Is Runner's World ABSOLUTLEY worthless?

Speed Kills wrote:

true or false wrote:

Amby has stated (admitted) that RW is written for people running 7-10 minute miles.

yes it is stupid to write articles for 90% of the running population.

MAYEROFF wrote:The sport of marathoning and road racing is very very special and unique in the world of sports. It is the ONLY sport that I can think of where the average Joe and Jane can line up against the very best in the world at road races like the Berlin Marathon, NYC Marathon, Peachtree Roadrace, etc.

Nope, that's just an illusion. They may run the same course as the elites, even while the elites are racing on it, but they aren't in the same race not even close.

8" wrote:

The cover with Jen was worth 6 absolutely ball-draining jackoff sessions.

absolut wrote:

Reasons why RunnersWorld isn't worthless:

1. Their website has interviews everyday with top level runners and running administrators. No other website has this.

Try mensracing.com or fast-women.com sometime. Also, the RWOL interviews tend to be completely unrevealing fluff that's about as worthwhile to read as the horoscopes.

Granted, if you have been running for awhile then maybe you won't want to shell out te $20 for a year subscription since a lot of the articles may not help, but a few will and some are quite interesting and informative....

Or just read it for free at the library.

The rest of your points are dead-on.

Yeah, the RWOL interviews are such "unrevealing fluff" that the Brojos link up about half of them on the home page, and fast-women and menracing frequently make them their Editor's Picks.

As as Junior and Senior in high school, I used to read my coaches RW magazines.

I've never forgotten what he told me.

"It's mainly for the weekend warrior, don't take it too seriously"

That was back in 1982.

In otherwords, what's changed?

Noticed wrote:

Yeah, the RWOL interviews are such "unrevealing fluff" that the Brojos link up about half of them on the home page, and fast-women and menracing frequently make them their Editor's Picks.

Doesn't disprove my contention, I haven't endorsed all the editorial decisions done on any site. The interviews done by fast-women.com and mensracing.com (among others) are, as a rule, a lot meatier and more informative than those on RWOL.

You may notice that RWOL runs five interviews a week, while mensracing or fast-women run one a week if that. You might also notice that some of the RWOL interviewers and fast-women/mensracing interviewers are the same people.

I did, thanks for the reminder, though. Still doesn't change my assessment.

Yes it is.

Years ago there was a mag called The Runner. It put Runner's World to shame. What happened to it? Runner's World bought the company and closed it's doors.

I find that it's gotten much better this year and no I am not a penguin, despite what some of you (JAY) might think.

Monty

They should just let it continue to naturally slide into the genre-aimed FHM or Maxim style it wants to be. A few months ago, they had some brunette "runner" on the cover who's facial expression was closer to "god, i need that dick" than "god, I need to work on my form" (which was shit). Not a critique, just saying: the women and shoe reviews are about the only thing its got going still.

Come on now everybody, i heard there is a great article in the next month or two on how to run your fastest 10k ever with these simple 3 tips!

././. wrote:

Come on now everybody, i heard there is a great article in the next month or two on how to run your fastest 10k ever with these simple 3 tips!

Is one of them to use a "rolling start?"

HS Guy wrote:

Is one of them to use a "rolling start?"

Yes, along with two interval sessions and two off days a week! You too can break 30 min 10ks with just 12 miles a week!

It's funny your post came up just as I was thinking about that magazine. That was a great magazine.

Runner's World did buy The Runner, but several key figures in The Runner then went onto Runner's World, including George Hirsch, its publisher, and the writer Marc Bloom

so - *thumbnail stats:

*give or take

No redeeming: 93%

Some 'non-redeeming: 3%

Some (qualified) info: 3.8%

Spill cop 0.2%

go hug a tree, you pussy