Marathon running has worn many faces in the last 25 years. Today it is flourishing, in most respects. Participation is up, elite times are down, and almost every major city in the world offers its own marathon.

But some of us have concerns for the sport as well.

Until the 1980s, marathons were small-time affairs put on for serious, dedicated athletes. Now there are trail races, travel tours, giant extravaganzas, all types of options. To fathom where marathon running is headed, let's look back.

Amateurism was the rule in the early '80s. Race directors clung to no-prize traditions, or paid under the table to draw well-known athletes to their events. Some of America's best runners, tired of this "shamateurism,"united to fight for open prize money.

Races such as the Jordache Jeans Marathon offered purses and got the ball rolling. At the Cascade Run-Off 15K in Portland, Ore., many of today's running legends took a stand for payment based on performance. Change was underway.

Many races -- the Boston Marathon in particular -- resisted paying winners until it jeopardized their status as top events. Boston directors relied on shoe sponsors and outside federations to bring in and pay top runners. They thought their race's prestige alone would be enough to continue enticing the world's elite.

Competition from prize-paying races forced Boston to change its thinking. Now the race again draws top runners with healthy purses. It's professionally organized at all levels now, to the benefit of all.

American marathon runners were still near the top of the heap in the early '80s, but not for long. Major cities around the world, especially in Europe, were learning big marathons drew big money. People loved seeing great competition; to attract it, sponsors in these cities offered prizes that made them competitive with cities in the U.S.

The creation of more, spread-out competition put American marathoners at a disadvantage. As prize money grew and travel expenses became available, athletes from poorer nations found means and incentives to come to Europe, Asia and America to compete.

African runners could train hard, come here, win a few thousand dollars and have enough money to get by at home for years. U.S. runners, by comparison, could barely make rent or car payments. More-glamorous, high-paying sports drew top U.S. athletes. Why run full-time with chances of winning, and making a living at it, so slim?

In the '80s, top Americans were still racing mostly against other top Americans. By the '90s U.S. dominance was long gone.

As American stars became running legends at expos and clinics, races were faced with a flood of unrecognizable talent. No African has captured the imagination and praise of the U.S. public and media. Haile Gebrselassie isn't a household name here. The Ethiopian great's film "Endurance" made it to art-house theatres and HBO, but he races mostly in Europe, making it hard to develop a U.S. following.

A few women, such as Deena (Drossin) Kastor and Uta Pippig, have the personalities to become stars, but don't have public-relations departments behind them like other pro athletes. Lack of star power has contributed to the lack of TV coverage for our sport.

Still, many races have been willing to invest in rewarding excellence. January's inaugural P.F. Chang's Rock and Roll Marathon in Arizona paid men's and women's winners $20,000 each. Salt Lake City is offering $100,000 in prize money for its marathon this April, and India's new Mumbai Marathon is offering $200,000 -- the largest prize-money pot in Asia.

Today, lack of depth is evident at most marathons. Crowds go crazy when the first runners appear, then sit quietly for what seems like an eternity until others start streaming in. Statistics show average times have slowed considerably in the last 10 years. Fewer runners want to put effort into excelling, and more are encouraged to simply finish.

Marathon organizers have had to divide their focus. Runners and sponsors want to be part of an event that has quality talent. They also want to be part of a spectacle. It's easier to justify spending resources on events that attract big crowds.

Organizers entice elite runners by catering to them on hospitality levels, and appeal to the masses by adding amenities before, during and after races. Among the latter are weekend expos and pasta dinners, marathon relays, half-marathons, 5Ks, fun runs and walks. A few have added post-race concerts to encourage runners to stay in town.

The Boston Marathon has helped other races by easing its qualifying standards. Although many enter marathons billed as "good Boston qualifiers" eager to do just that, the quality gap remains.

Races have become more oriented toward mid- and back-packers. This is especially clear at huge events such as the Honolulu Marathon, which splits its appeal to a few elites and tens of thousands tour-group joggers/walkers.

The appeal to the masses is here to stay. Cities can't afford not to. But what are the limitations? Who wants to fight crowds to pick up their number, eat pasta and grab cups at water stations? Are you "running" a race when you're actually shuffling through human traffic the first few miles?

How satisfying is it for organizers to cater to runners whose method of training is no training at all?

It boils down to the quality of the experience on all levels. Can organizers satisfy the masses and urge their pursuit of a regular exercise program, while at the same time encouraging others to seek their ultimate fitness levels?

Let's hope the pendulum doesn't sway too far seeking quantity over quality. Caving in to mediocrity creates boredom and lack of enthusiasm. Excellence is worth striving for at all levels.

Writer Doug Kurtis's efforts at excellence have netted world records for the most sub-2:20 marathons (76) and marathon wins (40). He may be contacted at dkurtis@earthlink.com. MR