one from the git go. First off traveling to the other side of the country and staying in a hotel before a race presents a learning curve. Then dealing with the mass amounts of runners in a city and expo makes for a fun but learning event. Most importantly running a race with a pack of 15 strong guys and having a crowd almost the entire way cheering you on... I know this may sound cheesy but most of what I learned can't be put into words "Priceless"- I think is the word you here on T.V.

oops- The word you hear...

I did Boston a while ago and enjoyed it, but I prefer the hometown marathon. Cheap, close, plus you can train on it. Crowds don't compare to Boston, though, or the energy.

Logan,

I would say run Chicago, because you would get experience on a flat course, that really is something we don't experience in our region (run with the flatlander's). Plus, you would get to experience more competition, and I believe that would push you in the race and you would accomplish an incredible time. You would also be able to experience a big marathon. I throughly enjoyed the experience at Boston last year.

If the weather is a factor that would be something you would we be able to learn from too, like you did in NY. With all your talent you need to test yourself on the big stage. You've got such an incredible future why not experience other marathon's. Chicago would really be a fast course for you, it's one I've thought about running too.

I would go with what you feel in your heart is the best situation for you.

Clyde - I had 10 strong guys beat me in St. George last year, and I do not think I ran alone for a total of even 3 miles. In TOU 3 strong guys beat me, and I had company for about half of the race. In Ogden, I had 5 strong guys beat me, and I had company for 18 miles. My take on it is that if you do not win the race, if you end up without company, you do not need a different race yet, you just need to get faster.

I like to dream, but I believe in dreaming by running faster rather than by just running in a bigger race. To me it is like shifting gears in a car. Once the RPMs get high enough, it is time to shift. But you should not put your car in a gear that is higher than what is appropriate for your current speed and RPMs.

Here is the Sasha qualifying schedule. Win a local marathon - qualify for Richmond/St. Jude, maybe, if I can get there without making my kids starve. Win Richmond/St. Jude - qualify for Grandma's. Win Grandma's - qualify for Boston. So I suppose when people ask me if I have run Boston I can tell them that I am still about 15 minutes away from qualifying.

It's true that even at St. George I had company for all but the last 5K. So I did have excellent pacing there. But it's also true that running with a pack of 25 of my peers (or superiors) at Trials, with crowds lining the streets, was the biggest thrill of my running career.

Well Sasha that is why you and I rarely agree on anything. See your qualifying schedule is holding you back from some great running experiences. I think your a great runner and have done many good things but this schedule will never allow you to go to even Boston. IMHO.

I'm not going to these big races just to join a pack. The 3hr marathoner can go to Boston and really feel a great accomplishment by running a historic course with company all the way through, and it's Boston!.. not TOU or STG or even Grandma's.

Sasha don't get me wrong here but by your standards you shouldn't even run STG this year. Because last year you ran a lifetime PR and didn't make the top 10 or make any money out of the deal. So by your standards it was a waste or bummer.

I can follow your logic, Sasha, but that plan won't work for everyone, obviously. I'm not sure why winning a local marathon or two is a prerequisite to running in a bigger race. My guess is that many of the guys considered among the top echelon of marathoners in the country have never won a marathon.

In other words, if every elite runner followed the "Sasha qualifying schedule" before running a "big" race, the races wouldn't be very big--at least at the top end.

There are a million ways to be a runner.

Clyde - last year I got $150 appearance fee at St. George, and winning my age division earned me another $150 appearance fee this year. If I run a comparable performance, I will end up with about $200 of travel credit in addition to the return appearance fee, which will eventually allow me to go to a race like St. Jude with a realistic cash-positive potential.

A race does not make a runner. The training does. I do my training to the best of my knowledge regardless of what kind of race I have ahead. I go to a race to test my fitness and to earn cash when available. I am supporting a pregnant wife and 5 small kids. Each mile I run means less money coming in from my non-running business - the time to run it, the time to rest from it. Plus more food to eat, money to buy it, time to eat it. In those circumstances, as much as I want to reach my potential as a runner I cannot justify spending that much time on a money-wasting hobby. If my running cash flow at the end of the year is in the black, I can at least call it a developing business.

My fitness can be tested just as well in a local marathon at this point, plus there is more cash, so that definitely makes it a winner.

I have to contribute again to the longest thread of comments. First, Paul I agree running with more "peers" and the crowds is great. Sasha, I laughed so hard thinking about you telling someone that you were 15' away from qualifying for Boston. Logan, I've run Chicago three times and in all honesty I love the crowd and the group of peers. But you can also still run "alone" if you want. My second time running it I ran the first 6-7 with another guy and then I was in my own little world for the rest of the race not running with anyone, with 30,000 people on the course...

Chad - if more runners followed my logic, the races would start paying more, and it would allow more runners to train seriously once they are out of college and have a family to support. Which is why I am actively promoting it in this thread.

I wonder how many people on the blog run as a financial venture, as opposed to running for health reasons or enjoyment reasons...

Sasha- why would races pay more if everyone followed your logic?

Sasha I don't disagree with your lifestyle plans. If you want to have 5 kids and have a enough food to feed them thats great and your a great example for doing it.

But don't try to be the rule or the law of what should be done. Like one wise man once said "some of us like to travel, spend money and enjoy life".

Everyone can do what they want and what feels good to their family. But if more runners did what you are saying to do our sport would die. Instead of Boston having like 20,000 or something runners it would have like 25 runners. Because only 25 of those guys would have ever won a smaller race and they would be paying the winner like $100 instead of 50k or whatever.

Because Boston/New York/Chicago would not want to have the winner at 2:08, 15th place at 2:25 and chicked, and 50th over 3 hours.

My blog might be the first to hit 100 comments! Lets be nice to each other and keep this thing rolling!

We could at least hit 50 by the time I'm done eating lunch...

What would cause that to happen at those races, Sasha? Why would most of the runners stop coming?

One thing to note is that 99.9% of runners do it without regard to award money- they don't ever plan or think of winning money.

Logan, I don't know how to break this to you, but a discussion on food/diets broke 100 a while ago. On Lybi's blog, I believe.

I think we're all just a little crazy. What did I do with my life before the blog?

Yeah, 100 comments is old news.

I will agree that it's nice for running to support itself, or even make money. However, there's virtually no money to be made unless your sponsor actually gives it to you, or you win a major or semi-major marathon. Last year, I kept very detailed records of winnings of each race, along with all expenses (mileage to/from each race, equipment, entry fees, etc.). Despite winning Ogden, winning the LDR Circuit, and winning money at about 10 other smaller races, I was only about a thousand bucks in the black. Driving mileage alone kills. Some may say that a thousand bucks is a thousand bucks, but in reality, if I had spent all of my training time (2 hrs/day) working at my day job instead, I would have made over $12000!! So when you look at opportunity cost, my running "job" really "cost" me well over $10,000, even if I keep my expenses down.

Or look at it this way: say you train 2 hrs/day. And say that you have a job where you can bill $50/hr for your time (pretty conservative number in the consulting world). Over an entire year (52 weeks), you will spend 520 hours training during the work week alone (leaving weekends out of the discussion). That is 520 hours that you could have billed out at $50/hr and $26,000 of lost income.

So the way I look at it, all hobbies cause a person to lose money. $100 or even a $1000 here and there as prize money is a drop in the bucket of lost opportunity.

But at least running is cheaper than golfing. ;-)

Okay, enough pointless rambling on my part...

This whole discussion was about Logan asking if Chicago is a good idea, which to me sounds great. Everyone has their own opinion on what race to run, finances, but really we all enjoy running and its fun.

I think it's great to experience a marathon that's totally out of your region/area, because it gives you a memory. We all strive for one thing and that's to push our body to the limit to see how well we can perform.

Experiencing a marathon somewhere else is a good way to test your fitness in different altitudes. Plus you get the benefit of traveling and seeing new cities and scenery. I'm a big supporter of both local and big marathon's, because it's running and it's fun.

Paul, Without your pointless rambling my day would be wasted and I would feel empty inside :(

I like Paul's point and it makes perfect sense. Any hobbies you have, probably 90% of the time is going to put you in the black financially. But the hobbies is something you enjoy so that really makes it worth while, unless you go overboard.

Jeez, where does anyone find time to work after all the blogging here?

Steve, I think that is the point, none of us really work. I make up my work hours the same I make up my running miles. Just to see if anyone is paying attention...

The flip side is who wants to spend an extra 2 hour/day working? Isn't 4 hours/day enough as it is??

The blog has less opportunity cost, because I can right all these comments while I'm processing data (gotta do something on the second monitor). I'm creating watershed boundaries from an elevation model right now.

oops..."write". Too bad Firefox can't detect my grammar and context, just spelling

Actually, Paul's comment is more accurate. I have my laptop next to my bench. Most experiments have you doing something for 5' then waiting for 5'. Not enough time to do something else meaningful so I wait for my e-mail to beep and reply during the 5' incubations...

Man I always seem to be the first to comment on these dicussions that go on and on and on and on. Go already! I think that is one of the perks to marathoning is it brings you places you wouldn't normally go.

Paul - I have not done my taxes yet, but I think I'll end up around $1500 cash positive from prize money alone (not including blog revenues). I netted $2350. I think paid only one entry fee, and spent $0 on running clothes/shoes. There was a hidden cost of having to eat 4000 calories a day though, and of course, the opportunity cost of lost revenue from the time spent running, eating, and sleeping.

It all comes down to the question of balance. Why do we run? We want to be healthy, and we want to achieve goals. Do we have other responsibilities? Yes. How do we make it all work together? If running unnecessarily becomes a huge financial drain, or makes us neglect other vital things, we cannot in good faith continue to do it. It is not fair to our families.

Of course, unless you are Ryan Hall caliber, at this time you cannot support your family by just running. Even then, you are probably better off doing it a different way from a purely financial perspective. But you can do something minimize the financial strain running puts on your budget. This allows you to take up more flexible jobs that permit you to run hard, and still be there for your family.

Jon - if all sub-2:40 male marathoners thought "minimize cost, maximize prize money potential", the Boston field in that time range would consist of invited elites + locals just like most lower profile marathons. With their prize money structure the time distribution would be about what I mentioned earlier. I base it on what happens in lower-profile marathons that do not have the same level of hype/aura of prestige around them. I prorated it a bit upwards for the higher prize purse for the top 5.

My comment probably means nothing and I may not even know what I am talking about but heres my thoughts but I think Logan you should do Chicago if you want to, you are an extremely talented runner, and you have only been running for 3 years, right. You just keep improving every day. You have really have the potential to be a WORLD CLASS runner.You have just kept shaving off time. THere are not very many people out there that pulled off what you have in such a short amount of time. THink of the people on the blog that have been trying to achieve what you have for years now.You are also in your prime running years right now. I think it would be great for you to go compete with the top dogs and start making a name for yourself. Yah you could win some smaller marathons around here and win some cash (which you still should do:) but that wont get you recognized. People win marathons all the time and are not that elite. To become the best you have to compete with the best and I honestly dont think Ryan Hall or Meb is going to show up at TOP or some low profile race.

just to clarify 'in the black' is a good thing in accounting terms...

Fascinating discussion, by the way!

Cal - yes, but my point is that $1000 in the black is actually a loss compared to $12000 in the black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Sasha I have a question for you, you seem to discourage runners from racing in the bigger races because of the expense and no real chance of placing and payout even though for some it might be once in a lifetime opportunity. Your goal as many others on the blog is to qualify for the OT. So if you qualify at a "B" standard and have to pay your own expenses (which could be fairly steep) and you most likey would not be in the top three to make to the olympics and there would be no pay out, so you lose money. Would you go?

Marcie - there is no B standard anymore. But if there was, and if I got it, and I felt there was no publicity for the blog I could generate by going, or otherwise accomplish something worth the airplane ticket I would not go. And if the race was on Sunday, I would not go regardless, even if I had standard A, and a sure chance to make the team.