Prizes at Races

Why doesn't the slowest runner get a prize too!

1 to 20 of 49 messages
14/11/2007 at 14:10

I ran a race recently and was at the prize giving afterwards and thought, why don't we get prizes for being the last runner.

Surely we put it just as much effort as the quicker runners!

Not that I'm taking anything away from the quicker runners, just wish I would run that fast.

14/11/2007 at 14:11
The last person home at our local ladies 5k gets a bouquet of flowers.
14/11/2007 at 14:14

I know some people dread the idea of being last, and to make a fuss of them for it wouldn't make them feel better!

Besides, in longer races the winners have had their prizes and gone home long before I finish (and I'm not last!)

14/11/2007 at 14:14
That sounds more like it!
14/11/2007 at 14:16
I was suprised at this race cause I normally miss the prize giving too.  They waited untill everybody had finished before giving out any prizes.
Crash Hamster    pirate
14/11/2007 at 14:16
You'd get the running equivalent of track stands, with people hovering just the right side of the finishing line for days, til everyone got bored and went home
cougie    pirate
14/11/2007 at 14:17
For IM races - the last person gets escorted in by the marshals and the fireworks go off. Its fantastic to watch. Most people come back to the finish line just to see it.
14/11/2007 at 14:18

With a 5k that wouldn't be a problem, but a marathon might be a different matter

JPenno    pirate
14/11/2007 at 14:20
cougie - is that the last person before the cut off, or the last on the course, i have heard that some races will allow people to finish outside the cut off time but are classed as DNF
mellifera    pirate
14/11/2007 at 14:26

Too easy to cheat! Wouldn't it be agony to watch?!

Quite a few races do spot prizes - make a sprint for the line and collapse over the other side and you're quite likely to get one of those in my experience.

Actually, I would say on average the quicker runners have spent far more time training than those at the back so have made more 'effort'. That's not to say the relationship between effort and acheivement is straight forward.

cougie    pirate
14/11/2007 at 14:27

Hard to say really - I've known some people to drop out when they realise they arent going to make the cut off - so usually all the finishers are within the limits. Certainly IMDE for the last 2 years - all the finishers were within the limit - they get the fireworks.

14/11/2007 at 14:39

Yeah I suppose

Doesn't matter how much effort I put into training I am just a born plodder.

18/11/2007 at 16:51

Mellifera: "I would say on average the quicker runners have spent far more time training than those at the back so have made more 'effort'"

I'm not convinced of that.  As someone who's slow and does long distance my training sessions are often longer than those for someone quicker.  If we are both doing 10 mile runs, then I'm going to be out twice as long as some quicker runners.  Of course the actual figures will vary, but I'd say on average the slower you are the longer the time you spend training.

cougie    pirate
18/11/2007 at 19:14
but look at the winners mileages though - paula runs something like 140 miles a week - so i think its fair to say that not many people put in that amount of hours. fast people as usually fast because they do huge mileages in training.
AndrewSmith    pirate
18/11/2007 at 19:17
I think the clue is actually in the word 'race'
18/11/2007 at 20:55

Well really most 'races' everyone gets a prize, like a medal, T-shirt or whatever.  And of course there's going to be a few who really do live to train.  I still think that you can't say that the people further forward have always spent longer training than the slow people down the back.  If you've got two people using the same training plan then the slower person will have done just as much as the faster person, and spent a lot longer doing it.

And if 'the clue' is the word 'race' then maybe all of us who are not going to win should give up and go home.  Be a lot less people doing a few 'races' then....

18/11/2007 at 21:22

At the end of the day,running is meant to be a serious competitive sport. Just because-unlike most other competitive sports,where you can only compete against those of a similar standard to yourself-I can line up behind sub-30 10k or sub-65 Half Marathon runners,does not mean I am as worthy of a prize as they are.

The level of dedication and intensity of training put in by the elites is WAY beyond 99% of us.

That doesn't mean that anyone should "give up and go home".Sharing in the race experience and challenging your own PB's is reward in itself,but the prizes should be reserved for the winners.

18/11/2007 at 21:25

I think they should be given roller skates or something

Just kidding!  

18/11/2007 at 21:59

should we also have prizes for all those who are last in their age category too, Male and Female ?

and team prizes

 seems a bit elitist to me to give just one prize to the absolute slowest.

 and you'd need to have dope testing, just  to make sure they hadn't taken some kind of performance impeding drug

Blisters    pirate
18/11/2007 at 23:09

A prize for last place hardly makes it a race, IMHO, however I like the bouquet of flowers idea.

My preferred way of solving this "mid-pack" dilemma, is to issue spot prizes to every 10th finisher. Just watch as two runners enter the final 50m and sprint for the line like the Euro Champs depended on it, only for the second placed person to get the spot prize.

This is why I like the Hogweed Trot 10k, and the Cheddar Half. Apart from being mirror flat.

1 to 20 of 49 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums