How hard can it be to win a marathon?

--amadeus--

Ok, slightly tongue in cheek title but kind of comes from a conversation over the weekend.

Once upon a 10k I was a few months short of moving up an age category. Had I been a bit older I would have placed 2nd in category. I didn't run *that* fast, it was just a quirk of the people who happened to fall into that age group.

So what if there was a quirky marathon? Not quirky like Medoc but in the sense that - even though it's a proper, certified, standard road marathon - the field is so small that the winning times are relatively slow.

Like this one... Winning time of 2:50, 2nd and 3rd in 3:07 and 3:13 and a sub 4 would see you in teh top 10

Is it cheating to cherry pick races like that to enter? Unsportsmanlike? Or a shiny opportunity?

And most importantly - any that are easier?!

plodder

A shiny opportunity I'd say. Though it'd be a bummer if you got there and discovered the reason why it's slow, was because it goes up and down several mountains ...:D [edit] I see you specified a proper certified road marathon. So never mind ...

shels4ever

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Ok, slightly tongue in cheek title but kind of comes from a conversation over the weekend.

Once upon a 10k I was a few months short of moving up an age category. Had I been a bit older I would have placed 2nd in category. I didn't run *that* fast, it was just a quirk of the people who happened to fall into that age group.

So what if there was a quirky marathon? Not quirky like Medoc but in the sense that - even though it's a proper, certified, standard road marathon - the field is so small that the winning times are relatively slow.

Like this one... Winning time of 2:50, 2nd and 3rd in 3:07 and 3:13 and a sub 4 would see you in teh top 10

Is it cheating to cherry pick races like that to enter? Unsportsmanlike? Or a shiny opportunity?

And most importantly - any that are easier?!

Well would you rather run 2:59:59 and come last or 3:00:01 and win? Depends on the race really for me there are some races that i'd love to win (but will never happen..) but for the most part its against the clock.. I can't seem myself looking for a race that I could win, ... It would be too hard to find.

christeb

Aalborg Brutal Marathon - winning time 3:08 last year.

It would be my local marathon in Denmark (I'm half Dansk) but it does look tough enough. Also on this Saturday - I hope Woddle isn't reading this

And I'm pretty sure I'd prefer to win a marathon in 3:00:01 too

W.B. Yeats

christeb wrote: »

And I'm pretty sure I'd prefer to win a marathon in 3:00:01 too

Me too

You can never overestimate the joy of winning- marathon, 5k or egg and spoon race

MrCreosote

I wonder how the guy who came second in the Rotterdam marathon on Saturday felt. 4th fastest time ever, and still not good enough to win! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFr6dhgDhSU

seanybiker

MrCreosote wrote: »

I wonder how the guy who came second in the Rotterdam marathon on Saturday felt. 4th fastest time ever, and still not good enough to win! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFr6dhgDhSU

Aw man that must be some kick in the nads

--amadeus--

I don't think I'm ready to run anything with the word "brutal" in teh title just yet!

On teh time versus winning thing - thousands of people every year run sub 3, sub 3:30, sub 4 or whatever. But only a handful actually win a proper marathon - or even finish on the podium. And that you will have for ever.

hunnymonster

I've won and got on the podium for several marathons and tbh, that only happened because the competition was pants. A couple of ultra's I've won against really good runners and they mean much more to me so I'm somewhere between the two cases, yes winning is great, but only when you beat quality, not just because you bet the camel home (an mds joke - a camel called michele is the last "runner" home each night). Mind you, my only goal in life is to remain unbeaten by Amadeusm, which given the way he is running these days, may mean I have to avoid the races he runs in future :-)

SUNGOD

i ran 3:09 in my first marathon(connemara 08) finishing 10th
but in a way its a false result as that time would get me in the top 450 in dublin the same year.
as stated above its all about the size of the field and popularity with top runners.
the more top runners who participate the lower down us mortals finish.

robinph

Well I'm not expecting to win or anything, but there is a small 10k race I did last year in the UK which I'm intending to go and do again this year as I should be able to get close to a top ten finish based on the last couple of years of results now. That would be good enough glory for me, but the possibility of just getting a good placing is certainly part of my reason for doing the race.

--amadeus--

I'm gunning for you HM...

I agree that beating quality would mean a lot more than beating 3 old men and a one legged dog. But if any more than 3 old men and a one legged dog turn up I'm out of contention!

I suppose where I'm coming from is that in a few years time I'll be slowing down and it would be nice to lok back and think "well I was never fast but I did once get a podium finish in a marathon..."

TFBubendorfer

hunnymonster wrote: »

yes winning is great, but only when you beat quality, not just because you bet the camel home

I have to say I disagree with that. Two years ago I won a local 5k here in Kerry where there was as good as no opposition - the runner-up took about 21 minutes. I was still thrilled with my win.

I've since added 2 age-group wins, and was very pleased with both of them as well. I'm not, and never will be, a top runner, so for me to win an award means the level of opposition was low, but it's still a great feeling to come first.

BeepBeep67

The last race I won was a low key 5k in India almost 2 years ago - over 20mins for 5k, but when I overtook the leader with 800 to go and ploughed on to win by 20 secs - it was the sweetest feeling in 10years since I won my last race.

W.B. Yeats

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have to say I disagree with that. Two years ago I won a local 5k here in Kerry where there was as good as no opposition - the runner-up took about 21 minutes. I was still thrilled with my win.

I've since added 2 age-group wins, and was very pleased with both of them as well. I'm not, and never will be, a top runner, so for me to win an award means the level of opposition was low, but it's still a great feeling to come first.

A win is a win is a win
Only somebody who has a chance of regularly winning would worry about the opposition

Krusty_Clown

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I have to say I disagree with that. Two years ago I won a local 5k here in Kerry where there was as good as no opposition - the runner-up took about 21 minutes. I was still thrilled with my win.

Where and when was the race? I'd love a chance at coming first second.

shels4ever

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Where and when was the race? I'd love a chance at coming first second.

Good point , Actually had a 10 place finish in a race last year, 5k too ran about 24 mins.. winner was about 20 min mark . So if its run this year i'll run to win

TFBubendorfer

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Where and when was the race? I'd love a chance at coming first second.

It was in Killorglin, but I'm afraid the level has increased since then. :P
When they organised a (very hilly) 10k last year I came 10th in about 39:30.

buck65

Myself and my buddy ran a turkey trot 5k in 1996 (my first race)and finished in the top 10 with a time of 21 minutes , we couldn't believe it.
Since then he has broken 5 mins for the mile, I haven't!! (He was a 400/800m sprinter in his previous life)

mrak

Winning would definitely be sweeter in a big field. In ireland I'd say Connemara is the most winnable marathon with a big field. Every second year the standard drops off and you could be lucky and catch it on a day when a 2:45 or something would win it which is very doable even in the hills for an average runner that prepares well.

TFBubendorfer

mrak wrote: »

Every second year the standard drops off and you could be lucky and catch it on a day when a 2:45 or something would win it which is very doable even in the hills for an average runner that prepares well.

*sigh* You can clearly see that the fast guys like you are a different species to the rest of us when they make statements like that.

Anyone who can run 2:45 on a hilly marathon is a lot better than an average runner, no matter how well prepared.

mrak

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

*sigh* You can clearly see that the fast guys like you are a different species to the rest of us when they make statements like that.

Anyone who can run 2:45 on a hilly marathon is a lot better than an average runner, no matter how well prepared.

Not being elitist.. I meant average in terms of innate ability.. you would still need to train like crazy. I've seen people of all sorts of shapes and sizes train themselves into 33-38 minute 10k shape by training like lunatics for 2-3 years while being lucky with injuries, etc. I don't think that lunacy can get you much further and you wouldn't win most marathons without exceptional talent, but Connemara might be fairly winnable on the odd year for an average lunatic if they were lucky. More so than Dublin, Belfast, Cork or Longford anyhow.