Participation vs. competition

Saw this ad mentioned on /r/running on reddit and the discussion comments on there have really bugged me for the past day or so.

Pearl Izumi running ad

Here's another article from NYT from 2009:

NYT article about Marathon "plodders"

There seems to be a large number of runners on there who have this "elitist" attitude that people shouldn't be doing marathon races unless they intend to race/run the entire thing.  They have a problem with people "moseying" (as the ad indicates) along either walking or jogging and taking more than 5 hours to finish.  They claim that then it really isn't a test of endurance or will, but it's more a test of patience.  They claim that anyone can "do" a marathon given enough time.  They seem to think that it really diminishes the achievement of competing in a marathon, when just about anybody can do it given enough time.

They claim that the achievement of someone who runs the entire marathon in 3:05 vs someone who runs/jogs/walks it in 6:10 are on two completely different levels.  They claim that you can't compare the two, and that the guy who ran the whole thing has a more impressive achievement.

Some runners feel like it doesn't really "count" if you train for a couple of months, show up at the race, do a 6 hour marathon, and then claim you're a marathoner and slap that 26.2 sticker on your car.  They seem to feel like you need to pay your dues (e.g. train for months if not years) first before you can claim that achievement.  It seems to me that their bottom line is that you're not a real "marathoner" if you walk any part of the race.  They feel that if you actually trained enough, you wouldn't have to walk any part of the race.

There's also quite a big debate about people participating (basically just to finish and claim they did a marathon) vs. people actually racing (competing).  They don't feel like people should be out there unless they are truly competing.  They feel if you want to claim you did a marathon (vs. racing in one), just go out any weekend and walk/jog/run the 26.2 miles on your own.  That the marathon races should only be reserved for those actually "racing".

These attitudes all bug me on different levels.  I think completing the marathon is a very personal thing.  While I don't run year round, I did train for many months, and I went as hard as I could given the conditions & how my body was feeling that day.  You can't say that my effort was sub-par or that I worked any less hard than someone who was in better shape who ran the whole thing.  Yet I finished in over 5 hrs and walked parts of it.  According to these people, I didn't belong out there, I didn't really "race" the marathon b/c I walked parts of it, I didn't really "run" or race a marathon, only participated in it, etc, etc. 

When I was running in it, I definitely felt like I was competing.  I knew I wasn't going to podium by any means, but I felt like I was competing with those around me.  In the final homestretch, I felt like I had to "beat" all these people to the finish line.  I was competing against myself as well.  Just because someone ran the whole thing in a short amount of time vs someone who walked parts doesn't mean it wasn't any easier for the person who walked parts of it.  It doesn't mean the person who did it slower required less effort.

Are there people who are doing it leisurely without pushing their limits or maximizing their effort?  Sure.  But there are also those who are giving it their all and then some.  So what if it's a single one time thing for a bucket list or brag book?  That doesn't diminish the accomplishment of anyone else. 

The problem I have with exclusivity is that where do you draw the line?  How many races or how much training do you have to have done before you are considered to have "paid your dues"?  If you have a cutoff time or minimum set pace, where do you establish that?  There are fast runners and slow runners.  I don't think you can say anyone who finishes in 4:30 or less is a marathoner but someone who finishes in 4:30:05 isn't.

Someone brought up Ironmans or ultra-distance runs in the discussion and pointed out that some of those competitors do end up walking parts of those races.  The elitists claim that those are on a completely different level and they're expected to do so b/c the courses are more difficult, longer, etc.  Again, I ask, where do you draw the line?  When is it "okay" or acceptable to walk?  50k?  50-miler? 

I generally have a problem with elitist a-holes anyway, but this just really bugged me so soon after I did the Little Rock marathon.  What do you think?