Slow marathons - a non achievement?

myflipflops

An interesting article, whatever your opinion.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html?_r=3&hp

Pisco Sour

Whats a slow marathon though?? I'm sure Haile, Tergat, Radcliffe would think of 2.45 as an appallingly slow time.

Bulls**t article is you ask me. If people want to run then let them. What are these stuck up snobs trying to do? Send people back to the couch and TV??!!
Running is for the masses, it should be for whoever wants to take part. Its should NOT be closed off to the non-elite.

Woddle

Im in the it gets you off the couch camp and its not just the slow runners that have taken away from the mystique, it's the better nutrition plans and hydration plans etc
I myself started with a 4'36 (I think) and I'm now at 3'37 and still want to better that time.
And wasn't there some elite guy who said sth after he finished along the lines of the real troopers are those who are still out in the course as their out there twice as long as I

earlyevening

04072511 wrote: »

Whats a slow marathon though?? I'm sure Haile, Tergat, Radcliffe would think of 2.45 as an appallingly slow time.

Bulls**t article is you ask me. If people want to run then let them. What are these stuck up snobs trying to do? Send people back to the couch and TV??!!
Running is for the masses, it should be for whoever wants to take part. Its should NOT be closed off to the non-elite.

The article doesnt ask that marathons be closed off to the non elite.
It suggests that a 6-8hr finisher is barely a marathoner. 4:36 or whatever is still a grand time but 7:36?? I'm not sure how much effort there was there to run.
I dont entirely disagree with the article.

Dublin though bills itself as the friendly marathon and has no cut off time so slow is fine here.

osgur

its bull**** paddy

Krusty_Clown

There is an interesting aspect to the article though, and it's this:

In 1980, the median finishing time for male runners in United States marathons was 3 hours 32 minutes 17 seconds, a pace of about eight minutes per mile. In 2008, the median finishing time was 4:16, a pace of 9:46. For women, that time in 1980 was 4:03:39. Last year, it was 4:43:32.

While a general slow-down is an inevitable side effect of widening the band for mass participation, there should always be a goal to finish as fast as you can, rather than run at a pace that will see you around comfortably (my role on Monday being the exception to the rule of course ).

myflipflops

osgur wrote: »

its bull**** paddy

Insightful.


I find it strange that it's non elite athletes (in the article, specifically people running in 3.15-3.45 maybe) that seem to have an issue with the mass participation and worsening of the median times in marathons. I would have thought this made the achievement of running 3.30 greater. I suppose it's really a matter that most poeple hear about doing the marathon and lump in everyone as the same achievement, regardless of time.

People doing the Haiwai marathon and stopping for lunch on the way around kind of defeats the purpose though!!

Pisco Sour

pwhite587 wrote: »

Insightful.

I find it strange that it's non elite athletes (in the article, specifically people running in 3.15-3.45 maybe) that seem to have an issue with the mass participation and worseing of the median times in marathons. I would have thought this made the achievement of running 3.30 greater. I suppose it's really a matter that most poeple here about doing the marathon and lump in everyone as the same achievement, regardless of time.

People doing the Haiwai marathon and stopping for lunch on the way around kind of defeat the purpose though!!

If 3.15 to 3.45 runners are offended by so many "slow" marathon runners then the same could be said about the elites looking down on them. Maybe Emil Zatopek is turning in his grave at the thoughts of millions of people running his beloved event in the year 2009 in 3.30!

earlyevening

I'd say the 3:15 to 3:45 guy or girl is giving it 100% effort. The 7:45 guy probably isnt.
People think of "doing the marathon" as some feat of endurance which requires time, training, discipline and effort so when they see their lazy mate say he "did the marathon last weekend...no problem" it lessens all of our achievement a little.

Pisco Sour

earlyevening wrote: »

I'd say the 3:15 to 3:45 guy or girl is giving it 100% effort. The 7:45 guy probably isnt.
People think of "doing the marathon" as some feat of endurance which requires time, training, discipline and effort so when they see their lazy mate say he "did the marathon last weekend...no problem" it lessens all of our achievement a little.

That I agree with, but if somebody ran it to the best of their ability and they came out with 6 hours then people shouldnt look down on them.

Also theres individual stories to everyone. Who knows what the 7.45 guy/ gal might have gone through over the previous year to get there. Maybe that person came back from a crippling injury/ life threatening illness.

Running Bing

I think the article makes some good points.

I think the crux of the matter is really how much of an achievement running a marathon is?

I mean lets call a spade a spade, I ran my first in 4:15, What did I achieve really? I trained for 4 months, 4 days a week, thats essentially what it was, 4 months of exercise. Now dont get me wrong it was nice I did it and its a good thing I got off the couch but it is what it is.

I suppose what Im saying is (and maybe's its because Ive done one) I personally dont see the marathon as that much of an achievement.

Now I understand when people say if it gets bums of seats it must be a good thing but I see two problems with it......firstly the marathon has become an entry point into the sport. Thats the way it was for me. I still remember doing 18 and 20 milers after only a few months of running.....hours out on the road, no doubt horrible form, an injury waiting to happen. I just dont think that's a good idea. I dont think its healthy and I dont think its the right way for people to reach their potential in the sport.

Secondly you have to ask if the majority of people who take up running just to do a marathon are really that beneficial to the sport? If somebody takes up running just to do a marathon, trains for a few months, runs the thing and then never runs again how good is that for the sport?

Bottom line is the goal used to be to race a marathon......thats much more of an achievement than finishing a marathon imo.

Pisco Sour

Running Bing wrote: »

I think the article makes some good points.

I think the crux of the matter is really how much of an achievement running a marathon is?

I mean lets call a spade a spade, I ran my first in 4:15, What did I achieve really? I trained for 4 months, 4 days a week, thats essentially what it was, 4 months of exercise. Now dont get me wrong it was nice I did it and its a good thing I got off the couch but it is what it is.

I suppose what Im saying is (and maybe's its because Ive done one) I personally dont see the marathon as that much of an achievement.

Now I understand when people say if it gets bums of seats it must be a good thing but I see two problems with it......firstly the marathon has become an entry point into the sport. Thats the way it was for me. I still remember doing 18 and 20 milers after only a few months of running.....hours out on the road, no doubt horrible form, an injury waiting to happen. I just dont think that's a good idea. I dont think its healthy and I dont think its the right way for people to reach their potential in the sport.

Secondly you have to ask if the majority of people who take up running just to do a marathon are really that beneficial to the sport? If somebody takes up running just to do a marathon, trains for a few months, runs the thing and then never runs again how good is that for the sport?

Bottom line is the goal used to be to race a marathon......thats much more of an achievement than finishing a marathon imo.

A 4.15 guys IS racing a marathon. He/she is racing against his/her own expectations/ goals etc. Racing against himself. If you consider racing a marathon in order to win it then very very few are racing a marathon.

earlyevening

Running Bing wrote: »

I mean lets call a spade a spade, I ran my first in 4:15, What did I achieve really? I trained for 4 months, 4 days a week, thats essentially what it was, 4 months of exercise. Now dont get me wrong it was nice I did it and its a good thing I got off the couch but it is what it is.

I suppose what Im saying is (and maybe's its because Ive done one) I personally dont see the marathon as that much of an achievement.

Looking backwards your first marathon may not seem an achievement but I'd say 2 years before you started training it seemed mighty.

ronanmac

I am by any definition a slow runner, my marathon PB being 4.28 and am optimistically aiming to run sub 4 for the first time on Monday :eek:. My slowest marathon was 5:20 in Florence where, while on target for 4.15 , my knee went at 15 miles. I still finished, through a mixture of walking and an extremely painful light jog. My slowest marathon is actually the one I am most proud of, in a bizarre way.

It doesn't matter who you are, 26.2 miles is 26.2 miles, whether you decide to run, jog or walk. I can never get over the number of times I come across people trying to dilute other people’s running achievements. People b*tch about run/walk, about “assistance” from gels, running slowly! Bullsh*t! A marathon is a pretty tough task for most people, and fair dues to anybody who finishes one.

KimHawkins

for anyone to do 26.2 milos in one day is a big effort.

Running Bing

True earlyevening and yes 04072511 I ran every step of the way and I gave everything I had to run it as fast as I could but my point is for me the marathon is all about the work you put in before the race, your training, your commitment. For me it was four months of exercising. Plenty of people go to the gym four days a week and while it is a credit to them I dont think its any massive achievement.


I do think the marathon can be all encompassing as I think what its essentially about is reaching your potential but dont tell me that potential is over than 5 hours for 21% of the people running the New York marathon.


I also think that Penguin fella is an absolute clown of the highest order. He really needs to cop on. We need more people telling new runners to believe in themselves and that they can achieve things rather than "you should be proud to be slow".:rolleyes:

I think thats part of the problem as well, people dont believe they could ever be good runners and are happy to just plod away.

I think the major thing that needs to change is peoples attitudes, you dont need to be a talented runner to run decent times and I think a lot of people are capable of much more than they give themselves credit for (and I think a large part of that is down to the slowing of marathon times and people like Bingham).

earlyevening

ronanmac wrote: »

I am by any definition a slow runner, my marathon PB being 4.28 and am optimistically aiming to run sub 4 for the first time on Monday :eek:. My slowest marathon was 5:20 in Florence where, while on target for 4.15 , my knee went at 15 miles. I still finished, through a mixture of walking and an extremely painful light jog. My slowest marathon is actually the one I am most proud of, in a bizarre way.

Sounds like you're making the effort and doing the training. Finishing later due to injury I wouldnt see as a slow effortless marathon.

KimHawkins wrote: »

for anyone to do 26.2 milos in one day is a big effort.

A 7 hr marathon for an otherwise able bodied person isnt a big effort. Its a long walk. No training required.

Running Bing

Also Im a huge fan of the idea of giving different tshirts/medals for different times.


I dont think my 4:15 after four months training should be seen as equal to the 60 year old guy who runs 4:15 or the person who trains for years to go sub 3.

I think grading would be a step in the right direction (naturally with age/gender been taken into account).

KimHawkins

give it a rest with all your elitism.

nobody here is called Haile as far as I know. For a burd to do a marathon is a big achievement.

Running Bing

KimHawkins wrote: »

give it a rest with all your elitism.

nobody here is called Haile as far as I know. For a burd to do a marathon is a big achievement.

Its not as simple as that though. There is a real debate here about the direction the sport and the particular event is going and its not as simple as saying if you finish its some great achievement and if you dont agree your elitist.

Believe me I have no right to engage in "elitism". It's just a question of attitude.

village runner

KimHawkins wrote: »

for anyone to do 26.2 milos in one day is a big effort.

+ 1. What is in a time ?????
Who is anyone to judge anyway ???
I went to Rotterdam this year with a woman. She struggled around. Problems with her kn ees etc left her battle to the line in 5.28 when the cut off was 5.30. She was elated after the race and i admired her so much. I ran 3.04 wasnt near as happy as she was.
For us going for a time would we have stopped if things werent going our way.
None of us are ever going to win a marathon. No one ever knows any ones past. A 7 hours time for joe bloggs might be a great time.

Spudzz

Off topic a small bit.

Our company Doctor came to our job during the week to administer the Flu jab.
When it was my turn to receive the jab I just asked the Doctor if it would interfere with my training,with that he asked me what kind of training I was doing,I told him that I did a lot of road running,his reply came as a bit of a surprise to me,he said that I was to OLD for running, I am 48 years of age,and have been running most of my adult life with a 2.31 marathon finish,he then said to me "with a sarcastic smile"I have yet to know of anyone who have lived longer because they exercised.With that I got my jacket and left the office.Thank God he is not my Family Doctor.

Woddle

KimHawkins wrote: »

give it a rest with all your elitism.

I must admit posts like this are really starting to bug me, an opinion is an opinion, no need to label it as elitism ffs and so what if it is, I think that needs to be looked at in the charter.

I was up in Longford for the marathon in August and I introduced Stupid private to my 2 uncles, I feared for his well being as they come from the olding days when a 2'30 was average never mind stupid privates 2'42 and one of my uncles just can't comprehend why I even bother but I do because its my own personal target and I would imagine thats the same for most whether its to break 3 hours or get aroound.
I think some people believe that the fun runner is taking away from the overall standards, I don't believe this to be true and I do believe it's the best sport in the world for catering for all abilities, I got to run not race in the same marathon as Haile
I think we need to dig a little harder to find out why this is, gaa etc taking the cream of the crop

Not too sure if I like the idea of different coloured medals but maybe look at what Ballycotton do, first 100 get a T-shirt and from talking to a few fellows they really want one.

Running Bing

village runner wrote: »

+ 1. What is in a time ?????
Who is anyone to judge anyway ???
I went to Rotterdam this year with a woman. She struggled around. Problems with her kn ees etc left her battle to the line in 5.28 when the cut off was 5.30. She was elated after the race and i admired her so much. I ran 3.04 wasnt near as happy as she was.
For us going for a time would we have stopped if things werent going our way.
None of us are ever going to win a marathon. No one ever knows any ones past. A 7 hours time for joe bloggs might be a great time.

You can always pick out individual examples. Thats clearly not the typical experience of somebody running 5'30 and yes you are 100% right 7 hours could be a great time for somebody and require infinitely more guts, effort, heart and determination that it takes somebody else to run 3 hours.

I dont think thats the issue though. The issue here is the fact that median marathon times are 45 minutes slower now than they were in 1980.

myflipflops

Running Bing wrote: »

I dont think thats the issue though. The issue here is the fact that median marathon times are 45 minutes slower now than they were in 1980.

Not really, i think the article is really trying to say that the the slower runners and the slower median times is taking the achievement out of the marathon in the opinion of some quicker runners.


I have never (and probably will never) run a marathon so I have no strong opinion on it. I just found the article on Letsrun and reckoned it would be of interest on a forum that covers the spectrum of times mentioned.

Pisco Sour

pwhite587 wrote: »

Not really, i think the article is really trying to say that the the slower runners and the slower median times is taking the achievement out of the marathon in the opinion of some quicker runners.


I have never (and probably will never) run a marathon so I have no strong opinion on it. I just found the article on Letsrun and reckoned it would be of interest on a forum that covers the spectrum of times mentioned.

Take anything you see on Letsrun with a grain of salt. Some of the posters are the rudest, most condescending internet posters I have ever come across. Anything I ever post up, the p1ss just gets taken out of it. I asked for advice for my debut marathon, to which some punter replied "if you are a 4 hour runner then its not called a debut"

Oh and they accuse everyone of taking PED's aswell.

myflipflops

04072511 wrote: »

Some of the posters are the rudest, most condescending internet posters I have ever come across..

Message board is tough going alright. The main page is excellent for links, articles, race reports and the like though. It's one of my first stops every morning when I log on at work!

poskantor

I think the fact that simpling running a marathon (irrespective of the time) is seen as a great achievement is testemant to how lazy and sedentry people in general have become. Every able bodied person should be able to run a marathon. The fact that someone gets off the couch and trains to complete a marathon in 5hrs is admirable but certainly nothing to boast about.

...I've ran marathons in less than that, but dont feel its deserving of all the pats on the back, its not that big a deal!

gerard65

Spudzz wrote: »

Off topic a small bit.

Our company Doctor came to our job during the week to administer the Flu jab.
When it was my turn to receive the jab I just asked the Doctor if it would interfere with my training,with that he asked me what kind of training I was doing,I told him that I did a lot of road running,his reply came as a bit of a surprise to me,he said that I was to OLD for running, I am 48 years of age,and have been running most of my adult life with a 2.31 marathon finish,he then said to me "with a sarcastic smile"I have yet to know of anyone who have lived longer because they exercised.With that I got my jacket and left the office.Thank God he is not my Family Doctor.

Its a pity you did'nt answer 'maybe, but I bet you've know plenty who died too young because they did'nt exercise'.
As for been too old, you'd want to see some of the more 'mature' guys who run in the BHAA races, their an inspiration, hope I'm still doing it at their age.
Well done for walking out. His attiude belongs somewhere in the 1970's.

ss43

04072511 wrote: »

Take anything you see on Letsrun with a grain of salt. Some of the posters are the rudest, most condescending internet posters I have ever come across. Anything I ever post up, the p1ss just gets taken out of it. I asked for advice for my debut marathon, to which some punter replied "if you are a 4 hour runner then its not called a debut"

Oh and they accuse everyone of taking PED's aswell.

Some are the rude and accuse everyone of using drugs; others are the exact opposite. The best info on the letsrun board is far better than anything I've found elsewhere.

For the vast majority, I don't consider running a marathon a particularly big achievement. I think any healthy person with a few months of moderate training can complete a marathon. I think most males who train reasonably hard and reasonably smart can break 3 hours.

Just because I don't see it as a big achievement doesn't mean I don't think slower runners should do marathons. It is better than being inactive and unhealthy, just not that big an achievement (in my book).

In certain circumstances, a slow marathon can be a massive achievement but for the most part a marathon is well within most people's capabilities.

That's just my opinion - I have not yet run a marathon and don't have any current plans to do so. I imagine I'll do one at some stage.

Tyrone_03

At €70 -€90 the DCM is glad to have a lot of slower participants.

Runners in the Honolulu Marathon have no limits. Race rules state, “All runners will be permitted to finish, regardless of their time.”
Last year, 44 percent of the field for that event finished in more than six hours — with some marathoners stopping for lunch along the course.

But come on......

lecheile

Spudzz wrote: »

Our company Doctor.

Maybe there is a reason he is a company doctor Spudzz and not operating in the real world.;)

Pisco Sour

lecheile wrote: »

Maybe there is a reason he is a company doctor Spudzz and not operating in the real world.;)

Probably under strict instructions by the company to discourage any form of physical activity/ pastimes. That way they can get you to work longer hours!

wizwill

ss43 wrote: »

I think most males who train reasonably hard and reasonably smart can break 3 hours.

I have not yet run a marathon and don't have any current plans to do so. I imagine I'll do one at some stage.

Perhaps you opinion will be more informed when you have broken 3 hours.

911sc

earlyevening wrote: »

It suggests that a 6-8hr finisher is barely a marathoner.

A marathon by definition is only about covering a specific distance on foot with no time constraint.
It is a bit like saying a guy finishing an IM in 15h is barely an IM.
Some writers should ran 42km (and the 100s of kms of training that go with it) before commenting.

Pisco Sour

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eABoh4XL7SY

shels4ever

911sc wrote: »

A marathon by definition is only about covering a specific distance on foot with no time constraint.
It is a bit like saying a guy finishing an IM in 15h is barely an IM.
Some writers should ran 42km (and the 100s of kms of training that go with it) before commenting.

+1 no such thing as a slow marathon on marathon, just like there is no such hting as a slow runner only runners...

But also on this I dont think I oculd ever run a marathon without trying to do it as fast as possible, but thats jsut me i don't see the point of just getting around, Doesnt matter if its 5 hours or 2:04 its nice to cover it as fast as possible.. But thats just me

pudgey22

As someone who's hoping to run 4.15ish tomorrow i'd have no problems whatsoever grading the marathon some way. Give us something to aim for, eg Gold for under 3 hours, Silver under 4 and Bronze for everyone else. I know that if I'd had no injuries, and, if i'm honest, got up some mornings and gone out for a run when i shoulda i'd be aiming for silver rather than bronze.

Anyone who runs under 3 hours should be able to say i ran a gold standard marathon or whatever, I wouldn't begrudge that at all or say it's elitist. If I ran a marathon under 3 hours i'd want a gold medal, a civic reception with an open top bus tour of my local village and my pick of the local farmers' daughters!!

But to say running a marathon isn't an achievement is rubbish, the first time i ran 10k was an achievement, same with 10mile,half marathon and 20mile. you can't gauge someone's personal goals or achievements.

Best of luck to everyone who's running tomorrow, I hope you all get through it injury free and may all your times come true!

thirstywork

KimHawkins wrote: »

for anyone to do 26.2 milos in one day is a big effort.

Firstly everyone has a goal,some people its a time and others to finish.
i disagree with the above poster as i know alot of runners who could run a marathon tommorow in 3 or 4 hours but for them it would be easy.
I suppose what im saying is the time is relative to each person.

dublinmusician

Hi.

I'm a little shocked at the tone of some of the posts on this thread. And heres why.

My situation is as follows. I'm a 28 year old normal guy. I work very long hours due to the nature of my career - often 60+ hours per week. I ran my first half marathon in the phoenix park on 26/09 in 1:44 and my first full marathon last monday in 4:26. This was, depsite the fact that I am very successful in both my personal and private lives, the singular biggest achievement in my life to date. I am still on a natural high after it.

I ran this marathon for a number of reasons. Firstly I was never the sporty, 'jock' type when I was growing up. For which I was bullied mercilessly. Doing this marathon was supremely cathartic in terms of my feelings of physical inadequecy which lingered as a result of this facet of my childhood. Secondly, my father died from cancer some time ago, and in running the marathon (and i ran every step of it, albeit not always very quickly) I raised approx 5000e for the home care team that looked after him while he was in the later stages of his illnes.

For me to be able to do this, i often came home from working a 14 hour day and tied on my running shoes despite wanting to just sleep. I put up with a body that has hurt for the past four months almost continually becuase it is not natually predisposed to such activity. I have not had a drink since the start of August. I have sacrificed a large chunck of my social life. It has damn near caused a breakup!!!!

Last monday I did not hamper the progress of any elite athletes, or indeed of any athletes with more natural ability, superior levels of fitness, or more accomplished levels of training and fitness than myself - I stayed to the back of my time grouping/band and made sure not to weave/block anyones running line.

If those of you who are capable of running fantastic, to my mind, almost superhuman times of 3:00 and less feel that I in some way 'devalued' your efforts through mine, then I think perhaps you should reappraise your motivation for running in the first place. Are you doing it for your own sense of achievement and to push your body to the limit of its capabilities (as I did) or in the machaevellian hope of creating for yourself an elite, condescending cirle who feel superior and derisory of people like me so as to boost your own egos and/or to paper over your own deep rooted insecurities.

Strong words? You bet.

While objectively running elite times is, of course, a superior achievement to my 4:24, it in no way takes stock of the human story behind each and every step of each and every 26.2 miles that was run last monday.

J.

Blueskye

I agree, I think most people out there are doing the best they can, running the fast they can on that day. Some of us are just not as fast as others, particularly if we are newer to running. But I don't think that can detract from the achievement of making the distance. It is a hell of a challenge and although I'm really disappointed with my time, despite the difficulties I had, I kept going and made it to the finish line as best I could. And I think it is the same for most participants, surely everyone is there doing the best they can.

W.B. Yeats

dublinmusician wrote: »

Hi.

I'm a little shocked at the tone of some of the posts on this thread. And heres why.

My situation is as follows. I'm a 28 year old normal guy. I work very long hours due to the nature of my career - often 60+ hours per week. I ran my first half marathon in the phoenix park on 26/09 in 1:44 and my first full marathon last monday in 4:26. This was, depsite the fact that I am very successful in both my personal and private lives, the singular biggest achievement in my life to date. I am still on a natural high after it.

I ran this marathon for a number of reasons. Firstly I was never the sporty, 'jock' type when I was growing up. For which I was bullied mercilessly. Doing this marathon was supremely cathartic in terms of my feelings of physical inadequecy which lingered as a result of this facet of my childhood. Secondly, my father died from cancer some time ago, and in running the marathon (and i ran every step of it, albeit not always very quickly) I raised approx 5000e for the home care team that looked after him while he was in the later stages of his illnes.

For me to be able to do this, i often came home from working a 14 hour day and tied on my running shoes despite wanting to just sleep. I put up with a body that has hurt for the past four months almost continually becuase it is not natually predisposed to such activity. I have not had a drink since the start of August. I have sacrificed a large chunck of my social life. It has damn near caused a breakup!!!!

Last monday I did not hamper the progress of any elite athletes, or indeed of any athletes with more natural ability, superior levels of fitness, or more accomplished levels of training and fitness than myself - I stayed to the back of my time grouping/band and made sure not to weave/block anyones running line.

If those of you who are capable of running fantastic, to my mind, almost superhuman times of 3:00 and less feel that I in some way 'devalued' your efforts through mine, then I think perhaps you should reappraise your motivation for running in the first place. Are you doing it for your own sense of achievement and to push your body to the limit of its capabilities (as I did) or in the machaevellian hope of creating for yourself an elite, condescending cirle who feel superior and derisory of people like me so as to boost your own egos and/or to paper over your own deep rooted insecurities.

Strong words? You bet.

While objectively running elite times is, of course, a superior achievement to my 4:24, it in no way takes stock of the human story behind each and every step of each and every 26.2 miles that was run last monday.

J.

Good story
I'm with you- 26.2 miles is 26.2 miles no other way of looking at it. It can be a fast 26.2 or a slow 26.2 but you still have to do it.
The marathon is one of the great human achievements that ordinary people can aspire to, that's why it matters.

Bloody Nipples

I would have to say I'd hate to be lumped into the same category as someone who ran the marathon in 5-6 hours plus. That said even walking 26.2 miles is quite a physical feat. To be honest I'm in two minds on the topic, I consider the marathon to be a running event and at the same time I have the utmost respect for those who come back from crippling injuries/illnesses to complete one. My first marathon time was 4:58, a time I'm (rightly or wrongly) ashamed of. But that's just me, people running the race at slower pace than me aren't hurting me or impeding my race.

Live and let live!!

tunney

Years back when I was doing the leaving cert I had one friend who sacraficed social life, sports, everything that wasn't leaving cert related for two years. *He *broke his balls and got close to 600 points. Another friend did feck all right up until two months out from the leaving. *He got low 200s.*
Now the fact one friend got 200 did not belittle or take from the great result the other friend got. Both were *happy and both achieved their goals, but nobody for a second would equate both results simply because one guy put in way more work than the other. *

Blueskye

Is there any room for the guy who worked his ass off too, made sacrifices in his life, but only got 300 or 350 points? Or is it all or nothing here?

--amadeus--

Some excellent posts in here...

FWIW - a marathon is only an achievement if you've put in effort and the time is irrelevant.

For example on Monday myself and MCOS ran Dublin in 3:59. That's a respectable time and well under the average. Ignore the fact we were pacing and it absolutely was not an achievement - we ran comfortably within ourselves and cruised home in a time well below our capability. There were however a number of people who finished with or just in front of us for whom pretty much teh exact same time was a HUGE achievment - because they had put thier heart and soul into getting there.

The time - 2:10, 3:10, 4:10, 5:10 is not important. It's how hard you work to get it.

And elitism is bad - knocking someone just because your best effort is faster than thier best effort is ever so slightly pathetic (and very rare around here). True Elite status is something to be admired, respected, aspired to - but elitism is different. But there is an equally unpleasant reverse elitism that comes out sometimes (RW UK is chronic for it) with people who revel in thier slowness and make no effort to improve thier speed or performance. And that is just as bad, IMO.

bart simpson

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Some excellent posts in here...

FWIW - a marathon is only an achievement if you've put in effort and the time is irrelevant.

For example on Monday myself and MCOS ran Dublin in 3:59. That's a respectable time and well under the average. Ignore the fact we were pacing and it absolutely was not an achievement - we ran comfortably within ourselves and cruised home in a time well below our capability. There were however a number of people who finished with or just in front of us for whom pretty much teh exact same time was a HUGE achievment - because they had put thier heart and soul into getting there.

The time - 2:10, 3:10, 4:10, 5:10 is not important. It's how hard you work to get it.

And elitism is bad - knocking someone just because your best effort is faster than thier best effort is ever so slightly pathetic (and very rare around here). True Elite status is something to be admired, respected, aspired to - but elitism is different. But there is an equally unpleasant reverse elitism that comes out sometimes (RW UK is chronic for it) with people who revel in thier slowness and make no effort to improve thier speed or performance. And that is just as bad, IMO.

great post, id would be off the same opinion, i think if you stop of half way through for dinner shows a bit of disrepect to the event

metamorphosis

If you are stopping for lunch half way round ... you clearly have no respect for the magnitude of effort it takes to complete such an event and to those who put their lives into training for it.

If you go out on the day, shed sweat, tears, maybe some blood (those who are silly enough to wear cotton!!!!). If you run hard, if you black out some of those last miles because of the pain, if you thought of giving up and didn't then i think you a a marathon runner regardless of whether it took you 2:09,3:30, 4:45 or 5:00. Pat yourself on the back. You will remember that pain, i believe, for the rest of your life as well as the emotions pulsing through you when you crossed the line.

There is a lot more i want to say on the issue but i'm tired ...

petermijackson

ULstudent wrote: »

If you are stopping for lunch half way round ... you clearly have no respect for the magnitude of effort it takes to complete such an event and to those who put their lives into training for it.

If you go out on the day, shed sweat, tears, maybe some blood (those who are silly enough to wear cotton!!!!). If you run hard, if you black out some of those last miles because of the pain, if you thought of giving up and didn't then i think you a a marathon runner regardless of whether it took you 2:09,3:30, 4:45 or 5:00. Pat yourself on the back. You will remember that pain, i believe, for the rest of your life as well as the emotions pulsing through you when you crossed the line.

There is a lot more i want to say on the issue but i'm tired ...

No think you've got it there, cannot wait to do just for emotion alone...

....

KimHawkins wrote: »

for anyone to do 26.2 milos in one day is a big effort.

nonsense.

i could walk that distance without any training in about 6 hours.

normal walking pace is 15 mins per mile,
brisk walking is 12 mins per mile

so normal walking pace is 4 miles per hour, 24 miles in 6 hours.

completing the marathon is not an achievment
completing the marathon in a respectable time is an achievement

saram

Hey so I posted in another thread...

What do ye think about this?

I haven't done much training but Ive signed up for a marathon overseas...running this Sunday morning. Now I'm choosing between doing the marathon with little expectations except to straggle home in under 5 hours or else just go on the razz (like most of my friends for Halloween)..

I'm thinking about doing the marathon as a first timer and hoping to use the experience to bring me up to speed on exactly what I need to do to run better marathons in the future.. Its just a stepping stone for me..for a more serious effort next time out..

I'm going to run for an hour at a time followed by a walk or light jog and then do the same over again.. Heck I'm even bringing my camera as the event has over 20,000 people and sounds exciting..


Am I a fool for running it...? Should I just pull out and wait until I can call myself a serious marathon runner or should I just give it a go and hope to finish it and who know ...I may even surprise myself?


Id love to hear yer opinions.. 4 or 5 people have already said I shouldn't run cos i haven't put in enough training...Fair enough...But my expectations are just to finish it and learn from it.. I am in good enough shape but just haven't put in the hard mileage to clock in any fast time..


Ideas/Opinions Please!!!