It looks like we’ve once again wound up on opposite sides of an issue, but I don’t think it’s the case this time. The conclusion I reached in the article is the same as yours, that running is too natural a sport and too prevalent to ever fade away.

However, I would still say that running, speaking historically, is today far less a competitive sport and much more of a recreational activity. I can pull up results for any number of races and see that though the fields were much smaller, the runners were faster. It’s true locally, but it’s also true elsewhere. For example, the 100th finisher at the 1983 New York Marathon ran 2:23 and but 2:39 at the 2005 edition. There were roughly 200 sub-2:20 marathons in America in 1984 (or 1983). The number this year, I suspect, is far lower.

More people participating in the sport is great for a number of reasons, and I’m not saying a healthier population is subordinate the number of sub-2:20 marathoners, but there is no necessary connection between participation and competition. By extension, that fields at road races are larger than ever is irrelevant to the health of competitive (as opposed to recreational) running.