"Are slow runners contaminating marathon prestige?"

shazkea

I may be opening a can of worms with this thread but am curious as to what people think.

Much has been written about slow runners ruining the marathon event and that it has lost its status as an elite event. Usually after the New York or London marathons, I have read many complaints about this.
Examples:

http://www.slate.com/id/2149867/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/sports/23marathon.html

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/11/are-slow-runners-contaminating-marathon-prestige

What is your opinion on this?

As a newbie and slow runner myself, I dispute this. I understand where elite runners are coming from but I have put alot of blood, sweat and tears into my training. Yes it has not always gone well - in fact its going crap at the moment - but does that mean I should not be allowed to compete in the event? Thoughts?

BeepBeep67

Most of the bigger marathons couldn't afford to exist without the thick end of the wedge - the more the merrier I say.

donothoponpop

The only person who should be allowed enter marathons is Haile Gebrselassie. Everyone else is a slow runner.

menoscemo

There is certainly a point that new runners tend to jump straight into marathon training with little running base and they would probably be better served concentrating for several years on the lower distances and building up speed and a good running base. 'Doing' a marathon is defiantely a 'fashion' thing to some degree and leads to injury and slow times (a desire to complete, rather than race the distance) which is probably not best for the participants health and/or performance.

All that said I can't really complain personally about this as I made the exact 'mistakes' when I took up running myself. I personally really enjoy the buzz of doing marathons and the big crowds contribute to this. As long as us slower runners line up in the correct pens and don't slow up the 'elites' then i don't really see the problem.

TFBubendorfer

Just about everyone who keeps complaining about the number of slow marathoners polluting the sport seems to put the cut-off point that marks the unworthy participant just behind his own times.

Funny that.

RayCun

The message seems to be that it's not as easy to impress other people by bragging that you've run a marathon. If that's what floats your boat, the solution is obvious - do an Iron Man! (and don't forget your tattoo!) Then everyone will know you're a super-duper athlete!

If you're not just looking for a good chat-up line, who cares? Mass participation means the marathon is more well known, and you're less likely to be asked how long it is. If people are interested, you can tell them how much training you put in and how fast you ran. If they're not interested, then they probably weren't going to be impressed anyway.

hollypink

This comment about the Honolulu marathon from the NY Times article amused me - there are slow runners (like me!) and then there is this:

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.

meathcountysec

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Just about everyone who keeps complaining about the number of slow marathoners polluting the sport seems to put the cut-off point that marks the unworthy participant just behind his own times.

Funny that.

Not complaining, but if I were, the cut-off point would be +7hrs:D:D:D

Fluorescence

Personally, I think there's enough high prestige events with qualifying times (á la Boston) for the fast runners to do with others like them. If you run 26.2 miles you've run a marathon (regardless of time), and if the snobby elitists can't handle that then that's their own business. It's like hipsters who don't listen to their favourite bands anymore because they're too mainstream :rolleyes:.

Besides, loads of people refer to the women's mini marathon (10k) as "the marathon" anyway, which I think is worse if you're talking about ruining the prestige of the word. "Ah yeah Sheila there did the marathon last week?" "You mean the mini marathon? That's a 10k not a marathon." "Ah but doesn't it say marathon in the title?"

:P

nerraw1111

It's a bit like claiming the South Dublin men's division 7A league is contaminating the prestige of the Champion's league.

That's not to say the general standard of marathon running has gone down in recent years.

There is an argument to say that you haven't really ran a marathon unless you complete it in a certain time. That merely finishing a marathon isn't the same as running it.

kennyb3

yawn, been done to death

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055719712&highlight=york+times

tunney

You must respect my achievement. A five hour marathon is the pinnacle of Human performance.

Fluorescence

tunney wrote: »

You must respect my achievement. A five hour marathon is the pinnacle of Human performance.

It could be the pinnacle for that particular person.

--amadeus--

fluorescence wrote: »

Personally, I think there's enough high prestige events with qualifying times (á la Boston) for the fast runners to do with others like them.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with what you are saying but as far as I know there is no full marathon distance race (obviously apart from elite championships) that is exclusively open to people with a set qualifyer.

New York has a qualifying standard that is the tightest of all races I am aware of at 2:55 for teh fastest males, followed by London at 3:10 and then Boston. However London and NYC are open to all through teh ballot and (London in particular) through charity places. And all three races have slots available as part of organised sports tours. I'm open to correction but AFAIK you could buy a place in Boston and run it as your first marathon.

shazkea

kennyb3 wrote: »

yawn, been done to death

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055719712&highlight=york+times

Had not seen this before so cheers for the link.

shels4ever

fluorescence wrote: »

It could be the pinnacle for that particular person.

I dont think it would be, maybe on that day they couldnt go faster but 5 hour marathon isn't the pinnacle for anyone, everyone is capable of faster with propper training.(apart from medical problems etc).

Mr Slow

Would it be fair to say that at 11/12 min miles you're not technically running the marathon, given that average walking speed is 14 min miles?

shazkea

tunney wrote: »

You must respect my achievement. A five hour marathon is the pinnacle of Human performance.

Nope I'm definitely not saying that - 2:15 is marathon pinnacle of achievment for females anyway!

Fluorescence

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Not agreeing or disagreeing with what you are saying but as far as I know there is no full marathon distance race (obviously apart from elite championships) that is exclusively open to people with a set qualifyer.

New York has a qualifying standard that is the tightest of all races I am aware of at 2:55 for teh fastest males, followed by London at 3:10 and then Boston. However London and NYC are open to all through teh ballot and (London in particular) through charity places. And all three races have slots available as part of organised sports tours. I'm open to correction but AFAIK you could buy a place in Boston and run it as your first marathon.

I didn't know that, thanks. I just knew there were qualifying times necessary for lots of the big marathons and assumed that was it :P.

mrslow wrote:

Would it be fair to say that at 11/12 min miles you're not technically running the marathon, given that average walking speed is 14 min miles?

11/12 minute miles are a running pace for me. If I ran a whole marathon with 11 minute miles I'd be ecstatic.

shazkea

hollypink wrote: »

This comment about the Honolulu marathon from the NY Times article amused me - there are slow runners (like me!) and then there is this:

I laughed at that too - stopping for lunch during a marathon. So where do you draw the line? Is it at 11/12 min miles as Mr Slow suggests above

G-Money

As a newbie myself and not having run a marathon, I don't see what the big deal is. As someone else said, as long as everyone is in the correct pen/area based on their ability then tough titty if others don't like it.

If the elite's are complaining, there is another event they can enter which won't be filled with us slow coaches. It's called the Olympics!

Oryx

shels4ever wrote: »

I dont think it would be, maybe on that day they couldnt go faster but 5 hour marathon isn't the pinnacle for anyone, everyone is capable of faster with propper training.(apart from medical problems etc).

It could be the highest point in their running career thus far. What, did all you sub 3 hour guys start running marathons at that speed? Were you born wearing asics? Everyone has to start at a point and work upwards. If you rule out the ordinary running fodder of a marathon as they are 'too slow' then you kill the sport; good runners had to begin somewhere. Even if they were brought up in sport and athletics, they didnt hit the ground running at 6 min miles.

Some will have good background, training and/or genetics coupled with really strong motivation and will become elites. Some others who run as a hobby will get to four hours or five hours and peak there. Its still their own personal achievement. If anything it enhances marathon prestige in their eyes, as they understand what an achievement it is for the elites to go so much faster than they do. Which a lay person who has only ever run for the bus will never truly grasp.

Ok, I do draw the line at stopping for lunch, thats just taking the mick. But if you walk the marathon, then you walked it, you paid your entry and achieved what you wanted from it. There are enough races that are not achievable by lesser mortals for the elites to gain their kudos from. Let the little man have his day (and his medal).

MaroonTam

G-Money wrote: »

As a newbie myself and not having run a marathon, I don't see what the big deal is. As someone else said, as long as everyone is in the correct pen/area based on their ability then tough titty if others don't like it.

If the elite's are complaining, there is another event they can enter which won't be filled with us slow coaches. It's called the Olympics!

I think the issue is perception outside the sport (as some have mentioned above, if general recognition floats yer boat )

As an example, I have a friend who completed a marathon in circa 8 hours. For her this was a big achievement and she was rightly pleased with herself.
I ran my (only to date) marathon in 3:31 and was disappointed.
The fact that my friend and I can both make the claim of "done a marathon" does not diminish her acheivement and it does not make me any more satisfied with mine.

Personally, I compete only with myself (just re-read that and it sounds poncy, but cant think of another way to say it). I know I am not at the pointy end, so the elites have nothing to worry about (;)), likewise if 1 person or a million finish behind me, I don't really care (just so long as I am not last )

Blazer

Load of bull****...I met one old woman who has ran the NY marathon for the past 22 years...her running pace is little faster than my walking pace...

here's the thing though...she only took it up when she was 60 and I met her in 2008 and she was 82....fair fúcks to her...who would want to take those 22 medals away from her????

I can guarantee you people like Paul Radcliffe aren't saying this....it's prob all amateurs that are saying this I bet..just to boost their ego in completing a marathon.

RayCun

shels4ever wrote: »

I dont think it would be, maybe on that day they couldnt go faster but 5 hour marathon isn't the pinnacle for anyone, everyone is capable of faster with propper training.(apart from medical problems etc).

World record for women over 85 is 5.36

Anyway, a 5 hour marathon probably isn't the pinnacle for most people, but it could be an impressive step on the way to a personal best. The latest Marathon Talk had an interview with Bob Groves, a London cab driver who was an alcoholic cocaine addict a few years ago, cleaned up and ran his first marathon in around 4.30. That's not an impressive time, in the abstract, but for him to get there from where he was is impressive. (He's run faster since, and is targetting 3.15 next year, but he's already achieved something worth celebrating.

shels4ever

Oryx wrote: »

It could be the highest point in their running career thus far. What, did all you sub 3 hour guys start running marathons at that speed? Were you born wearing asics? Everyone has to start at a point and work upwards. If you rule out the ordinary running fodder of a marathon as they are 'too slow' then you kill the sport; good runners had to begin somewhere. Even if they were brought up in sport and athletics, they didnt hit the ground running at 6 min miles.

Some will have good background, training and/or genetics coupled with really strong motivation and will become elites. Some others who run as a hobby will get to four hours or five hours and peak there. Its still their own personal achievement. If anything it enhances marathon prestige in their eyes, as they understand what an achievement it is for the elites to go so much faster than they do. Which a lay person who has only ever run for the bus will never truly grasp.

Ok, I do draw the line at stopping for lunch, thats just taking the mick. But if you walk the marathon, then you walked it, you paid your entry and achieved what you wanted from it. There are enough races that are not achievable by lesser mortals for the elites to gain their kudos from. Let the little man have his day (and his medal).

Just to point out I havent even run a sub 4 Marathon yet, so I'm actually one of the back of the field runners anyway, but I just think that everyone is capable of running a fairly quick marathon with propper training. 5 hours wouldnt be the pinnacle of anyones ability, people do need to start somewhere but it doesnt need to be sloggin around a marathon in 5+ hours.

Yes its a person achievement for sure, but its not the pinnacle , my view is people rush into doing marathon and could do so much better, with propper training. But some people just want to get around the distance too and fairplay to them also(but they could always do better).

Oryx

If someone can go from zero to marathon, and that is their ambition, who am I to say they cant? If it motivates them, why not? Even if it is a five hour marathon. (which in the real non running world, is an impressive achievement which the majority of people never do)

I get what you are saying, that it is better to create a base to work from. But personally, I didnt. I jumped straight in, and went from 10k to marathon in a year. (Not as fast a lead in as some do, but hey). In hindsight, I wouldnt recommend a shorter time span than that and longer would be better, so I do agree with you, but if the thought of doing DCM is what you need to get you out the door running in the first place, then go for it.

Not everyone wants to do mega marathon times. Thats the thing. The crux of what youre asking here is should people bother to train if they arent interested in 'racing' the marathon? Should they find something else to do and leave the racing to the ones who care about times?

ultraman1

mrslow wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that at 11/12 min miles you're not technically running the marathon, given that average walking speed is 14 min miles?

there is gonna be a time in a race when ud sell ur granny for an 11 minute mile:D:D

Izoard

tunney wrote: »

You must respect my achievement. A five hour marathon is the pinnacle of Human performance.

If you are honest about it, times are only relevant to the individual, beyond what the elites are doing.

There is only one person who really cares who finished 5th in the 30-34 Left-handed Male from Arklow AG category...

If someone gets off on doing a 5hr marathon while someone else is in tears at doing 2.50, it only matters to them.

One more person getting up off their ar$e and doing something is to be generally welcomed, irrespective of an arbitary time measure of "success".

shels4ever

Oryx wrote: »

If someone can go from zero to marathon, and that is their ambition, who am I to say they cant? If it motivates them, why not? Even if it is a five hour marathon. (which in the real non running world, is an impressive achievement which the majority of people never do)

I get what you are saying, that it is better to create a base to work from. But personally, I didnt. I jumped straight in, and went from 10k to marathon in a year. (Not as fast a lead in as some do, but hey). In hindsight, I wouldnt recommend a shorter time span than that and longer would be better, so I do agree with you, but if the thought of doing DCM is what you need to get you out the door running in the first place, then go for it.

Not everyone wants to do mega marathon times. Thats the thing. The crux of what youre asking here is should people bother to train if they arent interested in 'racing' the marathon? Should they find something else to do and leave the racing to the ones who care about times?

Yep I'd agree with you on that, never said that it wasnt a personal achievment in completing the marathon, just that most people would be capable of more.

shazkea

Oryx and Shels4ever I agree with both of you.

Barca will be my first marathon (hopefully!) and I don't care about what time I finish it in - well as long as it's sub 5! When I took up running, the ultimate challenge for me was to complete a marathon so it's a huge milestone.

However as I've gotten more into running I realise I should have given myself more time - way too many injuries and fire-fighting those. There's a fine line between mental strength and stupidity for me at the moment.

I would love to be in a position to "race" a marathon and with proper training and baseline mileage etc I will hopefully get there. Right now my aim is to complete it and then move on from there because I def was not born wearing a pair of Asics!!

Won't be stopping for lunch around the course though and would def sell my granny if it guaranteed me an 11 min mile

Mr Slow

shazkea wrote: »

Oryx and Shels4ever I agree with both of you.

Barca will be my first marathon (hopefully!) and I don't care about what time I finish it in - well as long as it's sub 5! When I took up running, the ultimate challenge for me was to complete a marathon so it's a huge milestone.

However as I've gotten more into running I realise I should have given myself more time - way too many injuries and fire-fighting those. There's a fine line between mental strength and stupidity for me at the moment.

I would love to be in a position to "race" a marathon and with proper training and baseline mileage etc I will hopefully get there. Right now my aim is to complete it and then move on from there because I def was not born wearing a pair of Asics!!

Won't be stopping for lunch around the course though and would def sell my granny if it guaranteed me an 11 min mile

I read somewhere 'You experience your first marathon then race the second'

dermCu

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Not agreeing or disagreeing with what you are saying but as far as I know there is no full marathon distance race (obviously apart from elite championships) that is exclusively open to people with a set qualifyer.

Not true; Fukuoka in Japan is the daddy of them all when it comes to qualifying times.

2:27 A standard and 2:42 B Standard

--amadeus--

I thought that was invite only? Ahh well there you go!

TheRoadRunner

mrslow wrote: »

I read somewhere 'You experience your first marathon then race the second'

Very few people actually "race" a marathon. I've ran 8 marathons myself and am hoping to race one soon. I like to think there is a difference between racing and running.

kingQuez

dermCu wrote: »

Not true; Fukuoka in Japan is the daddy of them all when it comes to qualifying times.

2:27 A standard and 2:42 B Standard

Wow! explains why there are only about 200 people in the race vs. ~10k in dublin

opus

shazkea wrote: »

I laughed at that too - stopping for lunch during a marathon. So where do you draw the line? Is it at 11/12 min miles as Mr Slow suggests above

If anyone needs any restaurant recommendations for their lunch break during the Cork marathon in June just let me know

PaulieC

I think maybe even I could do a marathon in under 3 hours if I had a high horse to ride on...:rolleyes:

robinph

The people who are contaminating the prestige of a marathon are the 10km race organisers, or the 26.2km race organisers or the other random distance event race organisers.

Anything equal to or over 26.2miles distance of running is allowed to use the word "Marathon" in it's title.
Anything exactly half of 26.2 miles in running distance is allowed to use the words "Half Marathon" in it's title.
I will also allow for those crazies who splash about in the sea, ride a lap on a push bike and then run a 10km to use the suffix of "-athlon" as well, but that is the only concession.

Anything else is banned.

shels4ever

robinph wrote: »

The people who are contaminating the prestige of a marathon are the 10km race organisers, or the 26.2km race organisers or the other random distance event race organisers.

Anything equal to or over 26.2miles distance of running is allowed to use the word "Marathon" in it's title.
Anything exactly half of 26.2 miles in running distance is allowed to use the words "Half Marathon" in it's title.
I will also allow for those crazies who splash about in the sea, ride a lap on a push bike and then run a 10km to use the suffix of "-athlon" as well, but that is the only concession.

Anything else is banned.

Why is anything over 26.2 allowed to used the word marathon and anything under not, mini/ultra marathon really is just the same thing, that the event is compared to a marathon.

TFBubendorfer

shels4ever wrote: »

Why is anything over 26.2 allowed to used the word marathon and anything under not, mini/ultra marathon really is just the same thing, that the event is compared to a marathon.

The ultra contains a marathon, the mini does not.
There's your difference.

kona

Nothing wrong with slow runners at all, what I do have a problem with is these people who know they are slow, holding up the start of races, like if your running a 5 hour marathon, dont get up the top half of the starting block, its doing you no good and its affecting peoples times. However its a bigger problem with lower distances as its harder to compensate a extra 2mins 1st mile over 5 miles than over 26.2 miles, but they really annoy me. There is no need for them to be up the top of the start, they are going so slow that at the back they would be safer.

shels4ever

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

The ultra contains a marathon, the mini does not.
There's your difference.

But does mini not mean that its shorter then the marathon distance?

Mr Slow

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Very few people actually "race" a marathon. I've ran 8 marathons myself and am hoping to race one soon. I like to think there is a difference between racing and running.

I'll find out where I read the quote and you can take it up with the author!;)

TFBubendorfer

shels4ever wrote: »

But does mini not mean that its shorter then the marathon distance?

Ok then, you are allowed from hereon to call a 10k a mini-marathon if and only if you can guarantee that everyone, from the organisers to the participants, the office charity muggers and my mother-in-law (especially my mother-in-law!), will always use the correct and un-abbreviated full designation. Using the word "marathon" without the prefix "mini" to describe will therefore be a punishable offense.

Cabaal

Only run half marathons to date but running Cork as my first in June of this year.

I "kinda" can understand the point of people complaining but at the same time anything that gets anybody out is a very good thing,

If somebody wants to walk and it takes them 7hours then thats their decision and I have no problem with it as long as they're not stupid enough to start with the 4hour pacers or something.

Walking, running or jumping 26miles is some job and is not something people do in every day life, so anyone thats willing to give it a shot well in short fair fecks to them.

As for my marathon, I plan on under 4hours

TFBubendorfer

Cabaal wrote: »

Walking, running or jumping 26miles is some job and is not something people do in every day life, so anyone thats willing to give it a shot well in short fair fecks to them.

But then we had that article by a student in his paper who walked the DCM in 2009 (or was it 2008?) on 0 training in about 7 hours, and most people agreed that this was not much of an achievement. And some people took exception to his embellishments ("everyone else was stretching, leaning against a lamp post ...")

robinph

An ultra marathon tends to not be called just that, they would also call themselves the actual distance as well as that is a pretty important part of what they are trying to sell. The actual distance is important to those freaks that actually do it, the marathon part of the title is just to sound impressive to your mother.

The mini marathons do not call themselves anything else and could be of any distance. Often around the 10km mark, but there is no guarantee of that. As for maxi-marathon, I really don't know what they were thinking then.

Now if the minis were to re-brand themselves as "not-quite-a-quarter-marathon" then I'd be happier with them using the word.

Oryx

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

But then we had that article by a student in his paper who walked the DCM in 2009 (or was it 2008?) on 0 training in about 7 hours, and most people agreed that this was not much of an achievement.

We had a thread here recently about the difference between mental strength and stupidity. That would qualify as stupid.

RayCun

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

But then we had that article by a student in his paper who walked the DCM in 2009 (or was it 2008?) on 0 training in about 7 hours, and most people agreed that this was not much of an achievement.

It's true. Obviously, not everyone who finishes in 5 hours (or 4, or 8, or 6...) has put in much effort. And pretty much everyone - including, I'd guess, everyone on A/R/T - could do better if they tried harder. But you can't just look at someone's finishing time and write off their effort based on that. If you don't know what they went through to get to the start line, if you don't know what they went through to finish, how can you judge their performance.

If someone flat-out says "I put no effort into this", obviously there's no achievement to recognise. But assuming that people put no effort in, just because they're slower, even much slower, than you? Slagging people for not working harder, when you don't know anything about their lives? It takes a very special sort of arrogance.

bazman

"Are slow runners contaminating marathon prestige?"

For me answer is definitely NO. The volume of runners participating in marathons means most people know what represents a good marathon performance.

The prestige with the marathon distance is completion for some and a good time for others. For a young fit person the prestige is in a quick time and most people recognise that. For others, completion is a huge achievement. The beauty is that it's a widely understood benchmark for comparison.