Is a marathon hard? Or an achievment?

--amadeus--

I was thinking about this the other day when I was running... There have been a few threads on here recently from people who have little or no experience or background in running but they have decided that they want to "do" a marathon. Often - though not always - they set ambitious finishing times or leave just a few weeks for the training.

Now I have no problem with ambition or naivety (I'm unrealsitically ambitious and naive myself!) but the idea that the marathon is a "microwaveable achievement" that can be concocted in no time and with minimal effort seems to be gaining traction. As more and more marathons increase thier cut off times the field seems to get more and more diverse. At my last Dublin marathon I lined up at the 3:30 marker behind a group of people carrying Tesco bags full of sandwiches to "keep them going out there"! On the train up I was chatting to a few people traveling for the race who laughed when I asked what time they were hoping to run it in - "Oh we're going to walk it, we don't run" was the answer. When I asked about training they were very vague - a few walks at weekends seemed about the height of it...

If I am asked I always say that anyone can do a marathon - if they are willing to put in the work. By that I mean that no matter how overweight or unfit you are if you are willing to train 3 - 5 days a week over a period of a few months to a year then you can complete the marathon and feel good about it. And I don't care if it takes 6 or 7 hours, if you run it or run / walk it's an achievement you worked to so you deserve praise for it.

But am I being elitist or snobbish about people who - to my eyes - seem not to respect the distance? Is the marathon being "dumbed down"? Is it even a challenge anymore or do you have to look to ultras to differentiate yourself? Should we encourage as many people to do marathons as we can because they subsadise the costs? Does it matter?

deadlybuzz

It's a question that frequently comes up. I think that the marathon should be open to all. The more the merrier, because it promotes athletics, and subsidises the big events. Everybody has their own reasons for running one, and their own goals, so I say, each to their own, and good luck to ya. All finishers are worthy of some praise, IMO. Depending on personal situation, performance,age, etc.. some may be more worthy than others.
Anyone can complete a marathon.
Many people can run a marathon.
Few people can race a marathon.

Amazotheamazing

An old article from Shanne Hegarty in the irish Times.

Running down the tunnel

Shane Hegarty

PresentTense: There won't be spectators at tomorrow's Dublin Port Tunnel run. There's not much room once you squeeze 10,000 runners through the concrete artery. Besides, you suspect that most Dubliners will pass on the opportunity of watching several thousand people jammed in, occasionally bumping against one another, never going much faster than about 7 miles an hour. Once the tunnel opens to traffic, they'll get to see that most days.

Still, it will be quite a sight come 11am, when 10,000 heads will bob into the orange gloom. Some will be in wheelchairs, plenty will walk, but most will run (and maybe walk again). Participants will get a happy couple of kilometres downhill before a three-kilometre incline delivers them out into 50 metres of whatever foulness the Irish weather can offer. They'll get a glance at the M1 stretching off towards Dundalk, before they do what many people do when they see that road: turn around and go back the way they came.

All the while the greatest danger will be posed by people running with their heads pointed upwards, and around, rather than ahead. Or from those squinting around in the hope of spotting one of the supposed leaks that have allegedly made the tunnel the Niagara of the Northside.

It will be quite a day. A gathering of those disparate souls who can be seen lolloping around the country's streets, strands and fields on any given day. Those who head out in shorts and a light T-shirt on the kind of wild nights when walking from your front door to the car is a treacherous journey.

They'll come together, and jog gently about so as to keep the winter from gnawing at their enthusiasm. Then they'll pile up at the start line and head off silently, save for the slap of 20,000 feet on tarmac. There will be 10,000 Irish in one spot, yet hardly a word spoken between them. What's more, there will be 10,000 Irish simultaneously trying to think of a witty nickname for the tunnel. At least one will emerge with a decent candidate.

I may be wrong, but the port tunnel run might be the second largest single sporting event in the country this year. The largest will have been October's Dublin City Marathon, which pips it by a few hundred. For a few decades now, running (purists hate to call it "jogging") has been a growing sport, and is accelerating at a pace faster than most of those who practise it.

As a recreation it increasingly matches the times. It is individualistic: the runner sets the training time; heads out alone; requires nothing but a pair of runners and a hardy diligence. Ambition is wholly personal: even in the largest races, it is likely the runner will compete with no one but himself. And here's a sport in which, miracle of miracles, you can actually improve as you get older. That's quite an attraction to those who would ordinarily drop out of sport once their age caught up with their waist size.

Tomorrow's distance will be the most many will have run. Once their legs rebel or sense interjects, some will never run so far again. But plenty will step up to the marathon, an event now popular enough that, in the case of the New York race, there are so many applicants - almost twice the 50,000 accepted - that there is a black market in entries, and some resort to using counterfeit numbers.

The arrival of so many "newbies" doesn't please everybody. A marathon purist, Gabriel Sherman, recently complained on Slate.com that the "slowpokes" were ruining it for the serious runners; that taking on one of sport's greatest challenges has become just another thing for many people to tick off the list of things to do before they die.

In 1980, the average finishing time for an American male marathon runner was 3:32. Now it is over 4:20. "It's clear now that anyone can finish a marathon," Sherman wrote, "maybe it's time we raise our standards to see who can run one."

At which - while blowing hard and gasping for water - the "slowpokes" shouted down such snobbery. Because they recognise that running is the most democratic of sports.

Before this year's New York marathon, Eamonn Coghlan reminded the team he brings annually from Ireland that, while they may never run out to a full crowd at Croke Park, being greeted by a million spectators on First Avenue would be one of the greatest moments of their lives. And the race itself was a reminder of the beauty of a sport in which a 50-something ordinary Joe can line up alongside world champion, Olympic champion, world record holder, five-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong and Keith Duffy from Boyzone.

It's like a hacker joining Tiger Woods on the first tee of the US Open. Or a retired mother of three parking her Micra alongside Michael Schumacher on the grid in Monaco.

Although, closer to home, and speaking perhaps most clearly of the sport's popularity, is how the Irish personal ads increasingly feature pleas for jogging partners. Which is, I trust, not a euphemism for anything else.
© 2006 The Irish Times

--amadeus--

That's an excellent article and I agree with everything in it. Running is democratic and anyone can do it. I think it's great that no talents like myself can line up with world champions in the big races.

I suppose what I was grumbling about is that the increased participation and increased numbers of people of all shapes and sizes completing a marathon may make some people think that it's in some way easy. They then jump in with both feet and commit to doing marathons (or triathlons come to that) that they aren't trained for. Or they decide that they'll target a sub 3:00 (or whatever) even though they haven't run since playing U-13 Gaelic. At the least it strikes me as disrespectful and at worst they run the risk of doing themselves serious damage.

Ahhh, I've turned into a bitter and twisted grumpy old man!

Abhainn

deadlybuzz wrote: »

Everybody has their own reasons for running one, and their own goals, so I say, each to their own, and good luck to ya. All finishers are worthy of some praise, IMO. Depending on personal situation, performance,age, etc.. some may be more worthy than others.
Anyone can complete a marathon.
Many people can run a marathon.
Few people can race a marathon.

I think deadlybuzz has somed it up well.
I do wonder though what that Greek soldier would think now if he saw how a marathon is been protrayed in his memory.
It is said he was sent from the town of Marathon to Athens to announce that the Persians had been defeated in the battle of marathon. It is said that he ran the entire distance without stopping.
Personnally I am happy that I acheived that full distance and running quite quickly. I didn't have time for any Tesco sandwiches on the way.

HardyEustace

I admit to having to bite my tongue a lot when I've a conversation like
<<pre-amble, somehow running comes up>>

X - "oh I did the marathon two years ago and four years ago"
me - "really, that's fantastic, what time did you do it in?"
X - "oh about an hour and a half i think ,maybe two"
me - "erm... which marathon did you do"
X - "the one in dublin in June"
me - "oh, you mean the mini-marathon"
X - "yes, the marathon"
me - "the mini-marathon"
X - "yes, the marathon"

at which point I do a bit of disgusted mental eye rolling and give up.

To draw an analogy it's a bit like the term "engineer" which is bandied about with great glibness. It took me four years to earn my engineering strips in college and it pisses me off when someone who installs toasters for a living calls themselves an engineer.

I worked and trained really hard for the marathon and I do feel that it's undervalued by the people you're discussing.

Also people don't realise just how hard it is to get your time down. Say for example you know half an hour off your marathon time. That's running at over a minute a mile faster for each mile. That's a huge ask but I think that people don't understand that.

lisbon_lions

This is something I question myself about all the time. I want to run my first in Oct this year. Have been running 14 months and feel ok about having a minimum base now. I only have a few weeks to decide before the plan hits week 1. Its 50-50 whether i do it or not, out of respect(fear) for the distance, the brief time ive been running and my desire to run in one. It may well have to wait to 2009.
Thats just me. I may have covered the minimum (1 year). People that jump from the couch with no (or next to no) base training, i think is a bit crazy. That show on RTE with Gerry Ryan about getting peeps fit - one guy who has just got off the couch has been signed up to the marathon in Oct by the show creators - now thats crazy to me!! Its stuff like this and books like the non runners guide to... etc that makes it seem runnable to the mainstream. But, im pretty sure that 2 things will hold true to a 1st timer
1. if im prepared, I will love the day out and the achievement, or
2 if im not, I will bloddy well learn the hard way that it takes big effort to complete.

Its not meant to be easy so I dont understand why some think it will be.

Deliaquad

A marathon is always hard, but you only get back from it what you put into your training. Running sub 4 off minimal training is possible for some, but those people would have run a much better time (and "tested" themselves more completely) had they done the full 6-7 months training program. If someone wants to do two months training and run 26 miles, good luck to them, but achievement-wise its a false economy. Most people, upon finding out you run, ask first if you've done the marathon, then they want to know the time you did it in. I'm at the level of respecting someone's time over respecting two pub buddies who spent six hours crossing Dublin dressed in Halloween costumes, but that's because I have respect for the training a good personal time requires. I might think different if I was a spectator who decided "I could do that" after seeing the novelty runners and started jogging on that spur.

-Delia Quad

thirtyfoot

Deliaquad wrote: »

Running sub 4 off minimal training is possible for some,

Similar to some people referring to the 10k as a 'marathon', using the sub 4 reference point when you are not talking about the mile is almost as heinous a running talk faux pas amongst the purist track and field nazis:D

Next week: We'll discuss the dumbing down of the sub 4 mile and discuss since Roger did it is there are point or now that punters dressed as Bob the Builder can thrash out a 3:57 with ease should we all just stop.

Abhainn

"For the level of condition that I have now, that was without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done "
Lance Armstrong finishes NYC marathon in under 3 hours 2:59:36

This was one year after his 7th Tour de France win.

In my view a marathon should not be an easy acheivement - for some it is relatively easy.
An able bodied person who sets out to just walk the marathon should not be given the detinction of "completing a marathon". This really annoys me.
Perhaps taking part in sponsored walk of a same distance is a better event for those but don't give it the "marathon" title.

HardyEustace

lisbon_lions wrote: »

This is something I question myself about all the time. I want to run my first in Oct this year. Have been running 14 months and feel ok about having a minimum base now. I only have a few weeks to decide before the plan hits week 1. Its 50-50 whether i do it or not, out of respect(fear) for the distance, the brief time ive been running and my desire to run in one. It may well have to wait to 2009.
Thats just me. I may have covered the minimum (1 year). People that jump from the couch with no (or next to no) base training, i think is a bit crazy. That show on RTE with Gerry Ryan about getting peeps fit - one guy who has just got off the couch has been signed up to the marathon in Oct by the show creators - now thats crazy to me!! Its stuff like this and books like the non runners guide to... etc that makes it seem runnable to the mainstream. But, im pretty sure that 2 things will hold true to a 1st timer
1. if im prepared, I will love the day out and the achievement, or
2 if im not, I will bloddy well learn the hard way that it takes big effort to complete.

Its not meant to be easy so I dont understand why some think it will be.

I am one of those people. Hadn't run for years and years and years. Was a smoker. Started to train for the mini-marathon in April (walk 10 minutes, run 5 minutes, walk 10 minutes, run minutes, walk 5 minutes was my first "training session"). Loved it and signed up for the marathon in October. Followed the non-runner's marathon trainer book and finished in 4:30, loved every minute of it.

However would agree with poster as I never missed a training run and really did work very hard at my marathon training.

That meant I really enjoyed the race, even though my time wasn't spectacular, and felt incredible achievement on finishing. I still get a smile on my face every time I think of it, in fact typing this with a big grin on my face at the moment.

Odysseus

HardyEustace wrote: »

X - "oh I did the marathon two years ago and four years ago"
me - "really, that's fantastic, what time did you do it in?"
X - "oh about an hour and a half i think ,maybe two"
me - "erm... which marathon did you do"
X - "the one in dublin in June"
me - "oh, you mean the mini-marathon"
X - "yes, the marathon"
me - "the mini-marathon"
X - "yes, the marathon"

I have admit is something I find really annoying me too, I really think it undervalues the work that people undertake to finish a full marathon.

My own viewpoint is anything that gets people out running is a good, however I remember at the port tunnle there were people with kids in bugy's atthe front just getting in peoples way:mad: I don't care how long it take you a person to finish I'm not a record breaker myself, but I do not hamper other peoples progress, the lack of respect you meet sometimes is unreal.

With saying that I know at least three people who chose the Sahara as the place for their first marathon and finished and their training was weak compared to my standards. The same with a 100k race I completed a couple of times I met one guy who had never run an offical marathon and was going for 2 and 1/4 times the distance but he finished.

I run to push myself, race against myself and I notice that in people if they have fought against the desire to stop to make the pain go away I thinks its great to see, when it happens at a 10k race or a 100k race. As I said its those that get in peoples way that bother me.

thirtyfoot

Abhainn wrote: »

"For the level of condition that I have now, that was without a doubt the hardest physical thing I have ever done "
Lance Armstrong finishes NYC marathon in under 3 hours 2:59:36

I find it hard to believe that the condition LA was in and with the training he did that he could only manage a 2:59. Not dissing sub 3 marathon running but when you read the books on cycling from LA to Pantani to whoever to only run 2:59 is very poor.

LA quit cycling and in order to continue his (and Nike's) earning power LA has been re-invented as a 'jogger'. This thought struck me recently when browsing through sports shops and some US based fitness/outdoor magazines and I saw all these Lance ad's. Its genius on their part. You see the ad and you think "hey Lance was a legend, 7-time winner and now he is just like me, I too am a legend". Worked on me, except replace LA with Michael Johnson.

thirtyfoot

Odysseus wrote: »

As I said its those that get in peoples way that bother me.

I hear you. The amount of 10k'ers or marathoners doing their 'speed' on the track who get in my way and don't understand the shouted word TRACK really kills me:)

Abhainn

Tingle wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that the condition LA was in and with the training he did that he could only manage a 2:59. Not dissing sub 3 marathon running but when you read the books on cycling from LA to Pantani to whoever to only run 2:59 is very poor.

I don't agree with you Tingle. What do you think then is as an acceptable marathon time for someone like LA?
Incidentally in 2007 I think he ran the NYM agin and in a time of 2:46

Running is far more difficult on the body than cycling and you use a machine, but then again some people who can excel in running are not suited to cycling

thirtyfoot

Abhainn wrote: »

I don't agree with you Tingle. What do you think then is as an acceptable marathon time for someone like LA?
Incidentally in 2007 I think he ran the NYM agin and in a time of 2:46

Running is far more difficult on the body than cycling and you use a machine, but then again some people who can excel in running are not suited to cycling

You are right but this is LA and the things he did on a bike are unreal and with that engine a 2:59 is slow. I dunno, maybe a 2:30 at least (a time I regarded on another thread as a good time) as he is possibly the greatest endurance athlete of our time and there has to be some cross-over, baring in mind a cyclist would put their body through the rigours of a marathon (or close to it) in the mountain stages of the tour on successive days.

I read "The Death of Marco Pantani" (based on what someone here said a few week ago) and there is a stage where Pantani is on fire, possibly riddled to the gills with EPO or whatever other drug he may have been on and he kills the peloton on a stage and is breaking away only for LA to effortlessly breeze up to him and simply pedal away with Pantani honking like a madman to just stay in touch. Reading it you can almost feel the power, strength and physical capacity of LA jump off the page and then hearing he could only do a 2:59 a year after retiring doesn't tie. It could be the case alright but then I see LA touting himself as a 'jogger' and a whole Nike campaign all around it and I see "Marketing". But then again, LA may have been looking for a bit of a challenge in his retirement, help raise some money for his charity and Nike saw it and decided to row in with a bit of support (and iPOD too).

louthandproud

Tingle wrote: »

he kills the peloton on a stage and is breaking away only for LA to effortlessly breeze up to him and simply pedal away with Pantani honking like a madman to just stay in touch. Reading it you can almost feel the power, strength and physical capacity of LA jump off the page and then hearing he could only do a 2:59 a year after retiring doesn't tie.

Assuming LA wasn't on even more "additives" himself!

Perhaps if he was he had given up by the time he ran a 2:59 Marathon.

tunney

A doping programme to the levels of a TdF rider costs at least 80k a year. Any performances in the NY marathon were most likely done un assisted. He wouldn't have had the same engine. There is also the question of effeciency. As a professional cyclist he wouldn't have the running economy that a good club runner would have.

To be honest after what I've read recently about LA I've no longer got any illusions of his abilities - he was a very mediocre stage rider, climber and time trialist before he started his doping programme.

Deliaquad

Tingle wrote: »

Similar to some people referring to the 10k as a 'marathon', using the sub 4 reference point when you are not talking about the mile is almost as heinous a running talk faux pas amongst the purist track and field nazis:D

Er, I *was* talking about the mile, as in pace, as in twenty-six times sub 4 is about one and three-quarter hours for the marathon, can it be done off two months training? Obviously I'll be cutting down on the smokes, and carbo-loading with extra chips. I've been working our super hard, sometimes even dancing to each and every song, and I intend cutting out the chucking-out-time double whiskeys in the three weeks prior to the marathon- this is called "tapering", right?

All advice I don't agree with will be disregarded,

regards,

-Delia Quad

A P

Tingle wrote: »

I read "The Death of Marco Pantani" (based on what someone here said a few week ago) and there is a stage where Pantani is on fire, possibly riddled to the gills with EPO or whatever other drug he may have been on and he kills the peloton on a stage and is breaking away only for LA to effortlessly breeze up to him and simply pedal away with Pantani honking like a madman to just stay in touch. Reading it you can almost feel the power, strength and physical capacity of LA jump off the page and then hearing he could only do a 2:59 a year after retiring doesn't tie.

Here's another book for you - "From Lance to Landis: Inside the American Doping Controversy at the Tour de France" by Sunday Times journalist David Walsh - having read it, I believe that the ease with which he passed Pantani was due to the expertise of his medical team rather than his natural ability. He was clearly a very talented cyclist, and I've a lot of respect for what he has achieved in raising awareness about cancer, but that's where the respect ends. His 7 Tour de France wins come with a big asterisk.
Back on-topic, I'm inclined to agree with Deadlybuzz - the more the merrier in terms of marathon participation, as long as the pram-pushers and sandwich eaters stay firmly at the back out of my way! I've respect for anyone who completes a marathon, but that respect is proportional to the effort and dedication invested in making it to the start line in the first place.
Good luck to everyone participating at the weekend. Hope there are PB's all-round.

earlyevening

it irritates me too. Loads of people don't seem to understand what the word "marathon" means. They seem to think it refers to any sort of run over three km.
People who equate their 5.30 marathon to my efforts annoy me too. I'm there thinking "What ya do - walk backwards and stop for a cup of tea?"
Of course I know some would scoff at my efforts, but I think anyone who runs the whole thing after following a solid training regime deserves respect.
For my own part I hope to do the connemara half on Sun in around 1.35, then build up to the Dublin full and do about 3.20. Did 1.37 and 3.29 last year.

tunney

People who equate their 5.30 marathon to my efforts annoy me too.

Complete and utter arrogance. Would you like faster runners to laugh and giggle at your times?

If someone trains correctly, works at their diet, does everything they can to do a marathon as fast as they can then they deserve respect for their efforts. Anyone who does approach a marathon in this way will in no way confuse a 2:30 with a 5:30.

Don't confuse people to fail to prepare for an endurance event with people who for whatever reason don't have what it takes to do a fast endurance event.

hunnymonster

my 2c worth.

Calling a 10km a marathon also drives me nuts. A marathon is 42195m nothing more, nothing less! Similarly, as I'm sure Odyessus will confirm there is a world of difference between 42 km and 100km. It's not just a matter of hurting longer.

I'm not with people who "diss" the 5 hour marathoners. Anything that gets people out and moving is good in my book. In 2005, I "ran" the Belfast marathon with my asmathic, 65 year old uncle. It took us five and a half hours. This man has run 400 marathons (pb 3:10) and 200 ultramarathons. A fraud to some people on here?

Similarly HardyE, Amadeus and I have two friends, one is a 5 hour woman, one a 2:20 man. They put an equal amount of work into their training. The woman, was not genetically blessed for speed, has raised a family, run a business and come to running in the last few years, The man has been a serious club runner all his life and is gifted with the kind of genes that make him a racing snake. They both work extremely hard and I respect both their efforts enormously.

I on the other hand, have never worked hard at sports in my life. This is what I do for fun, if it ever becomes serious for me, I'm off to take up knitting. When I won an ultramarathon in February, my inbox was full to capacity with congratulations, but I feel fraudulent because I just got lucky.


I don't care that the average time in marathons is slipping. The more people involved the better. What does worry me is that the sharp end of the field also appears to be slipping (Radcliffe, Gebre and company excepted). Are kids not getting into athletics these days? Are academic pressures meaning sports get sidelines? Are we turning into a mcDonalds nations? Sports development needs some serious work in Ireland.

sorry, that turned into a little more or a rant than I expected.

deadlybuzz

Tingle wrote: »

You are right but this is LA and the things he did on a bike are unreal and with that engine a 2:59 is slow. I dunno, maybe a 2:30 at least (a time I regarded on another thread as a good time) as he is possibly the greatest endurance athlete of our time and there has to be some cross-over, baring in mind a cyclist would put their body through the rigours of a marathon (or close to it) in the mountain stages of the tour on successive days.

2:59 was surprisingly slow, but according to LA, in preparation, in ran only 3 times a week, and longest run was 13.1miles. He's reportedly targeting low 2:40 in Boston and low 2:30 in NY this year, so sounds like he's hooked!

--amadeus--

I'm with Tunney on that one.

I know someone who considers an 11 min / mile to be speedwork (albeit with tongue in cheek). She will cheerfully admit to being a plodder and it takes her 5+ hrs to finish a marathon. But she puts her heart and soul into training and works damn hard at it (harder than I do for sure). Of the 20k+ who got medals in London last year I doubt any deserved them more than she did and I envy her the determination and dedication she brings to the marathon. In so many ways I wish I could be more like her. And there are thousands of them at every big city marathon - slow but committed, working hard to make the most of whatever they have. I have nothing but respect for them.

Likewise people who decide to run a marathon with a short lead in time but who throw themselves into it wholeheartedly. They may only give themselves a couple of months to get ready but they do it with (again) commitment. They get a training plan, they do the runs, they actively seek out and listen to advice and they give it thier best shot. Again I have plenty of time for people like that - they are making an effort.

The ones that drive me mental don't make the effort and lack the commitment. They announce a plan to run a heroic time with no experience to justify it. Or to run a marathon with little or no training and look for "hints and tips" - short cuts - to help them along. I would guess that 80% never make the start line and of those that do probably 80% don't make teh finish.

It's summed up for me by that Jade Goody chancer. She lands at the start line in London bragging about having only done 3 half hour treadmill sessions and wearing a pair of tennis shoes. That kind of lack of preparation, lack of effort and lack of respect annoys me. Despite everything there are still some things that there are no short cuts for, no easy route to and the Marathon is one.

Jade ended her race in the back of an ambulance by the way...

hunnymonster

deadlybuzz wrote: »

...... He's reportedly targeting low 2:40 in Boston .....

Boston is all downhill

thirtyfoot

earlyevening wrote: »

People who equate their 5.30 marathon to my efforts annoy me too. I'm there thinking "What ya do - walk backwards and stop for a cup of tea?"
.

Although you do say that people may scoff at your efforts, your 3:29 is probably closer to 5:30 in performance stakes than it is to a world class 2:15 and someone like Martin Fagan (not that he would) might say to you did you stop for a cup of tea in your stroll around in 3:29 (although Martin did stop for a stretch a couple of times in Dubai!)

Its all relative. I've trained and raced against people in track races ranging from guys who's PB I'd beat in an interval session to reigning world record holders and olympic medalists who'd probably do the same to me. I'd never scoff at a fellow competitor's time or performance and I'd like to think the elites wouldn't at me. Most elite athletes know what it takes to even compete in the sport and some still train in training groups that will have athletes of a wide spectrum of talents (if not currently, they have in the past). Because of this most have respect as they have come up through the grassroots and the various stages of the sport and may at some stage have been very average.

As marathon running is mass participant, many marathoners are new to the game from various walks of life and may not have gone through the stages of the sport and learned that there will always be people faster and always people slower and the day that you scoff at someone slower will come back to bite you. Happened to me as a cocky youngster when seeing a line up in a championship race and thinking I'll stroll it went out all guns blazing and showboating only to crash and burn in an embarrasing heap with 50m to go, I learned my lesson. Anyone who completes a marathon deserves some form of respect and while I do believe you have to be realistic when saying what is a good/average etc time for a marathon the easiest way is probably to break it into two categories - marathon racers and marathon runners, with a good time for a marathon racer around 2:30 (2:55 for a woman) and good for a runner probably an hour on that. Having said that I'll continue to slag marathon/distance runners in general in response to their scoffing at the fact that I take 4min or 8 min or sometimes 15 mins recovery between some intervals and call me soft as a result:)

thirtyfoot

hunnymonster wrote: »

What does worry me is that the sharp end of the field also appears to be slipping (Radcliffe, Gebre and company excepted). Are kids not getting into athletics these days? Are academic pressures meaning sports get sidelines? Are we turning into a mcDonalds nations? Sports development needs some serious work in Ireland.

In Ireland nobody competes at the marathon anymore as its such a time consuming event to train for but that may change with what Martin Fagan has done and people see the rewards he has got. Also we have such a small pool of athletes that we may have an elite in an event but the depth is realtively weak - Hession is nearly half a second faster than our 2nd fastest man in the 100, O' Keefe is our only 'national' let alone world class female thrower, Derval O' Rourke the same (except a couple of good juniors are on the horizon).

Also in Ireland, the focus has moved very much from distance to more technical events. Of the recent world/euro juniors and youth championships only around 25% of the qualifying standards achieved were at distances over 800m! Good in some ways but also bad. You are right we need more kids getting into the sport because in my opinion (I am biased though) it is one of the best sports to be at and especially for women or girls because its one sport where they are equals. Also, athletics is a very 'academic' sport. You can get scholarships to great schools in the US or even now DCU at home. It works very well in tandem with your studies.

More kids at grassroots, more juniors qualifying for their majors, getting to seniors world/euros in 5k/10k and then following the normal route of late 20s/early 30s getting into the marathon. Who knows Fionnula Britton may be pushing for a medal in 2016.

brianon

OK I've not read the full thread. Just the OP. I can see I am slightly responsible for the thread as theres pretty much a refernce to my "run marathon - no specific training htread"

I think a marathon is a personal acheivement. I've trained for this one for sure. I didn't enjoy it and I don't particularly enjoy running. Thats partly why I didn't 'run' as much as most for this marathon. 171 miles right now over 10 weeeks. But I do plenty of other stuff and respect the distance.

I see this as a challenge and a test of the training I DO love.

Had I not done the 171 miles I would still be of the beleif that I could run this marathon although I'd expect to be in bits by mile 20 and probably have to walk a good many a mile. To me thats not an acheivement. Its pretty much worthless. But thats for me. I have only run 171 miles but since June last year I've trained like never before. I've put the effort in. Just not all directly at this marathon.

If someone wants to turn up on the day and wing it. Walk most of it without putting 'any' effort in (not even non-running specific training) then thats not respecting the race and in itself its nothing. Its crap. Keep your acheivement to yourself cause its not worthy of mentioning.

But thats not to say that someone who goes out there and takes 6 hours. Walks most of it but had done the training. Had put effort in. Then hats off to them. They've done something worthy. Nice one.

--amadeus--

Actually I wasn't referring to your thread (apologies if that dents your ego! ) - I don't 100% agree with your approach but I do think you've put the work in.

There were a couple of more recent threads that got me thinking, eg a tri in 2 months when incapable of running a mile, a full marathon in a month from nothing and a tilt at a sub 3:10 in 7 months with no running experience. With all due respect to the posters of those threads they are all being very ambitious...

SUNGOD

--amadeus-- wrote: »

There were a couple of more recent threads that got me thinking, eg a tri in 2 months when incapable of running a mile, a full marathon in a month from nothing and a tilt at a sub 3:10 in 7 months with no running experience. With all due respect to the posters of those threads they are all being very ambitious...

+1 seems to me a lot of people just want "marathon finisher" on their CV's and dont want to put in the hard work. for me entering a marathon was a way of giving me something to aim for as i was already running 3 times a week. i think its very important to enjoy your training of choice as the actual event is a tiny percentage of the time you invest in your training.i followed the hal higdon programme for the last 3 months thats 12 weeks of running 5 days and cross training 1 per week so in comparison 3to4 hours on sunday is only a tiny peice of the overall picture.
i loved my long runs sunday mornings and marking off each day on my training plan. and i think to get the real benefit from any sport you have to firstly enjoy it regardless of your ability
for me this marathon is as much about the preparation as it is about the day

brianon

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Actually I wasn't referring to your thread (apologies if that dents your ego! ) - I don't 100% agree with your approach but I do think you've put the work in.

There were a couple of more recent threads that got me thinking, eg a tri in 2 months when incapable of running a mile, a full marathon in a month from nothing and a tilt at a sub 3:10 in 7 months with no running experience. With all due respect to the posters of those threads they are all being very ambitious...

No legendary status for me so

earlyevening

Of course I know some would scoff at my efforts, but I think anyone who runs the whole thing after following a solid training regime deserves respect.

It wasnt complete and utter arrogance. Anyone who runs 5.30 after training hard has done their best and ought to be congratulated. Its the girls who walk the thing with a full face of makeup on and maybe jog a little every few miles and then think they've "done a marathon" that irritate me. - not the seventy year old asthmatic who does his best.

tunney

Technically they have done a marathon.
They just haven't run one.

hunnymonster

There are some marathons, that are tough no matter what..... A friend is just back from the north pole
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lAeuY563B-U

RacoonQueen

Me: "I ran the Dublin marathon last October."
Everyone I've said it too: "Oh well done, how long was it?"
Me: *bangs head on wall*

thirtyfoot

mp1972 wrote: »

Me: "I ran the Dublin marathon last October."
Everyone I've said it too: "Oh well done, how long was it?"
Me: *bangs head on wall*

I used to get something similar, sort of:

Me: Yeah, I'm a runner, an athlete.
Everyone: So did you do the marathon (with respect and awe in their expression)?
Me: No, I do much shorter stuff, 200m or maybe 400m.
Everyone: Oh right. So what kind of stuff do you do in training, how many miles.
Me: Don't really do miles, more shorter stuff like 6 x 200 on the track.
Everyone: Is that all?
Me: Yeah, but really fast and with short recovery, its very hard.
Everyone: Blank look, slow nod (with you're not really a runner and a bit soft in their expression).

Sometimes, a "would you not do a marathon for training" might be added but usually thats the end of the conversation.

hunnymonster

Tingle, Personally I think the 400m is the hardest race out there. I was a sprinter as a youngster. 100m was where I won most medals but Ive a couple at 200m. Occasionally my coach got me running 400m's mostly relays for the county team. I was a very quiet, shy teenager but take what he got after those races, they nearly killed me, I was swearing like a fish-wife at him! Even now when I run much longer distances, I know I would be a much better runner if I added some track sessions to my training. They're just too hard though and I'm a softie.

RRSC

hi amadeus

finishing a marathon is both hard and an achievement. Anyone who finishes (in whatever time) should be proud of themselves.

Taking it on a little from there...... finishing is good, finishing without walking is great, finishing under 3 hours is a real badge of honour. Maybe some day I will....

I was a Dublin regular in the 80s and through 92. Got back into running a few years ago to find the badge of honour was now under 4 hours. So yes, the bar has been lowered.
No doubt.

RRSC

Deliaquad

Regarding the "anyone-can-do-it-have-a-go" approach, the much-touted "smoker, drinker, first-timer 101 year old" Buster Martin London marathon "runner" has been outed as a cheat! Turns out he is 94 at best, and his story was spun as a gob****e PR stunt. Took him over 10 hours to finish btw.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3740118.ece

onekeaneo

--amadeus-- wrote: »

That's an excellent article and I agree with everything in it. Running is democratic and anyone can do it. I think it's great that no talents like myself can line up with world champions in the big races.

I suppose what I was grumbling about is that the increased participation and increased numbers of people of all shapes and sizes completing a marathon may make some people think that it's in some way easy. They then jump in with both feet and commit to doing marathons (or triathlons come to that) that they aren't trained for. Or they decide that they'll target a sub 3:00 (or whatever) even though they haven't run since playing U-13 Gaelic. At the least it strikes me as disrespectful and at worst they run the risk of doing themselves serious damage.

Ahhh, I've turned into a bitter and twisted grumpy old man!

Christ!!!! For me some of these elitist comments were very hard to read…I could understand how a “first timer” reading some of these posts could be put off entering at all. A marathon is for everybody not just those who can cross the line sub 3hrs. If I wanted to see that I’d stay at home and watch the Olympics.

I made up my mind to run the Dublin Marathon early last year. And completed it in 4hrs 1min.. I joined these boards, gathered as much advice as I could from helpful experienced runner’s comments, drew out a plan and stuck to it. I battled through the sore joints and stiff limbs and a paid out for GP’s appointments for vertigo (I later discovered was because of my training and the long mileage I was covering). Through naivety I too was guilty of setting myself an unrealistic target for my first Marathon of 3hrs 30. However I quickly realised during my training that 4hr finish was a bit more realistic first time round. I made sure to line up at the correct point on the start line so as not to get in anyone else’s way. Looking back now I know I could have run it faster but for me my first Marathon was not about running the best time ever. It was about

1. Enjoying the whole experience.

2. Encouraging other runners around me and appreciating the encouragement that they gave me.

3. Finishing.


I’m certain I could have run a faster time first time round. Actually I’m positive I could cause towards the end I helped a lad that was struggling and we both finished together. If I had ran past I would have finished in a quicker time but I’m not sure that’s the be all and the end all in your first Marathon. I was much more into soaking up the atmosphere and intent on enjoying the experience. Does this mean I sold myself short? Or because I ran within myself for my first marathon that I disrespected it or it’s traditions?
I’m not going to lie this year I will be interested in coming home in a fast time for me, but my first time round like I say I just wanted to enjoy the experience.
In my opinion ANYONE!! who finishes a marathon deserves praise. I don’t care if you cross the line in 2hrs 30 or 5hr 30 dressed up like a donkey. The only thing I would say that if you know you are not going to finish in a quick time that you have a bit of consideration for the other runners who are and don’t do anything silly like line up at the front row.
Also…. I can’t imagine that anyone would just get off the couch and announce to the world that tomorrow they are going to “run a marathon”. I can’t imagine anyone would be that naïve. Even if they were surly the realisation would hit home after they go out for the first run with no previous training that this will take a bit more preparation. If someone was so stupid as to line up for a marathon without any previous training then surely they would drop out and not make the finish and maybe learn a valuable lesson. If by some miracle they did finish (although I couldn’t see how they would) then should they not be applauded as much as anyone else for battling to the end, for surely they have demonstrated to everyone that they have tremendous willpower if nothing else. I don’t think they have devalued or disrespected the distance.
That is the beauty of the marathon for me, it’s just you, your will power and determination not to give up, to push yourself and your body to the end. You have nowhere to hide and no one to hide behind. No short cuts, no corners can be cut. The distance is the distance and it can only be covered by putting one foot in front of the other.
In my years of playing league of Ireland football I have come across plenty of lads who hid on the pitch, cheated themselves and the team. They were usually the loudest ones in the dressing room giving the big “I AM”. But when push comes to shove they hid on the pitch.
I think the experience runner who is capable of running a sub 3 hr marathon and finishes in 4 hrs is more guilty than the person who never ran a marathon before, maybe underestimated the distance but pushed themselves to the brink and crosses the line in a heap in 6 hrs….

For you first timers out there thinking of running a marathon. Don’t be put off by these elitist comments. YOU CAN DO IT. And it’s the best feeling in the world crossing that line in your first marathon…

HardyEustace

onekeaneo,
While I don't disagree with your mail I'm baffled as to why you choose to quote Amadues and then said

onekeaneo wrote: »

Christ!!!! For me some of these elitist comments were very hard to read

If you're a regular member of this forum and/or the athletics forum then you'll be aware that Amadeus is a regular contributor and a great support and source of knowledge to both newbies and regular runners.

I can't believe that you're singling him out by quoting him. As you mentioned yourself

onekeaneo wrote: »

I joined these boards, gathered as much advice as I could from helpful experienced runner’s comments,

I'm pretty sure that you were able to take advice from a thread that Amadeus had either started or contributed to.

I'm beginning to wonder if you've read through this thread properly at all as you're actually arguing similar points that I've often read Amadeus defending. He's expressing a concern that people aren't respecting the distance and are not putting in the training and putting themselves at risk of injury or worse by not properly preparing. Yes, AWFULLY ELITIST THERE!

Watch out for that first step down from your soap box, I've heard they can be fairly steep.

Playing God and deciding to unfairly and incorrectly single out a poster and accusing them of being elitist has detracted wholly from a lovely post.

SUNGOD

prob just a misunderstanding as at the time of amadeus original thread in april there was a few threads along the lines of running a 3:10 marathon in 6 months with no running expierence and others along those lines.
but one thing you could'nt call amadeus is is eliteist
maybe a lesson to us all to read the full thread before posting

onekeaneo

HHHHmmmmm!!!! HardyEustace think you may have got your wires a little crossed here. Actually what I most had a beef with were some of the responses to the question asked by Amadeus (obviously cause I read the whole thread) which I consisered to be Elitist and if anything would discourage first timers from thinking of running a marathon. Which I’m sure is not what anyone would want.

HardyEustace wrote: »

Watch out for that first step down from your soap box, I've heard they can be fairly steep.

QUOTE]
Sorry for expressing an opinion mate. Couldn’t possible come back at you with such a witty comment as this.

hunnymonster

OneKeano, you quoted Amadeus so it's hardly surprising that she took that to be who you were having a shot at.

Also, since when is not ok for her to challenge your view/opinion but perfectly fine for you to challenge the views other people expressed in this thread.

Christ!!!! For me some of these elitist comments were very hard to read…

I agree with Sungod, there were a lot of unrealistic threads here a while ago from unfit people expecting to practically place in the prizes at marathons. That's not to say it can't be done. I won my 3rd marathon less than a year after taking up running but it take hard work, and luck . it also helps to be female where the field is weaker.

The point I think Amadeus was trying to make (and he is currently on holidays - yes I am big brother!) is that people often think the marathon is easy, and if you walk it there is a certain logic in that but if you push yourself, do all the miles, deal with the niggles, get out of bed on a Sunday morning when the rest of the world is having a sleep, then the marathon really is an achievement. I'm no taking away from the walkers, casual runners but it's a completely different league from someone who puts their heart and soul into the event and races it (be that a race against the leaders or their personal clock).

How Strange

[QUOTE=hunnymonster;56705026 if you push yourself, do all the miles, deal with the niggles, get out of bed on a Sunday morning when the rest of the world is having a sleep, then the marathon really is an achievement. I'm no taking away from the walkers, casual runners but it's a completely different league from someone who puts their heart and soul into the event and races it (be that a race against the leaders or their personal clock).[/QUOTE]
+1

I read this thread a few months ago but have to say that everyone here, Amadeus et al, who are without a doubt in a different league to me are definitely not elitest. If anything they are always willing to give information and advice and for a first timer like me that is invaluable.

I'm training for the Dublin marathon and am taking it very seriously. That means no boozing at the weekends as I've to do my long runs, drag my lazy ass off the sofa even when I'd rather pluck my eyelashes out than go for a run in the rain and suffer all those little aches that I never knew existed.

When I see the commitment of sorts that I have to put into my training to do the marathon I have the utmost respect for people like hunnymonster, amadeus et al who strive for excellence.

onekeaneo

What are you talking about Hunnymonster?
You seem to think that I have my back up with people disagreeing with my point of view. Strange!! I don’t have a problem with that. I never said it was not OK for anyone to challenge my opinion at all. Good luck to them!
I did say if someone thinks they can run a Marathon in Sub 3hrs without any prep then they are naive and foolish. And the chances are they won’t succeed anyway. Of course walking a marathon is not in the same league as running it I neve claimed it was.
But someone who is guilty of being a bit naïve and posting on these boards an unrealistic finish time should not be pillared and made to feel silly which might lead them to not entering at all.

By the way Hunnymonster if you disagree with this post feel free to say so. Just to clarify…I have no problems with this! After all from reading these posts you are probably 10 times more experienced than me but we were all first timers once!

hunnymonster

onekeaneo wrote: »

Sorry for expressing an opinion mate. Couldn’t possible come back at you with such a witty comment as this.

no doesn't sound like you have a problem with people disagreeing with you at all?:rolleyes:

onekeaneo

Said in response to a sarcastic comment Hunneymonster. That’s all..
Still not sure where you think I can’t hear other peoples comments and disagreements. Isn’t that what these boards are all about. Different people with different view points. Would be pretty boring if everyone agreed.

robinph

onekeaneo wrote: »

Of course walking a marathon is not in the same league as running it I neve claimed it was.

Walking harder than running?
Probably depends if you are walking and carrying a picnic along with you as well or doing that funny wiggling type of walking. I suspect it was the former that you were on about though.

Edit: Looks like the record for "walking" 50k is way faster than I'm expecting to do the 42k in. :eek:

onekeaneo

Yes definitely the former. The likes of Olive Loughnane, Jamie Costin and Robert Heffernan... walking would still leave me for dust running