Peoples Opinions

Ath36

My question for debate - Does your normal average Joe Soap runner have the potential to run a Sub 3 hour marathon with the proper dedication/training etc. (Talent versus dedication argument)
I am a 3hour58min PB marathoner and am just contemplating my long term goals. What do people think ?

--amadeus--

This has kind of been talked about before. IMO yes, with the limiting factors being injury resistance and commitment. But (as myself and a fair few others can verify) there is a world of difference between potential and actually doing it.

I think it's wrong to focus on talent as such; you need a bundle of factors to play together on teh day to come together to hit the sub 3 time. Going much beyond that I think does require something else.

robinph

I'd say that most human bodies are perfectly capable of it, the combination of then also having the inclination to do what is required for it though is another matter entirely. I'm 100% certain that the collection of bones and muscles etc that I reside in can do a sub 3hr marathon. I'd only be about 50:50 of me actually making it at any point though, and I've only got to lose less than half an hour off my time.

gerard65

Ath36 wrote: »

My question for debate - Does your normal average Joe Soap runner have the potential to run a Sub 3 hour marathon with the proper dedication/training etc. (Talent versus dedication argument)
I am a 3hour58min PB marathoner and am just contemplating my long term goals. What do people think ?

That depends on who is a 'normal average Joe Soap runner'. There are so many factors that can be brought into the debate - age, gender, sport/fitness background etc, and then the big one - genes.
IMO if you take 10 males between the ages of 25 and 35 who have no underlying medical conditions and are trained by a good marathon coach for 6 to 9 months, maybe 75%, all going well on the day, will get close to running 26 7min/mls back to back, but there will always be a % who will never do it. 'A carthorse will never win the darby no matter how good the trainer and jockey'.

TheRoomWrecker

I believe the average joe can for sure, with the said proper training and injury pervention etc,

have a look at this, http://www.theroadtobeijing.co.uk/documentary.htm

a 73 half shows that it can be done

baza1976

I think yes the average Joe/Jane can. I think I could if I didn't have a combination of a wife/3 kids/job/collage/. It requires more time amd mileage then I am will to give at the this time in my life. I am already doing 1 of the following: running at 6 in the morning, running late at night, running 9 miles home from work or cycling to and from work. I don't think at this time it would be fair on my family to eb doing double runs or longer runs then I am doing right now.

metamorphosis

I deffo think the average joe soap can. What i think happens is that too many joe soaps become comforatble with an established pace and never really drive foard to become faster. I think with the right training plan, commitment to training that 3 hours is in grasp for a lot of people who are willing to slog for it.

plodder

I'd say age and basic body shape are the main factors. If they are both on your side, then with enough dedication and patience (it could take a few years), you could do it.

The odds don't seem to be that great on succeeding though. Just checked last years Dublin marathon and only 285 runners (out of 10477 finishers) did it. That's less than 3%.

aero2k

plodder wrote: »

The odds don't seem to be that great on succeeding though. Just checked last years Dublin marathon and only 285 runners (out of 10477 finishers) did it. That's less than 3%.

That's an interesting statistic, but meaningless without more information such as:

• How many of the 10477 were actually aiming for sub 3?
• How many of those aiming for sub 3 had an appropriate training program, which they were actually following?
• Miles per week for those who went sub 3 vs those who didn't
• Age/health profile for sub 3 vs non sub 3.
• etc. etc. etc.

Your quote above makes it seem like a game of chance, when it's anything but. Of course, all kinds of things can go wrong on the day, but most of the important ones are within the control of the runner.

In answer to the original question, yes, an average joe or joanne can go sub 3 if they put the hard work in.

Krusty_Clown

plodder wrote: »

The odds don't seem to be that great on succeeding though. Just checked last years Dublin marathon and only 285 runners (out of 10477 finishers) did it. That's less than 3%.

3% doesn't represent odds, as it's not a game of chance. Most of the other 97% probably had a pretty good idea that they wren't going to finish under three hours. I'd imagine the 3% that succeeded trained consistently hard, and for prolonged periods of time. I don't think finishing under three hours comes as a great surprise to anyone.

By the way, in Barcelona Marathon a couple of weeks ago, 6% finished under three hours (similar field size). Are we slower as a nation, or do we just ship in lots of slow tourists for the day of the race?

tunney

Run 100-160km for 12 weeks.
Two weeks later run sub three without an effort.

aero2k

tunney wrote: »

1. Run 100-160km for 12 weeks.
2. Two weeks later run sub three without an effort.

Doing 2 requires surviving 1.....

aero2k

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

3% doesn't represent odds, as it's not a game of chance. Most of the other 97% probably had a pretty good idea that they wren't going to finish under three hours. I'd imagine the 3% that succeeded trained consistently hard, and for prolonged periods of time. I don't think finishing under three hours comes as a great surprise to anyone.

By the way, in Barcelona Marathon a couple of weeks ago, 6% finished under three hours (similar field size). Are we slower as a nation, or do we just ship in lots of slow tourists for the day of the race?

Just working from memory, 980 out of 11,000 went sub 3 in DCM '83, roughly 9%, so we're turning into lazy barstewards. Back then, a 50 min 10 mile was considered pedestrian.....

TFBubendorfer

tunney wrote: »

Run 100-160km for 12 weeks.
Two weeks later run sub three without an effort.

If only that were true!

plodder

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

3% doesn't represent odds, as it's not a game of chance. Most of the other 97% probably had a pretty good idea that they wren't going to finish under three hours. I'd imagine the 3% that succeeded trained consistently hard, and for prolonged periods of time. I don't think finishing under three hours comes as a great surprise to anyone.

By the way, in Barcelona Marathon a couple of weeks ago, 6% finished under three hours (similar field size). Are we slower as a nation, or do we just ship in lots of slow tourists for the day of the race?

Right, it's just the percentage of people who did it, which is interesting in itself. Where chance comes into it imo, is when someone sets themselves a goal of doing it, like the OP seems to be contemplating. People fall by the wayside for a variety of reasons (eg injury). If you get to the starting line, having completed a suitable training program, and remained free from injury, then it won't be a surprise at that point. But, theres quite a bit of uncertainty leading up to that.

The point was, it'd be unwise for the average Joe Soap to bet €100 on actually doing a sub 3 hour marathon, because the chances are, they wouldn't actually succeed ..... in my opinion

Now. Anyone know how to shove a pile of worms back into a can?

Krusty_Clown

aero2k wrote: »

Just working from memory, 980 out of 11,000 went sub 3 in DCM '83, roughly 9%, so we're turning into lazy barstewards. Back then, a 50 min 10 mile was considered pedestrian.....

Just looking at the Cork results, back through the years. Eye opener, but I think it's down to marathoning becoming such a mainstream event:
1992 = 62/621 (10%)
1993 = 115/818 (14%)
1994 = 149/800 (18%)
1995 = 94/733 (12%)
1996 = 48/303 (15%)
2007 = 33/1355 (2%)
2008 = 29/1338 (2%)
2009 = 23/1269 (1.8%)

You old guys are such a hardy lot!

robinph

aero2k wrote: »

... Back then, a 50 min 10 mile was considered pedestrian.....

By who?

Hard to think of what might have been an equivalent bunch of people to our good selves back in those prehistoric non-internet days. Yes, the average times have got slower, but I'm not sure that the perception of what a fast time for any distance has got slower by quick that much.

I can't remember, but I'm sure that my family would have considered it slow at the time. I don't consider them to have been normal people though.

gerard65

aero2k wrote: »

Back then, a 50 min 10 mile was considered pedestrian.....

No it was'nt. I was around in '83, did the DCM, and I can assure you a 5min/ml for 10 miles was bloody good. I could run a 60min 10miler when I was 18 but I know I would never go sub 3 for 26miles. I could hit 7min miles for 20 miles fairly handy but after that the tank would run dry and that was that, no matter how many 22 or 23 mile LSR's I did. I just don't have the physiological capacity to burn fat efficently and thats the real secret. No matter how hard you train or how many miles to put in, no one can change their genetic makeup.

TheRoomWrecker

gerard65 wrote: »

No it was'nt. I was around in '83, did the DCM, and I can assure you a 5min/ml for 10 miles was bloody good. I could run a 60min 10miler when I was 18 but I know I would never go sub 3 for 26miles. I could hit 7min miles for 20 miles fairly handy but after that the tank would run dry and that was that, no matter how many 22 or 23 mile LSR's I did. I just don't have the physiological capacity to burn fat efficently and thats the real secret. No matter how hard you train or how many miles to put in, no one can change their genetic makeup.

maybe some proper refueling(after every 5k) during these LSR's and the tank wouldnt run so dry;)

Brianderunner

No, it takes natural talent before anything will happen, you can do all the training you want but you cant put in what god left out i'm afraid. the same applies for me.

patfol

aero2k wrote: »

Just working from memory, 980 out of 11,000 went sub 3 in DCM '83, roughly 9%, so we're turning into lazy barstewards. Back then, a 50 min 10 mile was considered pedestrian.....

I completely disagree with this. You're quoting statistics from 1983. That's 27 years ago. Back then,the majority of people competing in marathons were "athletes". Back in 1983 powerwalking hadn't even come on the Irish scene - and haven't we come a long way since then! I feel the reason the percentages have changed so much since then is not that the standards have deteriorated but that running has now become a household/family activity and basically every second person you meet is now competing in marathons -ok an exaggeration I know!. The first thing I noticed on my last few trips abroad is that you don't see many people out road running,whereas in Ireland, running is now the new walking. Now it's actually a case of being surprised when you see someone walking and you wonder why they aren't running.
Haven't a clue about marathon running but I'd have to question the people advising that with the right training most people could run a sub 3 hour marathon. In my humble opinion that's a bit too broad a statement to make. It's basically implying that marathon running is the one area where genes don't matter and it's only down to training. That's absolute cr**p

--amadeus--

This is why I said it was a can of worms. People within a certain distance of 3 won't see it as being something that requires talent because people are usually quicker to credit thier own performances more to hard work than ability and even a 3 hour runner is more than 45 mins away from being competitive. Ask this same group if a 2:45 requires talent and they'll say of course - because they consider that they have gone as far as you can on hard work alone.

But of course 2:45 runners probably credit thier times to hard work rather than talent, as do 2:30 runners, etc.

So it's only logical that (for example) a 4:00 or 4:30 runner would think that it takes more than hard work to get to 3. In the same way that a fast runner is anyone 15 mins faster than you (no matter how slow or fast you are) someone with talent is someone 15 or 30 mins faster than you.

MrCreosote

patfol wrote: »

Haven't a clue about marathon running but I'd have to question the people advising that with the right training most people could run a sub 3 hour marathon. In my humble opinion that's a bit too broad a statement to make. It's basically implying that marathon running is the one area where genes don't matter and it's only down to training. That's absolute cr**p

It's not implying that genes don't matter. It's just asking whether sub-3 hours is a time at which most people can overcome a genetic lack of speed/endurance with hard work. If it was sub 2:10 then, sure, anybody running those times needs good genes/talent, and lots of hard work (and maybe something extra!), if it's sub 6 hours then for most people talent won't matter much, the majority will do that fine with a bit of work.

My own opinion- for most men 20-40, I reckon they will be able to run sub-3. For some it might be pretty easy, for others it might require just running- no family/jobs/anything else. The genes might help some, but most of the others could eventually get there.

Not that I'll be anywhere near sub-3 myself anytime soon!

Slogger Jogger

Interesting thread. Replaying the original question a bit in my context. My 1st marathon was 3hrs 50. I've reduced that year by year despite my greying hair :rolleyes:. I may never get beyond the 3:01 that I'm at at the moment but I definitely feel 3 is within my capability. Believe me, if I can get this near anyone can. I was at least 3 stone heavier when I started. More work (or enthusiasm) than natural talent methinks.

Husavik

Does anyone know of sub 3 marathoners who did it with low running mileage? Say like with a 1/3rd training on the bike.

mithril

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

By the way, in Barcelona Marathon a couple of weeks ago, 6% finished under three hours (similar field size). Are we slower as a nation, or do we just ship in lots of slow tourists for the day of the race?

I think you will also have noticed that the proportion of runners in Barcelona wearing a club vest is also a lot higher than in Dublin?
That was the case in Seville anyway when I ran it.

Fun running does not appear to be as popular a hobby on the continent as in Ireland and the U.K. - probably because of the less temperate climate - and the type of runners who compete are more likely to be serious athletes. I believe this inflates the percentage on the continent who run under 3 hours.

Although there is a definite lowering in gereral standard of Marathon running in Ireland over the last 20 years, as can be seen by the lower absolute number who run under 2:30, I think the same effect is also largely responsible for the lower percentage on sub 3 runners versus 20 years ago. More fun runners means lower proportion going sub 3.

tunguska

gerard65 wrote: »

No it was'nt. I was around in '83, did the DCM, and I can assure you a 5min/ml for 10 miles was bloody good. I could run a 60min 10miler when I was 18 but I know I would never go sub 3 for 26miles. I could hit 7min miles for 20 miles fairly handy but after that the tank would run dry and that was that, no matter how many 22 or 23 mile LSR's I did. I just don't have the physiological capacity to burn fat efficently and thats the real secret. No matter how hard you train or how many miles to put in, no one can change their genetic makeup.

Im not so sure about this ger, Id have to agree with aero2ks assesment. I train with a group of lads who ran back in the day and they regularly tell me that a 50 min 10 miler was considered to be nothing special. Now maybe theyre looking at the past through rose tinted glasses and all that, but if you look at the results from Ballycotton alone you can see a definite drop in standards. Heres the results from 1983:


http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/10%20Results%201983.htm

You have to go down to 9th position before you get to 50 minutes.


And heres last years:

http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/FinalResult20091.htm

The winner was a full 2 minutes behind the 1983 winner.

And you have to go back to 1999 to find an irish athlete going under 2:20 in the national marathon. So nostalgia aside, standards have definitely dropped.

As for the sub 3 hr for the average man.......I think absolutley, 100% yes, the average joe walking around has the physical capacity to run a sub 3hr marathon. I think the average bloke could do a 2:30, even into the 2:20s. I think the only limiting factors are the ones we choose to impose on ourselves. With enough effort and dedication anybody can run a sub 3 hr marathon and better. Its just a matter of how much you want it and then deciding how much youre willing to sacrifice to get it.

robinph

tunguska wrote: »

Im not so sure about this ger, Id have to agree with aero2ks assesment. I train with a group of lads who ran back in the day and they regularly tell me that a 50 min 10 miler was considered to be nothing special. Now maybe theyre looking at the past through rose tinted glasses and all that, but if you look at the results from Ballycotton alone you can see a definite drop in standards. Heres the results from 1983:


http://www.ballycottonrunning.com/10%20Results/10%20Results%201983.htm

You have to go down to 9th position before you get to 50 minutes.

Your seriously calling 9th place out of a field of 650'ish to be a poor standard?

Krusty_Clown

To get back on topic, my first 10k time was 52 minutes. My first half marathon time was 1:52. I'm middle aged, have a job and a couple of kids, have no history of running, no runner's genetic makeup and don't have any natural running talent. I am Joe Soap. I ran 2:55 two weeks ago, on a program that maxed out at 59 miles per week. So, yep, Joe Soap can. run sub 3.

gerard65

tunguska, you've looking at it from your side of the fence ie someone who is very talented, you just can't see it from my side of the fence ie someone who's a 'slogger' (no offence slogger-jogger) with very little talent.
And again krusty, your ability to be able to follow a program like you did show's you have ability as well.
Someone with talent/ability can never understand why others can't do what they do, because its given without a price (I'm not saying you don't work hard in training, I know you do) but try it in my shoe's (no pun intended), every nano-second has to be battled for in training without the ability to recover from training the way those with talent can. In fact I think thats one of the greatest ability a 'good' runner has, to be able to recover quickly.
Ballycotton was always one of the top races in Ireland so you'd always had the top road-runners, times were always going to be better than average, but 50min would have won many other 10's.

--amadeus--

gerard65 wrote: »

tunguska, you've looking at it from your side of the fence ie someone who is very talented, you just can't see it from my side of the fence ie someone who's a 'slogger' (no offence slogger-jogger) with very little talent.
And again krusty, your ability to be able to follow a program like you did show's you have ability as well.
Someone with talent/ability can never understand why others can't do what they do, because its given without a price (I'm not saying you don't work hard in training, I know you do) but try it in my shoe's (no pun intended), every nano-second has to be battled for in training without the ability to recover from training the way those with talent can. In fact I think thats one of the greatest ability a 'good' runner has, to be able to recover quickly.
Ballycotton was always one of the top races in Ireland so you'd always had the top road-runners, times were always going to be better than average, but 50min would have won many other 10's.

There you have the two sides neatly summed up

I do have to say though that I wouldn't agree that "good" times are given without a price. As I have said I don't consider myself talented and maybe that's why but as my times have come down so teh price paid in training has been higher and higher.

Yes I now do training runs at a quicker pace but that doesn't mean that the training is over faster or is any easier - instead distances have increased and intesnsity has sky rocketed. Someone in teh 4 - 5:00 group might do a 4 mile run in 40 mins or so and think how great it would be to be a sub 3 runner doing teh same thing in well under 30. But sub 3 runners almost never do easy 4 milers...

jb-ski

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

To get back on topic, my first 10k time was 52 minutes. My first half marathon time was 1:52. I'm middle aged, have a job and a couple of kids, have no history of running, no runner's genetic makeup and don't have any natural running talent. I am Joe Soap. I ran 2:55 two weeks ago, on a program that maxed out at 59 miles per week. So, yep, Joe Soap can. run sub 3.

that's impressive stuff, krusty.
can you tell me when you started running, as in how long or how many marathons it took to get sub 3.
i'm 'middle aged' Joe Soap, (dcm 2009 3.50) believe i can go sub3.30, later this year, but i can't even imagine sub 3. - 3.15 i could dream about maybe with hard work, and staying injury free.

can you give us a rough history of your development.

thanks JB

menoscemo

tunney wrote: »

Run 100-160km for 12 weeks.
Two weeks later run sub three without an effort.

That Plan didn't work too well for eddie izzard

plodder

I guess we all see ourselves as the average Joe Soap. Like jb-ski Im a middle aged 3:50 marathon runner, hoping to hit 3:30, never mind 3:00. And got injured last year trying. Giving it another go this year, but that's why I think it has a lot to do with some unavoidable factors like age.

By the way, there's an interesting article in today's Irish Times, about an Irish priest training Kenyan athletes, that touches on the genetics vs. hard work debate. You can probably guess which side he's on

Keeping Kenya's runners on track

tunney

menoscemo wrote: »

That Plan didn't work too well for eddie izzard

He didn't run 100-160km for 12 weeks, he walked 42km a day for 7 weeks.
The average person walks 21km.

menoscemo

tunney wrote: »

He didn't run 100-160km for 12 weeks, he walked 42km a day for 7 weeks.
The average person walks 21km.

Only messing

aero2k

patfol wrote: »

I completely disagree with this. You're quoting statistics from 1983. That's 27 years ago. Back then,the majority of people competing in marathons were "athletes". Back in 1983 powerwalking hadn't even come on the Irish scene - and haven't we come a long way since then!

I was in that race. I don't have the exact figures to hand, but there were around 11,000 in it, most of whom were fun-runners. Running was a big craze here long before powerwalking was invented. When I was training (for all of 12 weeks!) I always met others out doing the same thing.

patfol wrote: »

...marathon running is the one area where genes don't matter and it's only down to training. That's absolute cr**p

I can't find any post where anyone said genes don't matter and that it's all down to training. Maybe the better the genes, the less training is required.
I've always had an more of aptitude for long distance events vs shorter, more intense ones, but my chequered marathon history - 3:18 ('83) 3:23 ('08) and 2:59 ('09) mirrors the effects of training (and of course age/maturity). I don't think the genetic make-up altered along the line.

aero2k

robinph wrote: »

By who?

Hard to think of what might have been an equivalent bunch of people to our good selves back in those prehistoric non-internet days. Yes, the average times have got slower, but I'm not sure that the perception of what a fast time for any distance has got slower by quick that much.

I can't remember, but I'm sure that my family would have considered it slow at the time. I don't consider them to have been normal people though.

Hi Robin,

I was being a bit-tongue-in-cheek, however in 1984 we had 2 in the top 10 in the olympic marathon, in 2:10 and 2:12 respectively. Have we seen a similar performance since? Even Dick Hooper's slow (by his high standards) 2:25 would put him near the top of an Irish marathon these days.

tunguska

plodder wrote: »

By the way, there's an interesting article in today's Irish Times, about an Irish priest training Kenyan athletes, that touches on the genetics vs. hard work debate. You can probably guess which side he's on

Keeping Kenya's runners on track

Great article, thanks for the link plodder. I guess the solution to a great marathon is to go live in kenya........

Krusty_Clown

aero2k wrote: »

Have we seen a similar performance since?

Sure didn't John Treacy win LA Marathon in 1992 in 2:12. :rolleyes:

aero2k

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Sure didn't John Treacy win LA Marathon in 1992 in 2:12. :rolleyes:

Yes, and Jerry Kiernan did at least one more 2:12. But two Irishmen under 2:12:20 in the same race?

Krusty_Clown

One of the problems may be the influx of faster runners from Kenya and Ethiopia. Perhaps there would be a lot more Irish runners concentrating on the marathon if they have a chance of winning (i.e. 2:12 was still a winning time)? Barcelona 2010 (not a sizeable race) had 8 runners under 2:12, all Kenyan. Perhaps the Irish focus has shifted to sub 5,000m?

Delighted to see I would have had the Word Record, in the year 1908.

We're way off topic, and steering madly away!

aero2k

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Delighted to see I would have had the Word Record, in the year 1908.

I think it still is a world record, if you're over 70:D!!

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

We're way off topic, and steering madly away!

Yeah, but it's interesting, and sort of related. Here's some interesting stuff from Ian O'Riordan - thanks to TheRoadRunner for the link in another thread.

When I heard Martin Fagan was running the Los Angeles Marathon tomorrow my first thought was: “Is he mad?” And maybe he is, given he’s only been back to full training, after injury, for a few weeks. But two years ago, Fagan ran 2:14.06 to qualify for the Beijing Olympics – and that was the first new addition to the top-20 Irish all-time marathon list since Mark Carroll ran 2:10.54 back in 2002.
In fact, of that top-20 list, five of the fastest marathons were run in the 1970s, six were run in the 1980s, and six more in the 1990s. Which means only three of that top-20 list have been run since 2000. There are several reasons for this, but my suspicion is our top marathon runners aren’t mad enough anymore. Fagan is at least breaking that mould, putting some madness back in the method.
Looking at that top-20 list: Neil Cusack ran 2:13.39 in 1974; Jerry Kiernan ran 2:12.20 in 1984; and John Treacy, the fastest of the lot, ran 2:09.15 in 1988. I don’t think Cusack or Kiernan will be too offended if I suggest they did some mad training in their day.
Treacy, I know, definitely did. It doesn’t matter if you’re training for the London Olympics 2012 or training for your first Dublin marathon later this year. To be your best in any athletic event, one has to occasionally surrender to madness, because it does definitely help. The best actors have always known that.

mithril

Is this not a little unfair to Martin Fagan?
He is training at least as hard as the legends as old - plenty of 120 mile plus weeks at altitude.
Probably our best prospect for the marathon since John Treacy but appears to be continually injured.

The problem with adapting a mad approach to athletics is that its far more likely to get you injured than win a race.
I hope he is not going to attempt to run a marathon injured and without proper training. If so, I can guess the probable outcome.

aero2k

mithril wrote: »

Is this not a little unfair to Martin Fagan?
He is training at least as hard as the legends as old - plenty of 120 mile plus weeks at altitude.
Probably our best prospect for the marathon since John Treacy but appears to be continually injured.

The problem with adapting a mad approach to athletics is that its far more likely to get you injured than win a race.
I hope he is not going to attempt to run a marathon injured and without proper training. If so, I can guess the probable outcome.

I don't think it's unfair to compare athletes' times. I've heard about Fagan's huge mileage, and my reaction has been "he's mad", but then he is 45 mins quicker than me, so who am I to say.
I quoted the article to show how there has been no recent improvement in marathon times, I thought the brief mention was sympathetic to Fagan. (btw I don't think he did run in LA).
I used to think the legends of old were mad too! As for injuries, I think Kiernan had his fair share, and he used to suffer from severe leg cramp in the latter stages.
I agree with everything else you said - I err on the side of caution when it comes to injuries, but then I'm not in the running for an Olympic gold.:)