I notice an interesting gender split when it comes to which side of the debate people sit on .... anyways someone asked me earlier did I not want the medals to remind me of all the work I put in ...... but the thing is, lets say youve done 20 half marathons so far ...... do you really need to dig deep into the box, pull out the one for the 7th HM and think 'I remember this one, the training I put in there wasnt as tough as Im putting in now but it was still pretty tough!'
Youre not really are you? My point is you arent really going to remember the time and effort you put in, into each individual event as training etc really just blurs into one after a while. All I ever care about is the next race. The fact I can pull out a medal from 8 races ago and think 'Well im faster now than I was back then' kind of doesn't really tell me much.
Fine if you want a trinket, but lets not big up a 'medal' anymore than what it is. Thats why I think only the top 3 should be given a medal, and the rest of us really should just get what I would describe as a 'trinket'.
Coincidentally, I've done exactly 20 half marathons as per your example
(until Sunday...)
I'm not as fussed now about medals as I was when I started, but i definitely think longer events should have medals, when shorter ones don't really need them.
I'll never forget doing the 2002 Marlow half marathon, voted 5th toughest half in the country, and not getting a medal. Luckily some spot prize made up for it.
But you can't tell me completing an amateur level 5k ever needs a medal. (run for life series only maybe, as that's an entry into running event really).
As for people who refuse to do races that don't give medals, talk about limiting yourself!
Edited: 16/11/2012 at 19:16